This is very interesting old article for all V6 3800 Series II lovers.
I have Word version too - send me e-mail.

Luba

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Detroit News
February 25, 1996

The GM engine that could:
New efficiency from an old design

Among the 10 engines picked as the best in the world at this year's North American International Auto Show, two in particular stood out.

The pair of General Motors Corp. 3800 V-6 engines - found in cars such as the Pontiac Grand Am and the Buick Park Avenue Ultra -- had few of the advancements displayed on winners from Germany's BMW AG or Japan's Mazda Motor Corp.

Some of the GM engines' guts, in fact, dated back to 1962. And their "pushrod" heart seemed an anachronism next to the other double overhead-cam, multivalve engines -- terms that now slip off the tongues of auto marketers as easily as engineers.

"I heard it a lot: When are you going to catch up with everybody else," said Thomas Stephens, vice-president and general manager of GM's powertrain engineering. Triumphant after this year's awards, he now boasted: "I'd put our engines up against anybody's."

How GM snatched victory out of engine technology most other automakers were discarding is one of the great technology stories of the decade. And the remarkable effort is one of the often overlooked stories behind the huge financial turnaround GM has pulled off in the last few years.

By making old engines purr more smoothly, getting them to belch out less-offensive fumes and squeezing out few more miles per gallon, GM managed to put off the need to spend several billion dollars on designing new multivalve engines and getting plants equipped to build them.

It was a strategy born in desperate times -- in the late 1980s and early 1990s when GM was losing market share and oozed a steady flow of red ink. But it was a strategy that paid off handsomely as consumers became less interested in high-tech gadgetry and more focused on lower sticker prices.

"Nobody knew at the time that GM could do what they did with the pushrod engines," said Bernard Campbell, an automotive consultant with Arthur B. Little in Bloomfield Township. "A lot of people insisted it couldn't be done."

Pushrod engines have been installed in cars since the dawn of the horseless carriage. Each cylinder has two "pushrods." One is a long arm that mechanically opens and closes a valve that lets gasoline and air into a cylinder, where an explosion propels an engine's piston. The other "pushrod" arm operates a valve that vents exhaust.

Overhead-cam engines -- like those found on most Japanese cars, GM luxury cars,and increasing numbers of Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Corp. cars -- have been around nearly as long. But they didn't become popular in this country until the energy shocks of the 1970s pushed consumers to demand smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

Today's overhead-cam engines usually have three or four valves per cylinder so the engine gets more bang out of the fuel it uses. And overhead-cam engines generally run more smoothly and produce fewer noxious emissions.

Their hum is the reason many critics compared early Japanese cars to sewing machines.

Overhead-cam engines are considered more technically advanced because they require as many as 35 percent more parts than a pushrod engine. They can also produce more power with less effort than a typical pushrod engine.

Their efficiency handed Japanese automakers a critical advantage in the 1970s. As sales of Japanese cars ballooned through the 1980s, engineers at Detroit's Big Three automakers scrambled to rethink the heavier pushrod engines.

"Overhead-cam technology became a big selling point for the Japanese," said John Rettie, an analyst at J.D. Power and Associates, the automotive marketing consulting firm in Agoura Hills, Calif.

Ford decided to match the Japanese technology-for-technology -- a decision that's unfolding across recently released models such as the Ford Contour and Taurus sedans. Chrysler, too, opted to make multivalve, overhead-cam engines available on new cars such as the Chrysler Cirrus and Dodge Intrepid.

The decisions meant commitments to spend billions of dollars. Design and development of a new overhead-cam engine costs an estimated $250 million.

But putting out that kind of money was a big decision for the world's largest automaker. GM watched its market share plunge to 35.3 percent in 1989 from 46.4 percent in 1980. The sales setbacks were bleeding GM dry with a loss of $4.2 billion in 1990, $5.8 billion in 1991 and $4.5 billion in 1992 from its core North American auto operations. By then, GM was losing an estimated $1,800 on every car it built, analysts estimated.

