In my owner's manual (92 buick 3.3 V6) it says to use 10W-30, but 5w30 can be used if the temps are below 60 degrees and that 5w30 should be used if temps get below zero degrees. Is this just an old thing against 5w30? GM recommended 5w30 (all temps) in the quad four engine for the same make and year of car. I know that 5w30 oils have been proven effective over the years and I'm using a 5w30 this winter, I was just curious if anyone else has seen this with their GM.
Question about GM V6 engines
- Thread starter MustangGT
- Start date
- Status
I never heard of a 3.3 v-6 only 3.1 and 3.8
But no matter1992 is ancient history. Either 5w30 or 10W-30. Winter conditions are the real issue.
I believe the oil filler cap on my old 89 Pontiac 6000 (2.8 GenII V6) said 5w30 recommended. I don't know what mechanical difference there are between the GM 60 degree V6's and the 90 degree V6's, but seeing as how cold weather is coming, I'd go with a 5w30, then in mid-spring, say, I'd switch to a 10w30.
From what I've read on the A body message boards on Yahoo, the 3.3 is a shrunken version of the 3.8, the 3.3 has slightly less horsepower, 150 vs 160+ in the 3.8, and a bit less torque. The 3.3's are said to be more fuel efficient than tha 3.8's.
The 3.3 GM V6 is a peppy little engine, I think it was rated at 160 HP, I have almost 127,000 miles on it and still get 28 MPG on the highway. I'm sorry to say the 3.1 V6 became the norm and the 3.3 V6 became no more.
Exactly the 3.1 is junk.
3.0 was a small version of the 3.8, the 3.3 was a small version of the 3800.
Both good engine and both recomended 10w30. Until 2004 all 3.8s recomended 10w30 for whatever reason. Even still most would recomend 10w30 in any engine calling for 30weight oil except in the winter where 5w30 would be better.
-T
Both good engine and both recomended 10w30. Until 2004 all 3.8s recomended 10w30 for whatever reason. Even still most would recomend 10w30 in any engine calling for 30weight oil except in the winter where 5w30 would be better.
-T
My 92 Grand Am (3.3L) used 10w30 its whole life, till I finally sold it with 170K miles on it (in 2001). It's still running great to this day. Doesn't use a DROP of oil. The 3.3L was a great motor - reliable, easy on gas, and definitely peppy. I recall 165hp/185 ftlbs tq. I was severely disappointed when I bought a 98 Grand Am GT 3.1 to replace it. I got rid of it within 5K miles.
Anyways, I'm getting off topic. The motor seemed to love 10w30, year round, even in Cleveland, OH winters. 170K perfect miles (on an American V6) can't be wrong.
Anyways, I'm getting off topic. The motor seemed to love 10w30, year round, even in Cleveland, OH winters. 170K perfect miles (on an American V6) can't be wrong.
I had a 1989 Buick with the 3.3L engine. The manual then recommended 5w30 year round. At least it did for 89 Century.
The car was sold @ 175K, in 2001, but is still a daily driver.
I has so few problem with it that I bought another Buick with the Series II 3800. It's a 2000 and recommends 10W-30 above 0F.
All I ever used in the old 3.3L was GTX 5-30.
The car was sold @ 175K, in 2001, but is still a daily driver.
I has so few problem with it that I bought another Buick with the Series II 3800. It's a 2000 and recommends 10W-30 above 0F.
All I ever used in the old 3.3L was GTX 5-30.
Most likely the 10W vs the 5W made little difference in fuel economy standards since that engine surpassed it on 10W-30 oil. Where you tend to see more 5w30, 5W-20 or oW recommended is where the manf. wants to get the CAFE rating low.
Probably has no more to do with it than that. I think it was around 1995-96 (?not sure of the model year) model year that GM ran into problems with the CAFE due to them selling many more trucks than econo box cars. They even switched over model year production of trucks several months in advance to keep from paying steep fines for going over their CAFE limits.
CAFE - Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Probably has no more to do with it than that. I think it was around 1995-96 (?not sure of the model year) model year that GM ran into problems with the CAFE due to them selling many more trucks than econo box cars. They even switched over model year production of trucks several months in advance to keep from paying steep fines for going over their CAFE limits.
CAFE - Corporate Average Fuel Economy
I had a 1989 3800 that reccomended 5w30 and a 1991 3800 with TPI that reccomended 10w30. My 1995 Quad Four reccomends 5w30 but according to GM service dept. it's to make sure that the oil gets to the top ASAP. Dipstick says "5w30 only" and when I heard that I suspected they are afraid of starving this thing. One reason I run a 0w30 synthetic in her.
I'd definitely follow the 5w30 (or 0w30) recommendation in the Quad4. I'd be willing to bet the tolerances are tighter - that motor is downright Japanese in a lot of ways. I'd love to find one of the HO Quad's in an Olds Acheiva or Grand Am in good shape. Just gotta keep an eye on the head gasket
On some '86 2.8 V6 (basically same block) it says 5w 30 year round "preferred" and strongly advises against 10w 40. However 10w 30 and straight 30 can be used given the min. temperature requirements are present.
