Gm new motors

Hi am considering buying a new gm car. Whats the reputation on the new motors. I currently have a 92 buick regal with a 3.8 and thats rock solid.
I see there alot of 3.4 on the go now, are they still making the 3.8's. what about the 3.1's. Looking for a impaula or bicuk century
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I bought in Canada Buick Allure with 3.8 III engine. And I made 17k on it by now. So far so good. They also put in it 3.5
Boba Vancouver.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nf.aibn.com says...

Run away from any cars with the 3.1 or 3.4L engines. They have intake gasket problems that usually cost $600-$800 to fix and in worst cases an entire engine replacement if excessive coolant gets into the oil. Supposedly a new designed intake gasket introduced in late 2002 fixed everything but I have my doubts since these engines have had intake gasket problems for decades.
The new 3.5L engine which is based off the 3.1/3.4L engine has a wider sealing surface for the intake but only time will tell if this fixed the problem.
The 3.8L engine had some problems with intake gaskets due to a composite plastic intake but GM has gone back to aluminum in the last model year so that shouldn't be a problem anymore.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Dennis Smith
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
All new Impala due out this fall with all new engines. After 2005, The 3100 Century has been dropped from the Buick lineup so finding one might be hard as not many were made, limiting what is actually left in stock. Good deals can be had on those that remain.
The 3800 for the most part is a reliable engine. 200 HP -225 TQ. Like Smith said there are intake gasket problems. You just need to keep an eye on the antifreeze level.
Getting 30.5 mpg on the highway in my 05'.
Harryface 05 Park Avenue 91 Bonneville LE, 303,268 miles
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Waylon wrote:

The Impala with the 3.8 is a good choice. The 3.8 is much more reliable than the other designs in any case.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 05:18:27 GMT, Joseph Oberlander

Intake gasket issues aside, why do you say the 3.8 beats the 3.1/3.4 for reliability Joe? (no flame - just curious)
Regards, Al.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Al Haunts wrote:

Gasket issues aside(which is 80% of it), the 3.8 has a few less moving parts in it. The 3.4 is also being replaced by an "improved" version - the 3.5.
All I can say is - if it's not broken... 3.5 new design with who knows what problems or a .3L larger design that's 20 years old and has all of the bugs either worked out of it or well known so that any mechanic can diagnose and/or fix it. I'm not so concerned with saving 1mpg, afterall.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Why does the 3800 have a few less moving parts? What parts are you referring to?
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I would say the 3.8 is more refined than the 3.1/3.4 because it doesn't suffer from piston slap. The 3.1/3.4 sounds like a diesel engine the first few minutes of start-up.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

But on the other hand, some of GMs larger engines (V8s) also suffer from piston slap.
As long as GM continues to use short skirt pistons in some of their engines, piston slap will be around.
Maybe GM needs to find a different supplier for their pistons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not sure about other engines, but the new inline 6 pistons are built in-house.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I like; Large Format Photography www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The 1995 LeSabre my neighbor used to have has a piston slap problem with the 3.8. Maybe the newer Gen II and Gen III 3.8 are fixed?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
James C. Reeves wrote:

There was never an issue with piston slap on the 3.8/3800 engines. Doesn't mean that it couldn't happen on an engine here or there, but it's more likely to be something like a build problem....excessive clearance perhaps. But in general, these engines did not have that problem.
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 05:18:27 GMT, Joseph Oberlander

It's going to be sad to see the 3800 go away. It's one heck of a good engine. Plus, doubly sad for me. The plant where it's built is in the same complex as the one where I worked until I retired. Right now they're down to one shift and in the process of phasing out by the end of the model year.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Starr wrote:

:(
So what's replacing it? It's a superb design. The Impala SS version puts out sometihng like 240-260HP, IIRC, with the supercharger. That's not "your father's Oldsmobile" by any stretch of the imagination.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 05:41:43 GMT, Joseph Oberlander

I'm really not sure; one of the new v6's or an inline. Why replace it? I think the powers that be in GM think it's an "old-tech" design, it being a pushrod engine, and feel people only want new "high-tech" stuff. Talking about power, a buddy from work got ahold of a 3800 that was hand built at the Buick Engineering Center (before they killed that too), and was crated, along with the dyno records. The dyno sheet shows 500hp! Since there's no such thing as too much hp, he's adding a few extra goodies - bigger turbo & downpipe, etc., etc. and putting in his 49 Stude pickup. Hope he gets it done soon; I wouldn't mind getting his present rise, a 68 GMC with a reworked 500" Caddy in it. BTW, his license plate reads YEE HAA.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Probably the main engine that will replace it is the 3.6 DOHC VVT engine. Plus the 5.3 v-8 engine will be going into the FWD cars soon. Both should be great engines too.
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

True. Your father's Oldsmobile could be a rear drive "442" putting out 380+ HP.
Or you could get today's Dodge Charger SRT-8 with 400 HP that pulls 0-60 times in ~ 5 seconds.
But then you trade the 32MPG highway mileage of the 3.8 V6 for a 24MPG of the Charger. Or, worse yet, the ~8MPG of the old "442".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
James C. Reeves wrote:

Of course, the 1000+ extra pounds and slushy transmission made up for it. 442s were great in a straight line, but hell in corners or traffic.

Heh. I know all too well. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No doubt about the handling. But they weren't as heavy as you think.

Yea, I had a 1967 GTO that would often get less than 8MPG! Good thing gas was 32 cents a gallon, I guess!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.