GM's 3.5L vs. 3.9L - Page 2 - GM Forum - Buick, Cadillac, Chev, Olds, GMC & Pontiac chat


Lounge For casual talk about things unrelated to General Motors. In other words, off-topic stuff. And anything else that does not fit Section Description.

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-06-2006, 02:37 PM   #11
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Delaware & Long Island NY
Posts: 3,239
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Shadow is on a distinguished road
Default

Well is the 3.5 a ohc engine? That would be the reason the hp numbers are so close to the ohv 3.9 engine. Love to rev get the 3.5 love to cruise get the 3.9
Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 04:02 PM   #12
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: August 07 COTM....NEBF '06, CEBF '06 OHMM '06 ONBF '07 CEBF '07
Posts: 4,064
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
PRD2BDF is on a distinguished road
Default

I believe the 3.9 has a more linear hp and tq powerband. It keeps rising and not drop off. I've seen the hp/tq dynos for the 3.9 and it'* very linear (keeps going up to its rev limit) However that was the old 242 hp 3.9....

Some people like to have the biggest engine possible...
PRD2BDF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 04:06 PM   #13
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: August 07 COTM....NEBF '06, CEBF '06 OHMM '06 ONBF '07 CEBF '07
Posts: 4,064
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
PRD2BDF is on a distinguished road
Default

I test drove a 2006 (GM Certified Used) Impala LT with the 3.9. That motor is AMAZING. It pulls so smoothly and hard, there'* no "loss of power" up high and it'* crazy smooth at idle. let me tell you... I would buy a Impala with the 3.9 in a heartbeat. Words cannot describe my shock. I would think it COULD keep up with a SSEi (stock for stock of course) It probably won't beat it but could keep up.
PRD2BDF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 04:40 PM   #14
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Delaware & Long Island NY
Posts: 3,239
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Shadow is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fuelforthesoul1999
I test drove a 2006 (GM Certified Used) Impala LT with the 3.9. That motor is AMAZING. It pulls so smoothly and hard, there'* no "loss of power" up high and it'* crazy smooth at idle. let me tell you... I would buy a Impala with the 3.9 in a heartbeat. Words cannot describe my shock. I would think it COULD keep up with a SSEi (stock for stock of course) It probably won't beat it but could keep up.
Yep very impressive and without the use of a supercharger. I wonder if a supercharged version is in the works?
Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 05:04 PM   #15
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Drayton Valley, Alberta,Canada.
Posts: 385
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
n/a white bonne is on a distinguished road
Default

Thats what I was going to say the hp rating is only a max you arent saying wheer and for how long is that # coming from. The 3.9 is a very impressive motor the power I felt when I test drove was good to me, and the 3.5 like the 3100 and 3400 has to rev to get anything.
n/a white bonne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 06:47 PM   #16
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In your garage, swipin' da lug nutz
Posts: 3,067
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
sandrock is on a distinguished road
Default

I put a completely new catback on my Maxx LTZ (3.5 liter), and it woke up...majorly. Mike, Don, and myself looked under my car one time, and we all just laughed at how Chevy can get away with using a 4 cylinder exhaust under there. I put 2.25 from the rear manifolds on back, ditched the primary muffler, and went with a FM 80-series out back...the whole demeanor of the engine changed afterwards.

Also, the 3.5 performs much better in a Malibu than it does a Monte Carlo/Impala due to weight and gear tuning (plus the 3.5 uses a four-banger tranny as opposed to the '65...the 3.9 uses the '65 and I agree that it feels absolutely incredible in the Maxx SS)
sandrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 08:23 PM   #17
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
banned3800 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandrock
I put a completely new catback on my Maxx LTZ (3.5 liter), and it woke up...majorly. Mike, Don, and myself looked under my car one time, and we all just laughed at how Chevy can get away with using a 4 cylinder exhaust under there. I put 2.25 from the rear manifolds on back, ditched the primary muffler, and went with a FM 80-series out back...the whole demeanor of the engine changed afterwards.

Also, the 3.5 performs much better in a Malibu than it does a Monte Carlo/Impala due to weight and gear tuning (plus the 3.5 uses a four-banger tranny as opposed to the '65...the 3.9 uses the '65 and I agree that it feels absolutely incredible in the Maxx SS)
After having the oppurtunity to drive Brads car not much after he bought it... I was more than impressed with the 3500 V6.. It had decent low end torque, a good Midrange and was more than happy to scream to the mark with my foot planted on the floor.. And for those of you that think The Malibu is a Light weight car... You better think again... They weigh as much as a Bonneville

The sond of the Flowmaster on the car is amazing... And at idle you can pick out that Exahust sound that is distinctly Chevrolet... I think the first thing we chatted about when we were checking out the exahust is how bottled up it was.. Brad put an end to that the next day if memory serves...

The Car Looks good, sounds good... And drives really good... I find myself liking it more and more...

Lash, I don't believe those Milage numbers are correct... Brads 3500 actually does pretty good... And the 3900 is the same, it to does as well..

The ratings shown look like they are for the Minivan Platform with AWD... I believe the rating is more along the lines of 17 city 26 hwy for the vans...

Interesting to see how the ratings went down on the 3900 and the ratings for the 3500 went up.. Something doesn't seem quite right there... And with the newer technology and the Fact that the 3500 and 3900 are SFI engine should yield good fuel economy from both, even if you had the 3.05 or 3.29 gears..

Stock for stock the 3500 would give a 3800 L36 a run for its money... A 3900 would walk me( maybe not ultra fast, but it would still get away faster than I'd like....LOL )

So I am confused by the new numbers...

* Edit *... The GTP G6 must have some serious performance gears to get milage that bad..

__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
banned3800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 08:26 PM   #18
Sol
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,909
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sol is on a distinguished road
Default

Gotta remember too, these motors are strangled by the PCM. They are down-tuned for the most part with TM and such. I'm sure you can squeeze a lot out of the 3.9 with a good tune.
Sol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 08:43 PM   #19
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In your garage, swipin' da lug nutz
Posts: 3,067
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
sandrock is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Gotta remember too, these motors are strangled by the PCM. They are down-tuned for the most part with TM and such. I'm sure you can squeeze a lot out of the 3.9 with a good tune.
Agreed. Even with Traction Control off, torque management is very apparant in Epsilon bodies. Couple that with DBW and it makes a pretty finiky system
sandrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2006, 11:58 AM   #20
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 7,030
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
lash is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jr's3800
Lash, I don't believe those Milage numbers are correct... Brads 3500 actually does pretty good... And the 3900 is the same, it to does as well..

The ratings shown look like they are for the Minivan Platform with AWD... I believe the rating is more along the lines of 17 city 26 hwy for the vans...

Interesting to see how the ratings went down on the 3900 and the ratings for the 3500 went up.. Something doesn't seem quite right there... And with the newer technology and the Fact that the 3500 and 3900 are SFI engine should yield good fuel economy from both, even if you had the 3.05 or 3.29 gears..

Stock for stock the 3500 would give a 3800 L36 a run for its money... A 3900 would walk me( maybe not ultra fast, but it would still get away faster than I'd like....LOL )

So I am confused by the new numbers...

* Edit *... The GTP G6 must have some serious performance gears to get milage that bad..
that was one of the items that made me post the question to start with, especially since ads for the G6, on the same site, indicate milage numbers around 25/30, which sounds more like it, IMO.

While the numbers for the 3.5 vs. the 3.9 all look pale as written, I knew there had to be more to the picture, since I'd heard a number of good things about the 3.9 before.
lash is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:00 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.