GM 3.5L V6...decent engine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tell that to the EPA, they rate the V6 Malibu at only 1 mpg less then it's four cylinder competitors, even though they have much less usable power.

If you think that having less idlers is more important then having a servicable engine, I can see why you'd like Japanese cars.
wink.gif


Here's my FWD V6, more room then many four cylinder cars I've worked on:
88engine1.jpg


It's was a bit dirty when I got it.
 
Truthfuly haveing parts under the car's bottom side is not that bad. Usualy their is much more unused room on the bottom then on top. The problems domestics have is that when they put parts lower then the strut mount they seldom give you easily removable acess panels to get to them. Every Toyota I have ever owned always gave you sections that were removeable inthe wheel well. SO all you had to to do was either turn the wheel and remove the panel or take the wheel off and remove the access panel and you were styleing!! Even if you have to work fromthe bottom Toyota normaly gives you space to fit a wrench or rachet in. On my wifes Buick it is like a retard packaged the engine. You have to remove an OEM strut tower brace, losen up the motor mounts and jack the engine to reach the rear plugs. You have to remove the main engine mount from the engine to change the belt. You have to remove the battery to change the bulbs on the passenger side. The oil sender is not reachable from top and is almost impossable to reach with the car ont he ground from underneath. The list goes on and on. My wifes buick Lasaber is the worst car I have ever had to work on from a standpoint of needing special tools or poor packageing. You can tell that all they were concerned about was makeing it easy to asseble.
 
Quote:


Tell that to the EPA, they rate the V6 Malibu at only 1 mpg less then it's four cylinder competitors, even though they have much less usable power.

If you think that having less idlers is more important then having a servicable engine, I can see why you'd like Japanese cars.
wink.gif


Here's my FWD V6, more room then many four cylinder cars I've worked on:

It's was a bit dirty when I got it.




Letys also note that a buick lesabre likely has a LOT more room under the hood than your garden variety malibu, camry, fusion, etc...

It might border on apples to oranges.

You obviously havent driven any recent, decent 4-cyl engines... not that you need to, Im sure that 3800 will last a lot longer
cheers.gif


Id be curious to see how many 4-cyl engines beat the EPA numbers, compared to how many 6-cyl engines fall under their ratings...

I know my saab can handily beat the epa numbers by 4+ MPG routinely... while giving me 195 lb-ft like a table top from fast idle... Toyota and Honda 4-cyl engines are jewels too... nope, can't complain about decent 4-cyl engines. Im not drag racing from stoplights or trying to cruise on the highway at speeds over 80 MPH anyway.

JMH
 
Quote:


Im not drag racing from stoplights or trying to cruise on the highway at speeds over 80 MPH anyway.




My tests indicate that the Saab will cruise happly at speeds exceeding 100MPH, though it really sucks down fuel at those speeds.
 
My wifes Malibu Maxx is a great car. It's getting us about 38 MPG on the interstate with a v6 #@$%! that's just as good as alot of the #@$%! I4's. Before we bought it we compared it to the Turcel and Civic and the Malibu was the winner. We have 35,000 miles on it now no problems with starting (or anything else).
 
It's funny, but I'm getting just about indentical mileage out of my 2006 Saab 93 2.0T 5-speed as I did out of my 1996 Ford Contour 2.5L V6 5-speed. The Saab has about 40 more HP and 50 ft-lbs more torque. It's also about the same size and weight. (By the way, the spark plugs in the Contour are a 15-minute job).


I was using regular 87 in the Saab. I noticed that the mileage went up when I put 87 in it the first time..then on this tank I put 89 in it (the manual says 87 is OK but recommends 91 for best performance, so I figured 89 would make a bit of difference) and the fuel economy went down a bit. I guess I'll go back to 87 and see if the fuel economy goes back up. I had heard that higher octane gas will give better fuel economy on this car but I am not seeing that.

Nobody apparently makes a V6 as small as 2.5L anymore or if they do it's not sold in the USA. I guess now they're just upsizing I4s and using them where they would've used a smaller V6.
 
GM pretty much had to redesign the 3.1 V6 after 10-13 years of major intake repair. The question for me when I look at any new GM design is why it took 10 years. That make me lean to the ecotec4 that seems to have a proven 5 year good service track record.
 
The 3.5 V6 used in the 2004-2006 Malibu was based on the 3.4 V6 before it. I believe that by around 2005 they had fixed the leaking problem. The 2007 Malibu is now using the VVT 3.5 V6 that is a new design based off from the VVT 3.9 V6. They really are a different engine than the past 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, and non-VVT 3.5 engines. Lets hope they are an improvement in durability. Although once you got your intake manifolds fixed the old ones were reliable as well from my experience. I personally think the current Malibu is ugly and can't wait for the all new 2008 model to be revealed this winter at one of the auto shows. What I have seen so far is impressive, inside and out.
 
Quote:


why it took 10 years. That make me lean to the ecotec4



You and about 25 million other former GM owners wonder why they can't fix a major problem in 13 years.
deadhorse.gif


Probably a good move with the ecotec. Seems like a good engine.
 
Quote:


Goose, my BIL has had a 2005 malibu maxx with a 3.5L since mid 2004. They love it. Not a single problem. We've had about 5 3.xL, 4T45/4T65 equipped GM's in the family over the years. I've always been a fan of this drivetrain. The only major issue was one IMG replacement needed on the 1997 buick century. They are a simple, economical and snappy little V6.
07%203.5L%20V6%20LZ4%20MMX%20LoR.jpg





what is that big pulley in the top/middle? a serpentine driven camshaft??? no, it couldn't be...
 
The top pulley looks like the water pump the bottom is the crank pulley. Anything to save space and shorten the engine for the FWD install, I guesse. I had a mitsubishi with a belt driven water pump so it isn't uncommon in thesesideways installed engines.
 
Quote:


than what's the pulley right above the AC compressor, near the lower coolank port?




grr. why can't we edit our spelling mistakes anymore?

then what's the pulley right above the AC compressor, near the lower coolant port?
 
The top middle pulley looks like it's either the power steering or waterpump. I think maybe power steering.

The thing above the AC compressor (bottom front with the triangular shaped piece on the pulley) is what I think is the water pump due to the hoses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top