"If we had the money to develop all-new engines, maybe we would have spent it," a former GM engine engineer said. "It doesn't matter because we didn't have the money."

GM engineers and executives convinced themselves that many consumers wouldn't understand the difference between an overhead-cam and pushrod engine -- if the pushrod engines could be refined.

"We were being careful where and how we spent our money," said Don Miles, GM's chief engineer on V-6 engines. "We didn't know if we could get the return on investment going with all overhead-cam engines."

In meetings, GM engineers noted that multivalve, overhead-cam engines can be more difficult to squeeze into the front end of a car -- a factor that became a concern in the push to give passengers more interior room.

Multivalve engines, with their extra parts, could be heavier. And, GM officials concluded, pushrod engines could be tuned to become just as fuel-efficient as engines considered more advanced.

"I don't care if every other manufacturer on the face of the Earth raises their price and offers multivalve engines," Stephens said. "If the customer doesn't need it, then I believe we did them a disservice."

GM tested consumer interest in overhead-cam engines with the Quad 4 engine. But its rough performance and noise didn't swap many buyers.

Still, there was disagreement inside GM over sticking with the old engines -- some dated back 40 years.

David A. Hansen, manager in charge of truck brands at Chevrolet, argued against pushrod engines when he worked with Stephens at GM's powertrain operations.

"Stephens kept asking why we wanted overhead-cam engines," Hansen recalled. "We said it was the only way we knew to get the power and torque we'd need to compete with what's coming down the road."

Stephens insisted he could demonstrate that GM could get the same power and torque out of a pushrod engine with lower cost and higher quality and reliability.

"We said if you can prove to us you could do that, the decision's easy," Hansen said. "But right now, we have no data to show we should believe you."

Stephens proved it.

Instead of "playing catch-up" by switching to multivalve engines for all of its cars, GM's powertrain engineers raced to refine the pushrod engines. They made parts that drove accessories such as air conditioning and power steering quieter. They added sequential fuel injection, which boosted gas mileage. Airflow through the engines was improved so fuel burned more efficiently to improve mileage and emissions. Internal friction was reduced to make the engines run smoother and quieter.

Today, GM's decision is not in question. "They came out smelling like a rose," said Jim Harbour, an auto production expert in Troy. "It may have been forced on them by a lack of cash, but they've solved their engine problems piece by piece. They've done an equally good job on the V-6s and V-8s. I figure it saved them about $400 to $800 per vehicle."

In fact, some engineers, both inside and outside of GM, said the company's pushrod engines are so refined that it is nearing the point where it is impossible to tell the performance differences between GM's pushrods and competitors' overhead-cam engines.

"It's a question of do you want to live in a Cape Cod or a colonial?" a Chrysler engineer said. "Today it's that kind of a choice and it shows how far GM developed those engines. They really perfumed the pig."

GM didn't totally overlook overhead-cam technology. Besides the Quad 4 engine, which met limited success, GM developed the acclaimed Northstar 32-valve V-8 engine in Cadillacs and slightly smaller, multivalve V-8 now in the Oldsmobile Aurora.

"We think customers for those cars want that technology," Stephens said.

Still, pushrod engines still make up 57 percent of the V-6 engines that GM offers. Vehicles that rely on the old engines include most of GM's crucial Chevrolet Lumina family sedans and all its slope-nosed minivans.

But the days of the pushrod engine appear limited -- even at GM. Miles said pushrod engines will be around well into the next century -- particularly in trucks. But other Big Three engineers and industry experts said pushrod refinements might have reached their limit and GM will spend big sums on new overhead-cam engines.

"Tougher fuel economy and emissions standards will force GM to build new engines anyway," said Chris Cedergren, senior vice-president of AutoPacific Inc., a California auto consulting firm. "So they might as well go with the latest technology."

