3800

[jj5794]

What is the latest information on how long the 3800 V-6 will be in production, specifically for the Lucerne?

Also, what is the difference between Series I, II and III of the 3800?

Thanks in advance for the help!

Jim

[The Old Guy]

I am not sure of all the differences , but the series III has had a deck height change, everything is on center, and they will literally run forever. The series II had a problem with the plenum,and there were some coolant leakage problems, but it was resolved in the series III' The 3800 will be phased out probably in 08-09 because the powers that be like the I6 that has lots of power, but is a gas hog! The I6 and the 3.6 VVT are both "state of the art" but have more parts and no track record. The "suits' are all bean counters , and don't know a fine engine when they have it

This just the opinion af an "old guy" that has been around engines all his life, so don't listen to me.

[BUICK RACER]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not sure of all the differences , but the series III has had a deck height change, everything is on center, and they will literally run forever. The series II had a problem with the plenum,and there were some coolant leakage problems, but it was resolved in the series III' The 3800 will be phased out probably in 08-09 because the powers that be like the I6 that has lots of power, but is a gas hog! The I6 and the 3.6 VVT are both "state of the art" but have more parts and no track record. The "suits' are all bean counters , and don't know a fine engine when they have it

This just the opinion af an "old guy" that has been around engines all his life, so don't listen to me. </div></div>

Well said, but more likely the 3800 is dead in the 2007 Model year, it's really to bad, and so sad, the 3800 is a motor that with proper maintenance can basically live forever, and the mechanics love it to death, cause it's easy to work on. Instead we get these electronic controlled monsters that still don't get the mileage the 3800 will in a cool car, like LeSabre, Riviera, Park Avenue. Instead we get Lucerne and LaCrosse that don't do a thing for anybody, even the "Old Guy" doesn't like them, neither does my Mom, who wants another Riviera, her '95 Riv, the "Creampuff" has some issues, but she insists that the only car she ever wants again is a Riviera, but they don't make them anymore, I agree with her completely! So what to do? Keep looking for a low mileage '99 Riv, I guess! Hard to find! Cause they are great cars!

[R W Burgess]

Keep looking Roberta, there are still a lot of low milage cars of all kinds in garages around this country that hardly ever get driven. When the owners pass away, the kids sell the "old" car, because it's too "big and old". <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Just gassed up one of our '90 Caprices this weekend, with another black dude trying his best to buy it from me. I shocked him, when I told him we had two. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Wayne

[jj5794]

Fellow club members,

Thanks for your help.

I just found the following quote from the June 27, 2006 Flint Journal:

"Flint North is slated to cease production of the 3800 V-6 engine in 2008."

So, maybe it will last throughy the 2008 production year?

Any further information would be appreciated!

Jim

[Reatta Man]

Usually a big company like GM changes engines because of capacity.

However, with the way their midsize SUV/truck sales are dropping 'like a rock,' I could see them extending the life of the 3.8 engine because of the reasons mentioned before--gas mileage and power. If they ever truly make the 3.8 a good E85 engine, it could also be a reason to keep the line open.

How many times have those of us that have been around a while heard GM say they are going to stop making the Chevy small block?

[Centurion]

The problem is that, regardless of how reliable and economical the 3800 engine is, the automotive media keeps referring to it as "ancient", "unrefined", and "agricultural". They've convinced a very large portion of the car-buying public that the 3800 must be killed because it lacks overhead camshafts, variable valve timing, etc. Some analysts have suggested that the automotive media has bought the Toyota public-relations message hook, line, and sinker, and, therefore, any other approach to engine design cannot possibly be as good. I'm not interested in another argument about who builds better cars or whose engines are better, but I think it is regretable that GM is being forced to drop its most reliable passenger car engine.

[The Old Guy]

Brian,

I willl gave a big "AMEN" to your statement

[Ron Green]

Quote; "The problem is that, regardless of how reliable and economical the 3800 engine is, the automotive media keeps referring to it as "ancient", "unrefined", and "agricultural".

When I bought my 05 Bonneville the salesman stated that this was the last year for the 3800 for Pontiac. When I asked him why GM would consider retiring such a reliable proven workhorse engine he stated "if things didn't change we would all still be driving model T's".

So there must be something to your comment regarding the media's outlook on the 3800, no matter how proven and dependable it may have been, unfortunately.

[Reatta Man]

It seems we are all in agreement that if the 3800 is adequate in performance, the proven reliability makes it a very desirable product.

The ironic part is that, for the additional complexity, you are not gaining much performance and you are actually LOOSING fuel economy! Here is some information from the Web site:

<span style="font-style: italic"> Expect about 8.5 sec 0-60 mph. CXS's 3.6 V6 has more available muscle at all speeds; clocked 7.1 sec 0-60 mph in our tests.

In a mix of city/highway driving, test CXL with 3.8 V6 averaged 21.1 mpg; test CXS (with 3.6) averaged 18.3. Buick recommends regular-grade fuel for both engines.</span>

In a world of $3 gas, I'm not too crazy about gaining 1.4 seconds, but loosing nearly 3 MPG. And, all other things being equal, we don't know if the 3.6 will be as reliable as the 3.8.

Joe

[NTX5467]

In reality, the change to the 3.6L VVT high feature V-6 has already begun. Holden replaced the Buick 3800 with it as soon as it was in the first North American Cadillacs. Down there, it's a "normal" motor, of sorts. So, the change has already begun.

