A version of the 3800 never made, why not?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

07-28-2007, 07:16 PM

#21

banned3800

Guest

Posts: n/a

Most of the OHV 3500 are attached to a 3.05 Ratio trans and are rated at 30-32 Hwy..

Its just a run of the mill GM engine... I think GM could have dne better in terms of engine Trans combo in a lot of cars..

I do think GM should have invested more time in a DOHC 3.8-3.9 and set it up for some low end grunt... I could see a 3.8-3.9 putting down 250-300 Hp pretty easily...

In my eyes GM did good with the Twin Cam 3.5( short star ) and should have developed the technology further and punched it out a hair for the large cars... But sadly GM killed it off..

Do I like my 3800'*.... Yeah i like all of them... I feel that when they went to the series 3 they could have squeezed it for more...

Now I will agree that the GM 60* OHV aren't making the power they could be... But at the same time I see the Altima 3.5 and Maxima 3.5 as more upscale cars as compared to a Malibu or a G6...

And at one Point GM was going to use the 3.5 Twin Cam in all of the base Bonnevilles... This was later nixed as people had complained about not having enough low end grunt and the MPG'* weren't what was expected... I believe some small changes in terms of cam profile and or breatheability along with exhaust could have helped.. But we'll never know...

We'll have to see what GM holds in store for the future weather it be OHV or DOHC...

But yeah.... Those VQ motors are quick

__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

Reply Like

07-28-2007, 07:27 PM

#22

95naSTA

Senior Member

True Car Nut

Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: Philly

Posts: 4,508

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by toastedoats

i understand the "unfair comaparison" so lets compare the 3.5 in the altima that makes 275hp, 260tq........ vs the malibu OHV 3.5l, that is 217hp 217tq, or the 3.9 discussed above

The Malibu is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7k less than the Altima.
So agian, cost comes into play.

I'm not saying GM is just as good as Nissan in the hp/l department. All I'm saying is that if you lay everything out such as price, fuel economy, intent for the car, performance, etc., GM really isn't that bad at all.

Reply Like

07-28-2007, 07:39 PM

#23

Shadow

Senior Member

True Car Nut

Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: Delaware & Long Island NY

Posts: 3,239

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

The new 3.6 306hp v6 GM is putting in the STS is a move in the right direction.

Reply Like

07-28-2007, 07:58 PM

#24

bigerik

Senior Member

Posts like a Turbo

Join Date: Jul 2006

Location: Toronto

Posts: 442

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by toastedoats

this is not a discussion about VEHICLES, it is about engines and technology, OHV vs OHC

i also gave you the option to compare the 3.9 impala if you chose to do so instead of the malibu....

I am using examples of displacement/Cam placement/hp/tq to compare, ignoring WHAT VEHICLE THEY CAME IN.....

Its ALWAYS a discussion about vehicles. No way you can ignore the vehicle they came in. Thats the whole POINT of the exercise. Do you really think that Nissan did not take into account the pricing of the vehicle they were putting it in? Nissans 3.5 is their high end, performance engine. Of course they spent a lot of money on it. GM'* 3.5, and even the 3.9 are more middle of the road sedan engines. Built for a different purpose and price point. For a performance GM, I would look at the Grand Prix GXP.

Oh, and when GM wanted a performance pushrod V6, they threw a supercharger on it.

If all we are looking at is engines, GM has a 300 hp 3.6 V6 available, so they certainly can match anyone they choose to.

Or, if vehicles and price points don't matter, then it could be argued that Nissan'* engineers are a bunch of hackers. Porsche can get 325 hp out of their 3.6....

Reply Like

07-28-2007, 08:14 PM

#25

bigerik

Senior Member

Posts like a Turbo

Join Date: Jul 2006

Location: Toronto

Posts: 442

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by jr's3800

In my eyes GM did good with the Twin Cam 3.5( short star ) and should have developed the technology further and punched it out a hair for the large cars... But sadly GM killed it off..

That was indeed a shame. Would have been interesting to see what it would have become. The death of Olds probably did not help. Nor did the bad publicity that greeted it in the Intrigue at first help.

GM has certainly made some bonehead moves in the past...

Reply Like

07-28-2007, 08:21 PM

#26

Shadow

Senior Member

True Car Nut

Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: Delaware & Long Island NY

Posts: 3,239

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

[quote="bigerik"]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toastedoats

Or, if vehicles and price points don't matter, then it could be argued that Nissan'* engineers are a bunch of hackers.

Nissan was just an example. Most of the import V6 and 4 cylinders blow away thier american competition. One thing we do right is V8s but the imports will soon take that way or have they already? I cant keep track anymore.

Reply Like

07-28-2007, 08:32 PM

#27

bigerik

Senior Member

Posts like a Turbo

Join Date: Jul 2006

Location: Toronto

Posts: 442

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

[quote="Shadow"]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigerik

Quote:

Originally Posted by toastedoats

Or, if vehicles and price points don't matter, then it could be argued that Nissan'* engineers are a bunch of hackers.

Both Ford and GM have new V6'* that rival anything from an import. It has been a matter of choices. The US automakers have made larger displacement, torquier engines cause thats what the people want. And yes, the 4 cylinders did generally suck. They CAN produce anything they want however.

Reply Like

07-29-2007, 01:02 AM

#28

theJMFC

Senior Member

Posts like a Camaro

Join Date: Jan 2003

Location: Jenison, MI (Near Grand Rapids)

Posts: 1,070

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

You can argue all day that a DOHC motor of the same displacement will make more power than an OHC engine. You'd be right, mostly.

Although fuel economy does sometimes suffer...

But those huge heads, multiple cams, etc., take up space and add weight and cost. It'* a trade off. One that I would personally rather not make. I'll take mine simple, reliable, and cheap, thankyouverymuch.

The shortstar was kinda neat, I guess... but I think it'* safe to say that the average 3800 will probably last longer than the average shortstar.

But the new Caddy V6 is a good example of what GM can do. It just doesn't make sense to put such an engine in a Malibu, when the OHV technology is serving it just fine, for less cost.

Reply Like

07-29-2007, 01:40 AM

#29

LittleHoov

Senior Member

True Car Nut

Join Date: Jun 2003

Location: Climax Springs, Missouri

Posts: 2,493

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

I do miss the "Power NOW" feeling of the old 3.8 I had but the 3.5 certainly does deliver once you get it revving.

It does really seem gutless at low RPMs if you floor it from a standstill your thought process goes a little something like this "Wow Im really not impr-DAMN" I mean I know its not the fastest car in the world, but itll scoot right on down the road.

My gas mileage is excellent as well, ive gotten 28-29 multiple times and so far Ive also seen 36 and 33. Thats not too shabby for a car of this size.

The 3.5 had all the potential in the world, GM just chose not to take advantage of it. They shouldve put it in some more popular cars and spread it out a little more across the GM line. I would also agree that the Intrigue was not very well received, and I understand why.

A 3.5 with an M62 mounted on it like they did on one of the OSV Intrigues would be a simply amazing car to drive as far as im concerned. I wish I could find out how easily they put that on there, but something tells me it would be rather challenging.