Copyright 1996, The Detroit News

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting. Thanks for shareing

------------------

There were a couple things in the article that are kind of bogus, like dohc engines being heavier. Most that I can think of are aluminum block and heads while GMs 3800s are all cast iron, I'd say the dohc engines are lighter. They are definitly bigger though. If a dohc V-8 can fit transverse in a fiero then why are they even commenting that they may not fit in a fwd platform? even the dohc V-6s...

GM did put out the N* but I hardly doubt someone driving a cadillac cares that its dohc. When I think of cadillac I think of old people driving. A sports car would more benefit from that engine. The caddy should have the 3800sc and the grand prix GTP should have the N*, in a rwd platform of course.

quote Originally posted by crzyone: There were a couple things in the article that are kind of bogus, like dohc engines being heavier. Most that I can think of are aluminum block and heads while GMs 3800s are all cast iron, I'd say the dohc engines are lighter. They are definitly bigger though. If a dohc V-8 can fit transverse in a fiero then why are they even commenting that they may not fit in a fwd platform? even the dohc V-6s...

"Multivalve engines, with their extra parts, could be heavier."

"Overhead-cam engines are considered more technically advanced because they require as many as 35 percent more parts than a pushrod engine."

This is my opinion: OHV aluminium engine must be lighter than (similar) DOHC aluminium engine. Yes, Series II is too heavy because is from cast iron. New GM family of V6 "global" engines (aluminium, DOHC) will be probably successor of legendary Buick´s V6 3800. GM have got new V6 3900 OHV for 2005 too! Performance both engines is very similar...

I am sorry for my english...

Luba

Also says pontiac grand am, which has the 3400, I think they mean the grand prix.

quote Originally posted by crzyone: GM did put out the N* but I hardly doubt someone driving a cadillac cares that its dohc. When I think of cadillac I think of old people driving.

I would go one step further, and say that 95% of the motoring public does not care if they're driving a DOHC or a pushrod engine, and they certainly don't know the difference between them.

Pushrod--Less moving parts, less to go wrong.

American automakers are not forced to get more power
from small engines, so they don't. The average consumer
is going to be pissed off when a timing belt breaks at
60-100K, and through ignorance will blame it all on the
company that produced it. If I was GM, I wouldn't try to
sell DOHC to the public either. Just be an American and put
a blower and a big roller cam in it

------------------
<Black 86.5 GT, Auto w/ 3.33, Sunroof>
<2.5" Flowmaster Exhaust, K&N Filter and no rain guard>
<Yokohama 215/60R15 Tires, CS130 140 Amp Alternator>
<Pioneer DEH-P77DH, Pioneer 4X10's in dash>

quote Copyright 1996, The Detroit News

hmmmmm. Looks to me like 8 years later theyre still at the top of the market.

I think chrysler needs to learn how to perfume their pig,judeing by their financial status right now.Even today GM is the biggest the amount of companys they own is crazy.

Thats a great article, thanks for sharing. I really like the fact that GM has stayed with the pushrod engine for so long. The 3800 is definately one of the best engines ever created, the reliability is amazing.

What grounds is the series II the best motor. As for technilogical and advancements would be the N*,aurora and 3.5 series motors with the technoligy they have and the efficiency of the heads would make it more ideal for the best motor produced.

Just because the 3800 has the supercharger, dont make it god. Take a regular 3.8 and its a turtle. Take a N* and design it for a supercharger than make mods for it and see where power and efficiency goes.

------------------
<IMG src="http://www.radiocontrolzone.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=1171118[/img]
[img]
http://www.radiocontrolzone.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=1171120">

[This message has been edited by 86 FIERO GT (edited 12-26-2003).]

quote Originally posted by DustoneGT: Pushrod--Less moving parts, less to go wrong.

Most of the valvetrain close to the oil pan. Good low/midrange torque. Excellent with an Auto trans.

