when you have a great design thats works well why change....
the best V-6 engines ever?
- Thread starter bond007
- Start date
- Status
when you have a great design thats works well why change....
" when you have a great design thats works well why change.... "
LOL, you had better ask GM that question
. Many reports say that 2008 will be the end of the road for the old warhorse. It is being replaced by 3.5 and 3.9 liter versions of the 60 degree V-6 engine family. For 2007 it is only used in certain of the Buick LaCrosse and Lucerne models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High_Value_engine#LX9
The anachronistic 3.8l 90 degree V-6 is finally being put to rest. The new engines are interesting in that they incorporate variable valve timing into a pushrod engine design and use the inherently balanced 60 degree cylinder bank relationship. GM is probably the last company in the world still tweaking pushrod engine designs for cars. Everyone else has moved on to overhead cams. Even GM makes it's premium engines with overhead cams and saves the pushrod architecture for the certain of the cheap seats.
LOL, you had better ask GM that question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High_Value_engine#LX9
The anachronistic 3.8l 90 degree V-6 is finally being put to rest. The new engines are interesting in that they incorporate variable valve timing into a pushrod engine design and use the inherently balanced 60 degree cylinder bank relationship. GM is probably the last company in the world still tweaking pushrod engine designs for cars. Everyone else has moved on to overhead cams. Even GM makes it's premium engines with overhead cams and saves the pushrod architecture for the certain of the cheap seats.
I heard that too,
Candles worked great back in the time, so why did we bother with electricity?
not a V6 but BMW in-line 6 cylinder engines are IMO, some of the best engines in the world. Of course I am biased.
People can knock the GM pushrod designs all they want, but the new 3500 and 3900 are just as smooth, and IMO, even quieter than any modern OHC engine of comparable size and performance.
Not to mention that the 3900 has comparable economy to the Honda 3L V6, all the while producing virtually equivalent horsepower and a boatload more torque at low RPM. After test driving many vehicles (including Honda and Toyota), I purchased my 3900 powered vehicle because of a) excellent value for money and b) far superior driveability thanks to low end torque. It was no comparison.
Not to mention that the 3900 has comparable economy to the Honda 3L V6, all the while producing virtually equivalent horsepower and a boatload more torque at low RPM. After test driving many vehicles (including Honda and Toyota), I purchased my 3900 powered vehicle because of a) excellent value for money and b) far superior driveability thanks to low end torque. It was no comparison.
can you guys qualify what year 3.8 gm's, think there been some variation in them that share the 3.8l badge but aren't the same engines? I had one of the 1st transplanted in a jeep, odd fire or even fire can't rememeber but it shook like a Milwaukee v twin. Guess they change the crank phasing and made them smoother, what year was this done?
I still use candles......
I think that the current new V6's in Toyota's trucks and their car's are world class. I think that Nissans VQ derrivatives are also world class. I like the buick 3.8 but it is not world class due to power density and NVH. I have high hopes for GM's current high content V6 but am going to hold judgement until we see a bit more from it.
Now if we are talking I6's I love the old slant six's!! The hemi head I6's sent to Austrailan market rock!! The Ford 300 I6 was in my opion the best engine ford ever built in mass. Then in the import world the I6 used in Landcruiser and the one used in Supra's are the stuff of legend!!!!
Now if we are talking I6's I love the old slant six's!! The hemi head I6's sent to Austrailan market rock!! The Ford 300 I6 was in my opion the best engine ford ever built in mass. Then in the import world the I6 used in Landcruiser and the one used in Supra's are the stuff of legend!!!!
Not a V, but Jeep's 4.0 is classic. Old but good.
The problems with the 3.8 started to crop up in 1995 when they put that Dupont Nylon 33 uperintake manifold on it. It has since gone back to an aluminum upper intake and good to go. Series three is about as good as this design can get without major cylinder head and intake manifold redesign. It would have been too easy to design a 3-5 valve head with VVT and variable intake geometry. The block and rotateing assembly are well done already. The new high content V6 was not needed and the money they spent on designing,valdateing and certifing it could have been better used someplace else. The Japanesse seldom start with a clean sheet on engines. They tend to continue to refine and update a proven design until they really exhaust the engines ability to be updated.
I have to agree with TP... I like the GMC 305 V6.