From the rent cars I've had with the 3800, SC3800, and the 3.6L VVT V-6, the SC3800 beats the 3.6L on power AND fuel economy. The 3.6L comes with a 3.69 axle ratio and the current Grand Prix GT (used to be GTP in prior years with a "Supercharged" emblem on the rear, that you could not read except up close) has normal gearing (approx 3.00) and easily outruns the 240 horse LaCrosse CXS. In reality, the GM 3.6L VVT V-6 (unfortunately) does not have as good of driveability OR fuel economy as the Chrysler 300Ms did with only a variable length intake duct and NO VVT things, for similar power.

One of the things I always do when I get a rent car with a trip computer is put it on "Instant Fuel Economy" in the Driver Information Center's readout. THAT can be highly informative as to when the "economy" calibrations go away and "power" calibrations come in. With the Buick and Chrysler V-6s, the transition from cruise to power is reasonably gradual (as in going up a hill with the cruise control on), but with the LaCrosse CXS 3.6L VVT V-6, it might do 30-31mpg at 60mph (as will the Chrysler 3.5L 300M), but as soon as you put any throttle in it, the mileage can be cut in half really quick. On the highway, if you keep the speed below about 2500 rpm (65 mph), it'll meet EPA estimates, but if you drive faster, it drops really quick to the lower 20mpg range. In the Chrysler 300Ms I used to rent, 30-31mpg at 60mph and 27mpg at 90mph, a difference of 700rpm in engine speed. No way a LaCrosse CXS will match that, "high feature" or not.

And when you compare the "high feature" 3.6L VVT OHC V-6 to the Chevy 3.9L VVT cam-in-block V-6 for the same horsepower, the Chevy does not need the deeper axle ratio to work and has the same EPA highway ratings, but gets better average fuel economy. Yes, a VVT pushrod motor! Kind of makes the 3.6L VVT V-6 a product of the marketing types and destined for the higher priced car lines only (at least in North America).

Now, in looking at the option label decals on the various cars, the 3.6L VVT V-6 fwd cars get the heavier duty 4T65E transaxle that the SC3800 has, but the Chevy gets the normal duty transaxle.

In reality, the BEST mix of power and performance is the 2006 Grand Prix GT with the Buick SC3800, with a normal axle ratio. It might be a little slower off the line without the 3.69 of the LaCrosse CXS, but it flat flies if you use a 20mph rolling start! Or any other lower speed where it'll get a kickdown into low gear at WOT. Kind of funny how some simple things really work better than some things that have more and more "fashionable" moving parts!!!!

If they'd do a LaCrosse CXL, with the SC3800 from the Pontiac Grand Prix GT (along with the Grand Prix GTs steering rack, spring/strut calibrations, but with the LaCrosse CXS tire and wheel package, Goodyear LS2 rather than Michelins, and axle ratio), it would make a fantastic BUICK with BUICK power and BUICK economy. The cars are built in the same plant, so a computer program would be all it would take to make it happen! Let us have the LaCrosse CXL with the SC3800 (and other package items, as noted) and all of the "others" have the LaCrosse CXS and its high tech motor! Then we'd have a real 4-door Buick that would look good and combine Buick power and performance in a really great package!!!

This proposed LaCrosse CXL SC3800 would not really need any additional exterior ornamentation, other than possibly "Super" or "Special". A great sleeper, just like the prior Regal GS could be.

In other words, I'm not terribly impressed with the GM 3.6L VVT V-6, unfortunately. It seems like it could do better, especially when using the Chrysler 3.5L V-6 (with less high tech items!) as a benchmark of that type of motor.

The end of the 3800 could well be due to the projected life of the tooling, more than anything else. Being it's a 90 degree V-6 rather than a 60 degree V-6 could also be a reason that the Chevy V-6 got the new cylinder heads and now VVT alterations. But then if they put 90 degree V-8s in the same platform, the bank angle kind of gets to be a moot point.

I kind of like the fact that pushrod V-6s are showing up the "high feature" engines in fuel economy and such. Now with in-block VVT pushrod motors, it proves that pushrod engines still have some life in them, for equal or greater power levels as the "desired" OHC engines. Being that they also have enough lower rpm torque to not need "deeper" axle ratios to keep up with the pushrods in those rpm ranges, also means longer engine life for the pushrod motors. Cheaper to build, cheaper to keep running "forever" . . . AND usually less oil needed at an oil change.

In the case of the late GM 3.5L Intrigue/Aurora (aka "ShortStar) V-6, it initially needed a slightly deeper axle ratio to keep up with the Buick 3800 V-6 in performance. By its last production year, it was using the same axle ratio and had better lower rpm driveability and performance equal to the Buick 3800. IF it'd had the same variable intake manifold tuning as the Chrysler 3.5L or Catera 3.2L V-6, it might not have needed that long stroke. I'm waiting for the current GM 3.6L VVT V-6 to achieve those same improvements in fuel economy and driveability with "normal" axle ratios!

Obviously, with the investment in the new cylinder heads for the Chevy 3.5L V-6 for the Malibu and later fwd Impalas, the possibility of the Buick 3800 living longer was decreased. That same decision probably led to the VVT on the current Impalas and Pontiacs with the 3.9L V-6 (which should soon have "Active Fuel Management" for another mpg in EPA highway ratings pretty soon). Adding the same things (AFM and VVT) to the Buick SC3800 might be really interesting and possibly bump the power even farther past the limits of the 4T65EHD transaxle! But then the same harmonics that some don't like about 90 degree V-6s (compared to 60 degree V-6s) would still be there under power and make people think it was "uncivilized" as it made some powerful noises as it spun the tach needle and speedometer numbers quickly into the triple digits (speed, that is).

With GM as "cash strapped" as it seemingly is, these will continue to be pipe dreams rather than reality . . . unfortunately. The decisions obviously have been made . . .

"Dream UP!"

NTX5467