God bless America

I'm going to have throw in my opinion and say the 3.0 Nissan engine is the best V6 ever created.
She's smooth, with power to boot, and a high revver.. And seems to always (or at least always did in
the late 90's) get engine of the year with every auto publisher..

quote Originally posted by JohnnyK: I'm going to have throw in my opinion and say the 3.0 Nissan engine is the best V6 ever created.

My brother has this engine in his '00 Maxima, Very fast car on the highway. And I agree that the engine is smooth. This is now Nissan's flagship engine (a full 3.5 litres now) and can be found in Altima's, Maxima's, Muranos and 350Z's

But, the Mitsubishi 3.0 SOHC V6 is the smoothest engine ever tested by Road & Track. I have this engine in my '97 Dodge Avenger ES and have to agree with the magazine. No harsh vibrations at full open throttle, super long intake runners for a broad torque range and a 7K rpm redline (in my 2.5l V6 version).

Having driven both my 86GT Fiero(pushrod V6) and my Avenger (SOHC V6) this afternoon, I still prefer the torque and instant pull of my Fiero

------------------
I live my life a quarter-pounder at a time. And for those 500 calories or more, I am free. There she is, 2 pounds of pure beef. My dad ate it in 9.0 seconds flat.

I will also vouch for the Mitsubishis V6. They was developed in Australia for the Mitsubishi Magnas to compete with Holden Commdores and Ford Falcons, and over time only improved. Mitsubishi Japan really didn't have a lot to do with them, well besides finance the project. I believe the engine is fitted to a numbner of models worldwide now outside of Japan who still don't use the engine themselves. The latest 3.5 litre version has awesome power and the Magna VRX sports model is a faster car than Holdens 3800SC equippd Commodore S. I would like to find a wrecked one to transplant the drivetrain into my Fiero but even the wrecked ones get snapped up by dealers as the engines are just so popular.

------------------

quote Originally posted by 86 FIERO GT: Take a N* and design it for a supercharger than make mods for it and see where power and efficiency goes.

And bye bye wallet. Better ask your boss for a raise. The nice thing about the 3800 is the fact that you can make mad power (me and many others have proved that), theyre readily available (would a supercharged N* caddy be in every salvage yard in america?) And best of all theyre cheap. I saw an L67 on ebay with tranny, wiring, computer and all, go for $650. You just have to know where to look. How much is a N* swap? Put an SC on it, might as well go buy a C5 vette.

bandit: Haven't driven the 3.5 version yet.. But I've owned a few variants of the 3.0 (different years)..
woo, do I love them..

Thanks Luba for all the information.

quote Originally posted by Jncomutt: Also says pontiac grand am, which has the 3400, I think they mean the grand prix.

newer Grand Am's have 3.4 motors. My mom has a 2001 with a 3.4. It has ram-air too (of course that's totally worthless). I remember when the Grand Prix's had the 3.4...wasn't that around the mid 90's?

edit :

Doh...see what you meant now. I thought you were saying that the Grand Am didn't have a 3.4 What can I say, it's late

[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 12-26-2003).]

but the more parts on a DOHC come from twice the valves and valve springs etc.. when you look at the design there is less parts between the cams and the valves..no bent push rods there. so it is a toss up, just different things can go wrong. (But true, twice the valves, twice the chance of valve failure)

btw good article, with the loss $$ GM was haveing I can see more reason to cut a few projects(Fiero) though I think it was a bad choice.

------------------
'84 Fiero Sport Quad 4 coming soon
'87 Blue GT
http://www.lasvegasfieroclub.com/

I dunno, I'm partial to OHC variants myself.

Used to have a TR7 with a SOHC 4 cylinder, changed the cam in 30 minutes, including shimming and adjusting valve lash.

Just changed the cam in my buddie's 350 pickup, took an entire saturday. OHC engines aren't that bad as far as working on them goes, they're just different. Its kind of the same way with working on a Fiero, not exceedingly hard, just different from most other cars.

