The 3.5 Northstar V6 was originally designed for the second generation Aurora before GM made the decision to kill off Oldsmobile. The 4.0 Northstar V8 and the 3.5 were the two engine options in the second gen Aurora. And as has been pointed out, the 3.5 was also offered in the Intrigue.
GM 3.5 liter V6
- Thread starter pbm
- Start date
- Status
ROBBOBSTER,
Ok, that makes more sense. Sorry, I'm used to people bashing GM w/o telling the whole story. You're right, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Ok, that makes more sense. Sorry, I'm used to people bashing GM w/o telling the whole story. You're right, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Why does GM make so many different types of engines? Seems like a waste of research money. Most companies develope a V6 and/or V8, and then refine it over the years. Then they come up with a next generation version. They don't make a pushrod engine, and an overhead cam engine, and a 60deg engine and a 90deg engine, etc.
ekpolk
Member # 3733 posted December 13, 2005 03:54 AM
"The 3.8L is one of the longest-lived engine designs ever. It has, during it's GM tenure, appeared mostly as a 3.8L (231 cid), but has been made in both the 3.3 and 3.0 shorter-stroke versions. During the late 60s, early 70s, GM had actually sold the tooling to Jeep/AMC (I think it was them...), but later bought it back. It first appeared in production as a V-6, 198 cid version in 1961, 44 years ago (easy for me, since I first appeared in 1961!). But the supreme irony of this engine is that it was developed from, of all things, an experimental all-aluminum V-8 that GM was toying with during the 1950s, hence the 90 deg design. To get to market with a V-6 fast, they chopped this engine, made it from the easier iron, and the rest is history. As a result of the 90 deg bank angle, it suffered through being a Harley-like uneven firing interval engine for several years until they fitted it with a split crank pin crankshaft. Turned out to be a pretty good engine, but you'd hope it was good with 40+ years of development. "
Kaiser Willys bought the rights to the engine and the 225 "Odd Fire" V6 appeared in 1966 CJ5's and C101's. AMC sold the rights back to Buick in 1974. People hate the idle, but I love it and you can crank the engine down to 400 RPM for rock crawling. The flywheel also weighs about 80 lbs!
Great inertia.
Member # 3733 posted December 13, 2005 03:54 AM
"The 3.8L is one of the longest-lived engine designs ever. It has, during it's GM tenure, appeared mostly as a 3.8L (231 cid), but has been made in both the 3.3 and 3.0 shorter-stroke versions. During the late 60s, early 70s, GM had actually sold the tooling to Jeep/AMC (I think it was them...), but later bought it back. It first appeared in production as a V-6, 198 cid version in 1961, 44 years ago (easy for me, since I first appeared in 1961!). But the supreme irony of this engine is that it was developed from, of all things, an experimental all-aluminum V-8 that GM was toying with during the 1950s, hence the 90 deg design. To get to market with a V-6 fast, they chopped this engine, made it from the easier iron, and the rest is history. As a result of the 90 deg bank angle, it suffered through being a Harley-like uneven firing interval engine for several years until they fitted it with a split crank pin crankshaft. Turned out to be a pretty good engine, but you'd hope it was good with 40+ years of development. "
Kaiser Willys bought the rights to the engine and the 225 "Odd Fire" V6 appeared in 1966 CJ5's and C101's. AMC sold the rights back to Buick in 1974. People hate the idle, but I love it and you can crank the engine down to 400 RPM for rock crawling. The flywheel also weighs about 80 lbs!
Great inertia.
For some reason I was thinking that Rover was involved also, but I may have been thinking of Willys.
Rover bought the rights to the small block Buick V8 (upon which the current 3.8 V6 was based) back in the 60s. This engine served as the primary powerplant in all Land Rover vehicles until BMW bought the company just a few years ago. Now Ford owns Land Rover and we're starting to see the Jaguar V8 replace the BMW V8 that had been used.
That was the 215 CI V8, if memory serves, and was sold to Rover in '67. 
VW/Audi has a nice logical sequence to their chassis and engine developement. The new generation of engines and chassis are put in the Audi and the older Audi designs are passed down to VW. Oh yea, that is what Toyota does. Oh yea, that is what Honda does too. Anyone see a pattern here? Now try and figure out the logic of GM?!?! Yes, a development plan about as logical as a chicken with its head cut off.
