3.8 L buick engine opinions wanted

[tc11003]

i have an 89 and really appreciate this car. it has 182 k and the engine runs almost new. my question is? at the time of production, could buick have put a more potent powerplant in our reattas?? what would have been available? the blown 3.8 may have been too much for the front wheel drive ? i think what killed the reatta project was not the looks or quality , i think what killed her was the lack of sheer performance and maybe the cost. what do u guys think?

[Guest F14CRAZY]

As said in a post a while back...

The Reatta was first though of in the early 80s. Another luxury performance car like the turbocharged Regals. The idea was shelved by management, for fear that it would steal sales away from the pending Cadillac Allante. A few years later, the Reatta idea was revived. The design was was ready for performance (4 wheel disks, independent suspension), and was supposed to be turbocharged, which is why we have the Teves brake system (no engine vacuum was available).

But to target the typical Buick buyer (older, slower...) it got the regular 3800 instead.

The missing link in Reatta performance.

As you mentioned, I don't think Hydramatic had a front wheel drive auto tranny powerful enough to take it. Offering ONLY a stick in a Buick would have made most buyers walk away. The 4.5L Caddy V8 was the most powerful FWD motor GM had at the time (I think) which was 180 hp. The Northstar and even the 200 hp 4.9L were a few years away.

The W body (Z34, Cutlass Supreme, GTP) 3.4L cars suffered the same thing. I read about this online recently. The 3.4L DOHC was going to be GMs ass kicking motor. They aimed at like 290 some horsepower. An overly complex and expensive motor, was toned down to 205 (I think) because Hydramatic couldn't make a tranny that would reliably take the power. The manual tranny cars had 215 hp. A far cry from 290.

I've been contemplating the idea of installing a Northstar or V8 Aurora or 4.9L drivetrain in a Reatta, but being a high school student, it isn't easy. Someday.

[Guest EDBS0]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have an 89 and really appreciate this car. it has 182 k and the engine runs almost new. my question is? at the time of production, could buick have put a more potent powerplant in our reattas?? what would have been available?</div></div>

If it was a Ford it would have had the small 3 liter 220HP Yahama SHO engine.

[tc11003]

thts my point what was buick thinking. our 3800 engines are workhorses but lack some grunt. especially for the $26 or so thous they got for them.

[Guest F14CRAZY]

Considering Buick expected this car to "quicken your pulse every time you set it in motion"

They can be fast but I don't like pushing it to the limit all the time to get anything out of it

[dawg]

Until now I'd never heard of the 3 liter 220HP "Yahama" SHO engine. Any idea who makes it??

[padgett]

Yammer is inna Ferd.

If the Reatta had made it to 1992 it undoubtedly would have gotten the L-67 engine. Guess they had beefed the 4T60E enough to survive (if you look at the TSBs you can see that the original 440T4/4T60 was strengthened in some manner every year) but the real answer was the 4T65E and even then that was succeptible to abuse.

Keep in mind that the EPA certification was leveraged from other Buick lines (have wondered if weight was added to make sure it was in the same class)& things like a Getrag option would have required full certification for a very few cars. Besides IMNSHO the 4T60 was a five speed when you consider the lockup effect.

[Guest EDBS0]

It was built by designed by Yamaha of Japan and built, I believe, by Mercury Marine ( because of the close tolerance and complexity).

It was only available in the Ford Taurus SHO, one of which I owned, and only available as a standard. A very sweet engine that allowed for lots of tweaking. Much information available on the web, do a search.

[luftweg]

My opinion is that several of 'us' could/should get together and work out the best, most straightforward 'standard' solution to significantly increasing the power in the Reatta... So that it would become the 'should do' conversion/modification for all those that wish to do one.

This seems to always come back to computer configurations; matching older/newer engines/drivetrains to the rest of the chassis.

Some other things were only just glossed over and didn't seem to even get any consideration, such as stroker changes (no one seemed to know anything about the possibilities here), and external centrifugal superchargers (this one seemed to generate different opinions from different people who I've asked -- but it did seem to get pooh-pooh-ed here...).