Most OHC engines can run solid lifters since there aren't as many parts between the cam lobes and the valves to wear out and cause excessive valve lash. And my uncle's Dode Dakota with a pushrod V6 already has a lifter that went flat.

I don't want to start any trouble, just my $.02

quote Originally posted by fieroX: The nice thing about the 3800 is the fact that you can make mad power (me and many others have proved that), theyre readily available (would a supercharged N* caddy be in every salvage yard in america?) And best of all theyre cheap. I saw an L67 on ebay with tranny, wiring, computer and all, go for $650. You just have to know where to look. How much is a N* swap? Put an SC on it, might as well go buy a C5 vette.

fierox,
you are right! I loving modern hi-tech engines but i guess that L67 is best choice for our small cars. L67 is simple, cheap and strong. Many small firms making aftermarket parts for L67. Low compression ratio of L67 is great advantage for (high PSI) engine modifications. Disadvantage of L67 is weight (all cast iron body) and V6 90 degree conception (vibrations). Northstar is beautiful engine but his compression ratio is too high for supercharging (only 5-7 PSI without other mods)and aftermarket parts are very rare and expensive (for me surely!), but highly modified Northstar is probably best american engine for motorsport. Nice sound of Northstar is more better than "truck sound" of "Buick´s V6... (kill me, but I know it from my Toro...)

Luba

Compareing my SERIES I 3800 too my friends 1994 maxima V6 on reliability is no comparison the 3800 wins hands down.Thats why he's ditching it to buy a new G/P.

Well that article explains why GM hacked together the 3.4 TDC

------------------
Alan Frazier
'86 GT-'92 3.4 TDC
'84 2m4 daily driver
'88 Silver coupe, auto For Sale

Wow, whats next in line for GM engineers, A new V8 flathead with a supercharger?

Im not sayin install a S/C, but if GM had designed a motor for the new cars with one. Imagine the possibilities for it. Look at one point no one made mods for the 3800SC but im sure once all the companies saw they could sell parts and that poeple were modifying them. Im sure once the aftermarket poeple see that we want to modify them they will make parts. CHRFAB is only expensive because they are the only ones making and doing things on the motor, no compitition to lower prices.

For best motor the 1JZ-GTE and 2JZ-GTE have to take the cake for efficiancy and most power made and reliability. Come what other motor can make 900HP on stock internals?

quote Originally posted by 86 FIERO GT: What grounds is the series II the best motor.

On Engineering grounds, HP and torque per dollar.

On packaging grounds - a DOHC V8 may fit in a Fiero, but its a bad idea in FWD for safety and other reasons. The 3800 is shaped like a compact FWD engine compartment.

On grounds of reliability - nuff said.

quote Originally posted by ThaFieroMunk: The 3800 is definately one of the best engines ever created, the reliability is amazing.

"Following a hard charge with the supercharged Series II, one tester penned the opinion of us all: After driving the supercharged 3800 Series II, who really needs a V8?" (WARD´S AUTO WORLD, January 1996)

No comment.

Luba

If GM wants to impress me, they should put the supercharger on the 3.4 dohc instead of adding 10hp to the series III 3800.

The N* has all the potential to be their most powerful engine in the GM lineup. A corvette with a N* punched out to 300 cubes and some hot cams would be a seller in my book.

Is the only reason their not doing it because of all the old guys that buy corvettes want a traditional small block chevy? GM has the engine, its proven its self reliable, they should offer a N* in a sports car with a manual trani.

quote Originally posted by crzyone: If GM wants to impress me, they should put the supercharger on the 3.4 dohc instead of adding 10hp to the series III 3800. The N* has all the potential to be their most powerful engine in the GM lineup. A corvette with a N* punched out to 300 cubes and some hot cams would be a seller in my book. Is the only reason their not doing it because of all the old guys that buy corvettes want a traditional small block chevy? GM has the engine, its proven its self reliable, they should offer a N* in a sports car with a manual trani.