Winston: I don't think its as simple as that. VW has a few Europe only brands that get 'new' Audi technology before VW does. The funny thing is that VW's are more expensive than these brands (SEAT and Skoda). A Skoda Octavia 1.9 TDI is built on the same platform as the A4 Audi yet sells for less than a Bora 1.9 TDI (our old Jetta). The Skoda is built in Czechoslavakia vs. Germany for the Bora.
I'm not denying that GM has some real problems but I don't think VW is as squared away as you suggest.
I'm not denying that GM has some real problems but I don't think VW is as squared away as you suggest.
Quoted before-
"I also believe the 3800 was based off the 305 with 2 cylinders cut off"
The engine you are thinking of is the Chevy 229 V6, also rounding off to 3.8 liters. I had one in my first car, a 1980 Pontiac Grand LeMans. At that time, it was a more reliable engine than the Buick 231, which eventually became the time-tested 3800 [renamed anyway]. Gutless, boring, but reliable.
Talk about GM having needless powertrain options-- I'm a little too young to have firsthand knowledge, but didn't Chevy, Olds, and Buick produce their own specific versions of the 350 simultaneously? at least 6 different small block v8's from all the divisions together at the same time...
I imagine that the Shortstar was deemed unnecessary- the packaging of the 3800 was probably similar, and the low-end torque and fuel economy of the 3800 was more than adequate by comparison. It probably cost more to make the 3.5 L.
I haven't heard anything systemically negative about the 4T65-E. There are plenty of cars that use versions of it, so we'd be hearing a lot if there was something awry. [Volvo used a version in the S80, GM used a version with the Supercharged v6's, as well as all the 90 degree v6's]
"I also believe the 3800 was based off the 305 with 2 cylinders cut off"
The engine you are thinking of is the Chevy 229 V6, also rounding off to 3.8 liters. I had one in my first car, a 1980 Pontiac Grand LeMans. At that time, it was a more reliable engine than the Buick 231, which eventually became the time-tested 3800 [renamed anyway]. Gutless, boring, but reliable.
Talk about GM having needless powertrain options-- I'm a little too young to have firsthand knowledge, but didn't Chevy, Olds, and Buick produce their own specific versions of the 350 simultaneously? at least 6 different small block v8's from all the divisions together at the same time...
I imagine that the Shortstar was deemed unnecessary- the packaging of the 3800 was probably similar, and the low-end torque and fuel economy of the 3800 was more than adequate by comparison. It probably cost more to make the 3.5 L.
I haven't heard anything systemically negative about the 4T65-E. There are plenty of cars that use versions of it, so we'd be hearing a lot if there was something awry. [Volvo used a version in the S80, GM used a version with the Supercharged v6's, as well as all the 90 degree v6's]
All the various GM brands used to make their own engines. It was 1977 when GM first tried the "generic GM" engine route when they put Chevy 350 engines in Oldsmobile Delta 88s. It was a disaster, and GM had to buy back a butt load of Oldsmobiles from die hard Olds drivers who didn't want a Chevy engine in their cars.
Each GM brand used to be thought of as a distinct car company and the fact that each had its own powerplants was really the thing that made that distiction possible since the cars themselves were essentially identical under the skin.
Each GM brand used to be thought of as a distinct car company and the fact that each had its own powerplants was really the thing that made that distiction possible since the cars themselves were essentially identical under the skin.
terminaldegree
Member # 5455
posted December 14, 2005 10:23 AM
"Talk about GM having needless powertrain options-- I'm a little too young to have firsthand knowledge, but didn't Chevy, Olds, and Buick produce their own specific versions of the 350 simultaneously? at least 6 different small block v8's from all the divisions together at the same time..."
Man, I'm getting old. Anyway, I personally like(or liked, past tense) when each GM division had it's own "personality" with engines. Just remember though, that only Chevy had a "small block" and "big block" (the most common being the 350 and 454 respectively). BOP (Buick, Olds, Pontiac) engines were all the same physical size with different displacements. Olds had the cubic inch cast into the side of the block on the pass. side(if memory serves). Other than that, it would take a keen eye to recognize an Olds 455 in place of an Olds 350 (good for fooling the Mustang guys into a race!)
