https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-cars/a23105810/why-gms-front-drive-luxury-cars-were-great-and-why-they-failed-anyway/?src=socialflowFBRAT&fbclid=IwAR34F-DeG4phOkr3zFuJT0UhmcbwTqGPPDCIFaxqCEwGnrtrJQ1iU5h0cqM

"On the move, the Touring Sedan exhibits a torquey authority from the low-tech 3800 Series V6, combined with silent, seamless automatic shifts. It's more than fast enough to keep up with modern traffic, and it can return economy-car mileage numbers when driven carefully. There has been a lot of effort expended in the past ten years to make the current crop of turbo-four-bangers work as well in daily driving as this 31-year-old powertrain does, and most of that effort has been unfulfilling."

Discuss.

3800 had legendary grunt and reliability. I was impressed with them when I was a kid and I still now have a fondness for them; I enjoyed reading this article. Several of my parents' cars had variations of them as I grew up. My Mother's '94 Oldsmobile Silhouette would literally lay 10 feet of rubber, lmao. I still remember how fast that damn thing was, it seriously moved.

What does anyone else think? This article basically infers that a 31 year old pushrod V6 with a 4spd auto does the job better than all the bullshyt stuff we have in the name of technology now. 3800 is a very satisfying motor. I haven't sampled every downsized turbo motor with 30 gears, but many I have, can't say I disagree with the statement.

 

The GM 3800 was a gem. I have a customer who is obsessed with Olds and refuses to give up his 80's model due to the engine. Mind you the rest of the car is literally falling apart, but the engine is solid.
I'm personally more of a fan of V6's and not so much of all the new turbo fours. I've driven most of them and they are okay performers, but so-so with sound and smoothness. It would be interesting to see what could have happened if manufacturers spent the last ten years refining V6's instead of working on fours. We'd likely have more cake to eat.
For what it's worth, my Lexus 2.5 V6 achieves 30 mpg's on the highway every day and still feels like it's "off" when at a stop light. Certainly one of the main reasons I'm not selling the car.

 

I just remember the 3800 wasn't the greatest sounding engine, but it had almost V8 (for the time V8) torque directly off idle and it just pulled and it was smooth enough. Low redline but who cares. Nail the gas and a 3800 responds instantly. The S/C ones were absolute monsters, I heard those made well more than the advertised 240hp/280ftlbs. Just still, imagine the giant white 1994 Oldsmobile Dustbuster Van...hauling *** all over the place...I swear to god one day as a child in 7th grade my mom was pulled over for speeding bc she was in a hurry to work and the cop even said, I'll never forget this.. "Ma'am I had trouble catching you... you were doing 70...what kind of engine do you have in this thing?" LMAO. Immediately I was blamed for the ticket "for not seeing the cop" btw, lmao.

 

The article is long and not very coherent, but I do agree that NA 6 cylinders trump modern turbo 4s in every aspect. That being said, the GM 3800 is not the greatest example - its a low tech engine thats very underpowered compared to competing Japanese and German engines of that era, and it starts to leak like a pig by the time it reach 60k miles.

 

 

The GM 3.8 V6 , of course, had the benefit of a LONG history of refinements and improvements. It was introduced, in the early 1960s, as a powerplant for the compact Buick Special and Skylark...back then, the GM divisions used different engines, and, sometimes, different transmissions. The obvious intention was to improve packaging space under the hood, by having the cylinders in a V-format instead of the common in-line sixes of the period. The engineers, however, to save money, chose a 90-degree angle for the V6 (essentially a cut-down version of the 90-degree 5.0L Buick V8) instead of the common 60-degree angle of today. That 90-degree angle made it difficult to get smooth operation from a V6, and the 3.8L developed a reputation for a somewhat rough idle and less-than-optimal refinement at cruise. Engineers, however, with the help of experience and computer-technology, made many refinements and improvements to the engine over the years, and it eventually became one of GM's most respected powerplants. In its heyday, the boosted version also bucked the turbo-trend by having a mechanical supercharger instead.

 

Wasn't there even supercharged versions that were well regarded? It's truly difficult to make a case that complexity is better than simplicity. Not just with vehicles, but with everything around us. It is in no way strange today for strange things to happen due to software etc.

Even though it can't fit in many applications, my all time favorite will always be the inline 6, it's all about physics. My grandfather had a V6 Skylark (1964?) which he said was a bad motor, that he should have gotten an inline 6. Almost positive I looked it up, that generation had a choice of both, as well as 3 or 4 V8's. I actually had a 250 I-6 Pontiac LeMans Sport when it was 23 y.o., and that thing was a smooth as silk in the 90's.

 

pushrods ftw

 

Pushrods or not, but I'd take almost any modern NA 6 cyl over a turbo 4... besides maybe the 2.5 V6 in the IS250 over current turbo 4. And even then its a big maybe.

 

Really isn't anything wrong with pushrods. I'm beginning to wonder about the effects of DI and variable timing etc. Yes on a BMW there is a walnut blast, Audi, etc. But I came across something on YouTube stating (it could be wrong) that GM has no official cleaning procedure. With BMW as more shops did it, the price plummeted like a NYC taxi medallion, I think as low as $300 today, was well over $1k in 2008.

I had a Volvo that was pushrod, it went to SOHC in 1976, and this car literally could not be killed, literally. I ended up pulling a Bill Murray--"We're not parking it, we're abandoning it." I had ***** when I was 17, just left it in the backyard of a buddy's apartment and even told the landlord I was changing the tires (um the cinder blocks should have meant something, don't tell me 35 y.o. didn't recognize that?)

 

The nostalgia glasses were in full force when they wrote that article the engine makes 43hp/L and isn't exactly fuel efficient either.

 

I had the 3800 in both a 1984 Pontiac Bonneville and a 1989 Olds 98. I had each vehicle 5-6 yrs/approx 100k mi, with no issues in maintenance/reliability or performance.

 

this old couple (obviously) traded in their 2nd gen buick park avenue for a then new 2017 camry they bought from me. i made sure to drive the buick around a bit before parking it and taking the plates off, ya know for research purposes... what a slow, wallowy, pile of crap that was... i couldn't wait to get back behind my lovely toyota V8!

if however you have no desire at all to drive in an even somewhat sporty manner, the buick did have a nice squishy 20th century ride to it and is certainly comfortable. terrible car though and there was nothing "satisfying" about the engine. i even wanted to like it since i've always heard good things about the 3800 series V6, but damn what a slow barge it it.

 

The way most people drive, there is probably little difference between pushrods and an OHC. All that the elimination of pushrods does is allow higher potential engine top-end RPM without the possibility of valve "float". Most people never see anywhere near that RPM, even with an OHC power plant.

 

Comfort is the name of the game for some drivers. Not everyone looks at a car as an extension of their ego or testosterone level.

Having said that, though, both the Buick Park Avenue Ultra and Olds 88 LSS, with the supercharged 3.8, could get out of their own way if desired.