Ask and ye shall recieve http://cadillac-xlr.com/_wsn/page7.html

Well almost.

------------------
Alan Frazier
'86 GT-'92 3.4 TDC
'84 2m4 daily driver
'88 Silver coupe, auto For Sale

this article was from 96, back then the Grand Am's V6 was the series II 3100...quite a pooch in my book. i owned a 97 grand am GT with this motor and i was very disappointed.

i'm surprised that they didn't talk more of the quad 4, i think it just got a bad rap from the reliability issue but "rough performance"?? i think that is the best 4 banger that GM has ever put out short of the ecotec just because of that motor's potential. after owning two beretta GTZ's i'm a lifelong fan of that little pain in the a$$ they call a quad 4.

personally, i think they should stick with the pushrod. OHC engines are fine for daily drivers but i have had nothing but problems with them when driven hard. you can take a new corvette with an "old" pushrod V8 and spank most of the competitors' DOHC cars. stick with a good thing, that's what i think.

bout the SC 3800...waste of money. the 3800 by herself is quite strong, but adding how much money to the price tag for a supercharged version just to get that little of a gain...just plain dumb. i agree that GM should super/turbocharge the 3.4 and come out with that 6 speed Grand Am SC/T they've been talkin about...i'd buy one

quote Originally posted by fastblack: bout the SC 3800...waste of money. the 3800 by herself is quite strong, but adding how much money to the price tag for a supercharged version just to get that little of a gain...just plain dumb. i agree that GM should super/turbocharge the 3.4 and come out with that 6 speed Grand Am SC/T they've been talkin about...i'd buy one

V6 3800 Series II is still very good engine...

TYPE ccm HP/RPM NM/RPM
01 Pontiac Grand Prix GT 3791 NA OHV 200/5200 305/3600
01 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP 3791 SC OHV 240/5200 380/3600
01 Alfa Romeo V6 2492 NA DOHC 190/6300 222/5000
01 Audi S4 2671 TC DOHC 265/5800 400/1850
01 Audi RS4 2671 TC DOHC 381/6100 440/2500
01 Audi A8 2771 NA DOHC 193/6000 280/3200
01 Chrysler 300M 3518 NA OHC 252/6400 340/4000
01 Citroën Xantia Activa 2946 NA DOHC 190/5500 267/4000
01 Ford Mustang 3797 NA OHC 190/5250 298/2750
01 Honda Legend 3474 NA OHC 208/5200 303/2800
01 Honda NSX 3179 NA DOHC 280/7300 298/5300
01 Jaguar S-Type 2967 NA DOHC 238/6800 293/4500
01 M-B E320 3199 NA OHC 224/5600 315/3000
01 Mercury Cougar 2537 NA DOHC 170/6250 224/4250
01 Mitsubishi GTO 2972 TC DOHC 280/6000 427/2500
01 Nissan Maxima 2988 NA DOHC 200/6400 271/3600
01 Opel Omega 2962 NA DOHC 211/6000 270/3400
01 Peugeot 406 Coupe 2946 NA DOHC 207/6000 285/3750

(V6 only, no inline or boxer)

Luba

88 coupe
88 GT

Superchargers (roots or turbo) are, in my opinion, a 'back door' approach. They complicate a situation with more stressful conditions, additional parts, and higher maintenance to make up for (here's the Old American Fogey response "Lack of Cubic Inches".

The GM 3800 OHV engine is the best CURRENT American Engine because:

1. Ease of use - millions of people who don't know and don't care use it without understanding it.

2. Durability. With just simple maintenance, (oil changes) we have millions of cars running with 300,000 miles plus. Documented.

3. With the 'basic' design of the engine, the interface and complexity of the transmission is able to be explored -- resulting in higher power and economy levels. The combination package of "powerplant module" was able to keep GM in competition.

I know a lot of you folks are enamoured with power. And I know a lot of you like the bragging rights and all of "SUPERCHARGED!". That's fine -- and you should be.

