Lacrosse vs Impala

My father is debating between either a 2007 Buick Lacrosse with 3.8 engine or a 2007 Chevy Impala with the 3.5 or 3.9 engine. He keeps car for more than ten years. Which one of the two will likely have less
maintanence problem ? Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack wrote:

That 3.8 motor is pretty damn good. That's the route I'd pick if I had to buy one of those two cars.
b
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've had three Buicks with the 3.8 and I'd buy it again and again. Unless the Impala has some overwhelming feature I'd go with the Lacrosse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack wrote:

It's hard to loose with the 3.8. A "tried-and-true workhorse." And it gets exceptional fuel economy for it's size (typically exceeding 30MPG highway for most people)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Check on that 3800 in the Buick, I thought they were discontinued?

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

From LEASECOMPARE.COM: The 2007 Buick LaCrosse returns this year available in three models: CX, CXL, and CXS. These three models are equipped with a four-speed automatic transmission in a 3.6-liter V6 engine for the CXS, and a 3.8-liter V6 engine for the CX and CXL. HTH, s. BTW, I wanted to know also!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The 3800 is over-rated. I had a 01 Impala with the 3.8L and it had a coolant leak at 10K miles. At full throttle the 3800 sounds rough and very little performance after 50mph. I would buy the Lacrosse with the 3.6L DOHC engine if he can spend the dough.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You must have had the worst 3800 ever built. They are one of the higest rated engines. I have owned 2 3800 Series I's, 1 Series II and now a Series II Supercharged, and all have been awesome engines. Plenty of power, and awesome on gas.

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

I had one in my '91 Regal that was still going strong when I sold the car with 150k. I found it interesting that both my '97 and '01 LeSabre with the updated version got both better mileage and better performance in a heavier car. At 120k, I've never had to add oil between changes and I change at 7500 miles. I put new plugs in at 110k, but it was still starting and running as smooth as the day I bought it.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A lot of 3800 fans on this forum. You can even ask the GM tech "ian" and he will tell you that the series I engine was better than the series II. He said that the small block V8's are GM's best and the 3.6L DOHC V6 to be the better engine because very little repair work is being done.
Coolant leaks were actually very common from 2000-2003 for the 3.8. The walnut shells "fix" didn't work for me.
The supercharged version is better because of the heavy duty tranny and the no plastic intake manifold but the newer 3800's have an aluminum intake manifold even in the NA version. For performance drivers the regular NA 3800 is a weak performer but for a senior it is adequate. You name me a V6 engine larger than 3.0L for the year 2007 that has less than 220 HP, 197HP for 231 ci is pathetic.

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

...another 3800-lover, I admit (but do NOT like the coolant leak!). Doing a little math, the 3800(231cu. inch) yields considerably more power per cubic inch than the 3.0 at 220 hp you mentioned. At that rate, if the 3800 increased its size to 3.0-L, it would put out like 255 hp--hate to say, but probably still w/the leak!!! s
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Say what? If the 3800 increased its size to 3.0L??? You mean if the 3.8L (aka 3800) decreased its size to 3.0L its output would be 3.0/3.8=0.79 So, if you go 197HP x 0.79= 156HP.
">

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Power is not a calculable function of displacement. Too many variables, even if all else remained constant.

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I was giving a generalization. If displacement is smaller HP and Torque go down.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Give you an example of the SOHC Chrysler 3.5L which has 250HP. In 2001-02 Chrysler sold both the 3.5L and 3.2L (225HP) SOHC in the LH cars. They are both identical engines except in displacement. Look it up.
3.2/3.5 = 0.914 x 250 HP= 228.5 HP which is very close to the 225HP rating.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Coincidance, bore stroke variations for the same displacement change output, cam timing, cylinder head design and so on come into play, too much of a generalization here. Look at all the cubic inch variations of the SBC and you will see the theory is flawed. 283 cubes 220 hp, go to 327, 340 hp., as a common example, do the math. I understand to the laymen this is a midline issue, but it can be misleading ( not meaning you are the laymen here)

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

Hey, Vaughn, even I had to laugh at that one. Bet you will catch me doing the likes again! sam
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This is true. I have a 2000 Impala with the 3.8 and it runs very well. I have more than adequate acceleration; and before ethanol blended gasolines took over the market, I could get 33 mpg on the highway. So far, I've had no coolant leaks, and the car has 75k on it. The Buick or Impala would be a tough choice, but my service writer bought an Impala just before the 3.9 came out to get the 3.8. So, I would go with the Buick also even though I am a Chevy fan. Roy

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.