Why it might say "do not use 10w 40"? I'm considering to try some 0w/5w 40 M1 but I'm afraid.
Why it might say "do not use 10w 40"? I'm considering to try some 0w/5w 40 M1 but I'm afraid.
I think it was more of a problem with the 10W-40's of the day rather than absolute viscosity.
Many of the 10W-40 dino's had poor quality VII that sheared badly and left nasty deposits.
I don't think you would have any issues now as long as your temperatures are above freezing.
A 5-40 or 0-40 would have to have synthetic or Group III components and wouldn't have this problem.
Many of the 10W-40 dino's had poor quality VII that sheared badly and left nasty deposits.
I don't think you would have any issues now as long as your temperatures are above freezing.
A 5-40 or 0-40 would have to have synthetic or Group III components and wouldn't have this problem.
quote:"3.0 was a small version of the 3.8, the 3.3 was a small version of the 3800."
The 3.8 and the 3800 are the SAME engine.The 3.8 is the liter size,the 3800 is the cubic centemeter size.They are the same engine.
They are both 231 cubic inches.
The 3.3 liter GM engine at one time was used as the base engine for Indy car racing.
I have a Buick with the 3.3 in it.It is rated at 160 hp and registered at 120 MPH.Considering the low rpm's that it turns at 60,120 would probably not be a problem.It red lines at 5,000 rpm,never had close to such though.
It also recommends 10W-30,it is even on the oil cap.
The 3.8 and the 3800 are the SAME engine.The 3.8 is the liter size,the 3800 is the cubic centemeter size.They are the same engine.
They are both 231 cubic inches.
The 3.3 liter GM engine at one time was used as the base engine for Indy car racing.
I have a Buick with the 3.3 in it.It is rated at 160 hp and registered at 120 MPH.Considering the low rpm's that it turns at 60,120 would probably not be a problem.It red lines at 5,000 rpm,never had close to such though.
It also recommends 10W-30,it is even on the oil cap.
True for the most part. I think the distinction, if you can even call it a distinction, was that somewhere in the mid-90s, GM revised the engine some (amazing that this is still being done with an engine that made its debut in 1961), and started calling them "Series II" engines, and at the same time, changed the size nomenclature from 3.8 to 3800. Other than the tweaks that came with the "Series II" modifications, yes, same engine.
There were so many "tweaks" from the 1970's until the Series II, I would not even consider them to be the same engine.
It was a platform for total change.
The 3.8 was a different animal, from firing order, to crank, to roller lifters, balance shaft, etc. etc.
Gotta love em'.
My 3.3L was a bit rough (lacked the internal balancing setup), but they were durable.
It was a platform for total change.
The 3.8 was a different animal, from firing order, to crank, to roller lifters, balance shaft, etc. etc.
Gotta love em'.
My 3.3L was a bit rough (lacked the internal balancing setup), but they were durable.
My '90 Cutlass has the 3.3 and the filler cap says 5w30. You know what's funny? All the times I changed the oil, I assumed it called for a 10W-30, as this was the first new car I've ever owned and all of Dad's cars used 10W-30. But about 2 years ago, I actually read the cap and it said 5w30. So of course I got paranoid and ironically I found this web site and put my fears to rest. Talk about timing. Anyway, I'm at about 190K and all I've ever done to that engine is replaced water pump, plugs/wires, coil pack, alternator and power steering pump. That's it. She doesn't use a drop of oil and the insides are clean except for the tinge of beige that comes from the dino oils over the years.
There were a lot of evolutionary refinements, many of which alone would not be noticed by anyone. The one that I consider to be the most important was the change to an even fire setup. In its original configuration (when, BTW, it displaced only 198 cu-in) it used a shared crank pin arrangement as you'd expect in a V type engine. But since the cyl banks are at 90 deg, this resulted in a Harley-like "potato-potato" uneven firing beat. I think it was around 1980, GM finally splurged and spent the money to change to a split crank pin design. This off-sets the relative position of the rods, resulting in evenly spaced firing pulses, and a much smoother engine. Now, if they could just find a way to make a pushrod valve train sound as good as an OHC setup... Oh yeah, this change happened long before the switch to the "Series II 3800" nomenclature.quote:
Originally posted by haley10:
There were so many "tweaks" from the 1970's until the Series II, I would not even consider them to be the same engine.
It was a platform for total change.
The 3.8 was a different animal, from firing order, to crank, to roller lifters, balance shaft, etc. etc.
Gotta love em'.
My 3.3L was a bit rough (lacked the internal balancing setup), but they were durable.
EDIT: Of course, 90 deg is the perferred angle for V-8s and results in even fire for them. Sixty degrees does the same for V-6s, but this V-6 actually descended from an early aluminum V-8 experiment from the late 1950s. Imagine -- one of the most successful iron block V-6s actually sprang from an aluminum V-8. Whoda thunk it???
- Status
Similar threads