I won't have a supercharged/turbocharged engine -- I don't think it is neccesary or "worth it". But I do like the 3800. Lots of potential, for the "hot rodder" and lots of durability for us old fogeys!!

(Heck, back in the 70's Smokey Yunick took one (the 231 actually -- the precursor) and with only headers, an Edlebrock intake manifold and a 390 CFM Holley carb (stock cam) got 290 HP (Flywheel Gross)out of one WITHOUT computer controls!)

But, as I say, some are going to hold other opinions.

quote Originally posted by fieroX: And bye bye wallet. Better ask your boss for a raise. The nice thing about the 3800 is the fact that you can make mad power (me and many others have proved that), theyre readily available (would a supercharged N* caddy be in every salvage yard in america?) And best of all theyre cheap. I saw an L67 on ebay with tranny, wiring, computer and all, go for $650. You just have to know where to look. How much is a N* swap? Put an SC on it, might as well go buy a C5 vette.

FieroX:

I respect you for your knowledge and what you have accomplished with your car , but there's a few things I think need to be brought to light.

First and formost , the northstar has been in production longer than the series 2 3800. They are quite plentiful in salvage yards and parts are getting cheaper for them. I picked upa used set of heads for $75 from ebay and a complete intake manifold with injectors , TB , MAF and harness for $103. My engine complete with under 50,000 miles with harness and all accessoies was about $1100 US.

The power potential for the northstar I would say is on par with the 3.8SC , but of course it comes at a little more money. Chrfab's cams , springs and sprockets will set you back around $750 , but you get an additional 75hp with some head work. After having seen the stock heads and exhaust manifolds I can tell you there is great room for improvement there.

400hp Natually aspirated out of the northstar isn't that difficult to do.

The motor is good for around 6 Psi of boost , not much compared to what a 3.8SC can run , but think of the effiency of the 4 cam motor ..

Just my 2 cents

check my build out

www.geocities.com/morley_m/northstar.htm

JM

"They really parfumed the pig", said Chrysler engineer about V6 3800 Series II"

people who live in glass houses ...

If my dedicated chrysler/dodge father could get more than 5 yrs out of
his C/D v6 mini vans he would'nt be leasing for 3 yrs and phoneing me
once a month with "what does it mean when the engine goes (fill in the blank)

he drives at 110kph on the hwyway
oil changes every 5000 km
and averages 15,000 year...
to and from the cottage and florida

and hauls nothing but 2 bicycles 2 suitcases 2 bags of golf clubs

he loves my 99 Buick LS by the way (so do I !)

------------------
84 Fiero Turbo Vortec 4300 Phantom GT
L35 block, Syclone Intake and ECM with Moates adapter
50lb injectors, 3 bar map sens, T04B H3 Turbo www.cardomain.com/id/vortecfiero
Murphy's Constant Matter will be damaged in direct proportion to its value
Murphy's Law of Thermodynamics Things get worse under pressure.
Arthur C. Clarke "Any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

...just a little note: GM did make a OHC engine way back in 1972, it was a 6 cyl and installed into the Firebird.

I would have to say with my experiance with the 3800 being my Grandfather owns 3 Buicks that have them. A 87 Park avenue that we got with 75K on it and now has 180K and all we have had to do in that time is change the oil every 3000 miles, it is by far one of the best cars I have drivin. No mechanical problems and it still runs as strong as it did when it was new. No oil leaks, its a very clean engine and gets realy good milage. I would be willing to bet that we could with all probability get a million miles out of this car and still be driving it. We have another buick with the same engine and milage and it is a good car. and we added a 96 Park Avenue to that line up with the same engine.
I am really considering on putting this engine in my 88 Fiero cause its reliability, Maintence free and seems to be by far the best engine that GM has ever made. I however think I will be going with the 3800SC for the extra power.

------------------
Don Pottorff
Red 88 Fiero 2M4
Silver 86 Fiero 2M4