K

[2seater]

The biggest problem has been trying to keep the original displays and diagnostics while upgrading the power. The L67 s/c engines have been swapped in and the original (pretty much) content has been retained. My turbocharger system runs on the original systems and is transparent in operation unless you look under the hood, plus a couple of additions in the cabin. A freestanding supercharger could work the same way as the turbo installation and I have seen an installation somewhere before. It used a jackshaft across the top front of the engine with a Vortech or similar supercharger approx. where the air box is, the same as where the turbo is located. I did give this very serious consideration prior to the turbocharging. It does offer some advantage in being able to leave the exhaust manifolding alone, but the other upgrades to things like fuel and chip (timing) changes will still be required.

I did see mention of a stroker kit somewhere also but I have been unable to find it again, so I do not know if it was for the Series I or II engine? That would be interesting, but my guess would be the total price for that would be up in the same area as forced induction and not as powerfull.

Forced induction does work, and if reasonable in the application, they should last a long time. I can only relate my own experience which may, or may not, mesh well with other ideas, but am always up for exchange of ideas.

[padgett]

Well there was the 4.1 of 1981 but it was bored (to 3.965") not stroked. I suspect this would make it quite vulnerable to detonation.

If I were going to do a transplant, it would be a Series II N/A engine - 205 hp and better mpg. However the 165hp in mine is "adequate" so have no plans but if I did would probably use one of the scantool.net boxes as a basis for an OBD-II to P4 data stream converter and use the SII PTM. Whether I'd keep the Teves in that case is up for grabs. Just thoughts.

[2seater]

The GN guys have used the 4.1 for replacement engines. It has the correct crank, (rolled filets), as do ours. I do not know what the success rate is, but I agree the larger bore is somewhat of a liability. They also only came with a carburetor. I think the bolt pattern is the RWD only setup and doesn't fit the fwd pattern. Maybe this could be overcome? The block must be designed for the larger bore from the start as the recommended maximum overbore on a 3800 like ours is .040". The downside to stroking would be the need for a shorter rod (maybe), and we have a pretty high rod ratio now which is supposed to be a good thing. Maybe the really short pistons from a Series II would work with more stroke?

[luftweg]

I would think a big issue might be balancing of a stroker version engine... No?

[2seater]

I know little about balancing. I never understood quite how the different bob weights and such were arrived at. Supposedly our engines are balanced @ 50% and the balance shaft takes care of the rest? I assume it has to do with the "V" configuration for the odd balancing figures? I know the stroker Chevies I have built for my son required additional external balancing in the flywheel and damper. My guess would be the counterweights on a stroker crank may be different or would require the services of a shop to balance it. It's a good idea to check the balance on a rebuild anyway, since the pistons may have a weight difference from stock.

[luftweg]

I thought alot had to do with it being a 90 degree V6...

[Guest Greg Ross]

When I built up my new Series I going to the 5-Spd. we came to the simplistic conclusion that to deal with the Flywheel mods necessary it was path of least resisitance to go neutral balance with all the rotating parts. Pistons and rods were of course balanced but the crank was neutral balanced with the new Flywheel.

The engine was disassembled last Winter for two issues;

head gasket leak-coolant in the bottom end-all bearings were replaced due to the glycol issue-rod ends, mains and cam bearings.

main bearings looked fine otherwise and that would have been with roughly 60,000 miles + or -

Two pistons were fractured dur to knock problems-replaced them all. I had not installed the PROM containing S/C Timing Charts and probably created the cause!

Going to have to consider methanol injection perhaps. Hal what would you suggest?

[2seater]

When it comes to balance, I have no idea. Apparently there are different ways of skinning the same cat

Greg, I am using an SMC alcohol injection system http://www.smcenterprises.com/ I have had several conversations with the maker of this system and I looked at several others. While originally developed for the GN's, they make a low boost system also, which I am using. The nice thing is there is a small control module for the cabin that allows changes in engagement point (boost pressure) and pump speed to vary the delivery. Mine is set to engage at 5 psi. They also make an upgrade system that varies pump speed with boost pressure, allowing a variable rate of alcohol delivery. This would likely work well with the supercharger. I am struggling a little with the need for more delivery at high load, (third gear), without drowning the engine in lower gears. I rarely do this, but for tuning purposes using a scanner, I have made several full throttle runs from a stop. I reach full 8 psi boost in less than two seconds from a standing start so the variable delivery won't help me. Hope this helps.

[Guest F14CRAZY]

AGH! Break the tires free!

Reminds me of 427 AC Cobras being able to chirp the rears at 100. Why can't we have dangerously overpowered Reattas?