My brothers 1974 Olds Omega drag car has a 350 "Rocket". I've always been a Chevy guy, but man, the torque from that monster is insane. He spins 295/50r15's like they're donuts. It's pretty built(compared to stock), but the cool thing is that in the glove box door, there is a sticker that recommends "premium gasoline".
Anyway, take it easy.
Merry Christmas.
Member # 5455
posted December 14, 2005 10:23 AM
"Talk about GM having needless powertrain options-- I'm a little too young to have firsthand knowledge, but didn't Chevy, Olds, and Buick produce their own specific versions of the 350 simultaneously? at least 6 different small block v8's from all the divisions together at the same time..."
Man, I'm getting old. Anyway, I personally like(or liked, past tense) when each GM division had it's own "personality" with engines. Just remember though, that only Chevy had a "small block" and "big block" (the most common being the 350 and 454 respectively). BOP (Buick, Olds, Pontiac) engines were all the same physical size with different displacements. Olds had the cubic inch cast into the side of the block on the pass. side(if memory serves). Other than that, it would take a keen eye to recognize an Olds 455 in place of an Olds 350 (good for fooling the Mustang guys into a race!)
My brothers 1974 Olds Omega drag car has a 350 "Rocket". I've always been a Chevy guy, but man, the torque from that monster is insane. He spins 295/50r15's like they're donuts. It's pretty built(compared to stock), but the cool thing is that in the glove box door, there is a sticker that recommends "premium gasoline".
Anyway, take it easy.
Merry Christmas.
This is incorrect. Pontiac engines all had the same size block, and I believe Buicks did too--these were all big block engines. However, Oldsmobile did have small block and big block versions of their famous Rocket engines (330/350/403 small block; 400/425/455 big block). The heads were completely interchangeable, as the bore centers were the same, but the big block was "bigger." If you measured across the top of the engine from valve cover to valve cover the big block was about two engines wider. Thus intake manifolds were not interchangable.
The anomoly, of course, was the "small block" 350 diesel. This block was considerably beefier than the gas engine it was based on, so much so that the raw block weighed more than a complete 350 engine.
G-Man II
Site Sponsor
Member # 570
posted December 14, 2005 08:00 PM
This is incorrect. Pontiac engines all had the same size block, and I believe Buicks did too--these were all big block engines. However, Oldsmobile did have small block and big block versions of their famous Rocket engines (330/350/403 small block; 400/425/455 big block). "The heads were completely interchangeable, as the bore centers were the same, but the big block was "bigger." If you measured across the top of the engine from valve cover to valve cover the big block was about two engines wider. Thus intake manifolds were not interchangable.
The anomoly, of course, was the "small block" 350 diesel. This block was considerably beefier than the gas engine it was based on, so much so that the raw block weighed more than a complete 350 engine. "
Well, don't tell the Mustang guys. I may be technically incorrect but to be honest, there isn't really a "difference" with only two inches across the intake manifold. You'd be hard pressed to find a handfull of non-olds people that could tell. The small and big Chevy are night and day.
Either way, it was a shame when GM axed Olds.
http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofblk.htm
Edit: Two engines wider. That would be one h3ll of a big block. Enjoy your coffee.
Site Sponsor
Member # 570
posted December 14, 2005 08:00 PM
This is incorrect. Pontiac engines all had the same size block, and I believe Buicks did too--these were all big block engines. However, Oldsmobile did have small block and big block versions of their famous Rocket engines (330/350/403 small block; 400/425/455 big block). "The heads were completely interchangeable, as the bore centers were the same, but the big block was "bigger." If you measured across the top of the engine from valve cover to valve cover the big block was about two engines wider. Thus intake manifolds were not interchangable.
The anomoly, of course, was the "small block" 350 diesel. This block was considerably beefier than the gas engine it was based on, so much so that the raw block weighed more than a complete 350 engine. "
Well, don't tell the Mustang guys. I may be technically incorrect but to be honest, there isn't really a "difference" with only two inches across the intake manifold. You'd be hard pressed to find a handfull of non-olds people that could tell. The small and big Chevy are night and day.
Either way, it was a shame when GM axed Olds.
http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofblk.htm
Edit: Two engines wider. That would be one h3ll of a big block. Enjoy your coffee.
- Status
Similar threads