John:
I agree with most of this. By contrast, though, consider what Toyota has done in the last few years, in the V-6 department. In the early 90s (30 years after the GM 3.8L V-6's earliest ancestors appeared), they introduced the MZ series of V-6s. The vast bulk of this series appeared as 1MZs (which included the unfortunate "sludge phase" engines), and is right now fading out with the final applications of the slightly larger 3MZ engines. Realizing they could do even better, Toyota has moved ahead to the GR series V-6s. I owned two 1MZ powered vehicles (Highlander and Camry) and my wife now has a 2GR powered 07 Avalon. All I can say is that I thought the 1MZ was a great engine ... until I drove the 2GR powered Avalon. The 2GR is a velvet-wrapped monster that's going to make people reconsider the greatness of Nissan's VQ series V-6. All the while, GM just keeps making little improvements on its ancient 231/3.8 engine. It's nice enough, but I just keep wondering how we, the folks who landed a man on the moon, keep accepting GM's micro-improvements while Toyota leaps up almost 70 hp in the engine they're putting in Camrys, Avalons, and Siennas! Criminy, you can even get a 270 hp 2GR in the RAV4 if you want!!! GM simply has to do better than a half-century old pushrod V-6 that does "only" ~200 hp.
It's hard to even compare the "old pushrod" to the VQ series. The 3.5 liter VQ is much more refined. Hopefully G.M.'s (and Ford's) new entry will be significantly better and on par with the Japanese V-6's. Time will tell.
Not all that hard. Slap a supercharger on the old 231/3.8L and suddenly, you've got output and performance on par with the VQ. I really liked my 98 Regal GS. Better "ooomph" off the line than the VQ35 (I've owned a G35 too). But hey, GM has been making forced induction 231/3.8s for 20 years, with roughly similar output. Toyota just jumped about 70 hp in their front-line V-6. Wake up GM.
GMs 3.8 got noticebly better when they turned it sideways.
Rear drive quality in the 3.8 was off and on.
Except for the plastic intake mentioned above, the 3.8 has had a good record for reliability.
Rear drive quality in the 3.8 was off and on.
Except for the plastic intake mentioned above, the 3.8 has had a good record for reliability.
"It's hard to even compare the "old pushrod" to the VQ series."
What I meant was due to the level of refinement and amount of technology (in their stock form) in the VQ, it's difficult to compare the two.
I know many people that have the 3.8L and have enjoyed long term durability. The 3.8 liter is like the boiler at my place of employment; it will fire on each and every time and bring the place up to temperature. It just doesn't have the refinement, increased technology and power that the new ones have. Ford and G.M.'s new V-6's look promising.
What I meant was due to the level of refinement and amount of technology (in their stock form) in the VQ, it's difficult to compare the two.
I know many people that have the 3.8L and have enjoyed long term durability. The 3.8 liter is like the boiler at my place of employment; it will fire on each and every time and bring the place up to temperature. It just doesn't have the refinement, increased technology and power that the new ones have. Ford and G.M.'s new V-6's look promising.
As far as reliability goes... no oil leaks, no blown gaskets...
Just change the spark plugs, oil, and air filter as needed type of engine would have to be the GM 3.8 V6. Those engines can take redline pounding all day long, every day, and run like a new one a year later. They were more powerful back before they started tuning them for economy, too. There was a 1995 LeSabre with the 3.8, and now there's a 2000 Park Avenue with the 3.8 in it. The 95 felt SO much more powerful, it was unbelieveable. It has to be in the tune. The 2000 won't 'kick' in until 3000 RPM... although it will spin both tires easy from a stop... without torque braking it. But that 95 just really had some oomph to it.
Just change the spark plugs, oil, and air filter as needed type of engine would have to be the GM 3.8 V6. Those engines can take redline pounding all day long, every day, and run like a new one a year later. They were more powerful back before they started tuning them for economy, too. There was a 1995 LeSabre with the 3.8, and now there's a 2000 Park Avenue with the 3.8 in it. The 95 felt SO much more powerful, it was unbelieveable. It has to be in the tune. The 2000 won't 'kick' in until 3000 RPM... although it will spin both tires easy from a stop... without torque braking it. But that 95 just really had some oomph to it.
Ryan:
I'd certainly agree with that. Even with the blower added, the 231/3.8/3800 isn't exactly a "high tech" engine. That said, esp with the blower, it's an absolute monster, generating instant, wheel-spinning torque as soon as you get on the pedal.
I'd certainly agree with that. Even with the blower added, the 231/3.8/3800 isn't exactly a "high tech" engine. That said, esp with the blower, it's an absolute monster, generating instant, wheel-spinning torque as soon as you get on the pedal.
GM 3.8 (3800)
Hands down
Hands down
- Status
