2.8L V6 in place of 3800 V6

[ToniCipriani]

Would that work? Would it be too expensive? Just a thought in case GM wants to phase out the 3800 completely.

[zoomtm]

kidding right?

[caddycruiser]

Yeah, seriously, you're kidding, right? Putting the 3.6L in as the base/standard engine has been discussed numerous times and pretty much agreed upon as what would be the ideal solution. BUT, even though its raw numbers are pretty good, the 2.8L would be more suited to base duty in the Lacrosse than in the bigger, heavier Lucerne. Should be: Lacrosse -2.8L & 6-spd standard -3.6L & 6-spd available/standard in top trim Lucerne -3.6L & 6-spd standard -4.6L & 6-spd available/standard in top trim ACTUALLY, had such a layout been the way the two Buick sedans actually were, they'd probably be getting a lot more respect...because, regardless of any individual merits, the 3.8L & 4-spd and even the 4-spd still on the Northstar just are not anything to write home about ^_^

[jd2b]

What GM needs to do is certify and import the Aussie version of the 3.6L that is 3.8L.

[ToniCipriani]

The Holden 3.6L is the same as 3.6L here. They just used the name Alloytec. In fact the 3800 there was branded an Ecotec.

[Northstar]

The 2.8L really has no place in the US market until it gets direct injection. I think the 3.6L should be standard in both the Lucerne and LaCrosse with 240hp, and then have an optional DI version in both making about 280hp. Replace the Northstar with the 4.7L UV8 when it comes out in the Lucerne.

[razoredge]

I believe the 3.6 will be full replacement when ever that time comes. they should be tooling up a plant in the US to meet production demands. The 2.8 is way to small for this size and type of car. It would be a great little powerplant in midsize cars or small performance cars. Such a shame its the same size as 3.6, with that its kind of a pointless engine, manufacturing costs can not be much different between the two and it occupies the same size area.

[pow]

I believe Oldsmoboi said that the HF2.8 felt anemic and sounded noisy in the lighter CTS. A DOHC configuration (or a "high function" designation) doesn't always guarantee smoothness and refinement.

[loki]

to bad buick didn't just get the shortstar (3.5) from Olds a few years ago ..at least as an option...but it is underpowered compared to 3.6 now. edit: i did think of making this a topic a few days ago. Edited December 17, 2005 by loki

[titan]

The 2.8L really has no place in the US market until it gets direct injection.

I think the 3.6L should be standard in both the Lucerne and LaCrosse with 240hp, and then have an optional DI version in both making about 280hp. Replace the Northstar with the 4.7L UV8 when it comes out in the Lucerne.

[post="59910"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think that the 3.6L should be the only engine in the Lacrosse (for now), and the lower engine in the Lucerne, but it should be making more like 260 at the minimum. The 3.6L has the potential for much more power than what it produces now, I think; much closer to the 300HP mark found in Toyota's new 3.5L and Nissan's VQ. Caddy should have an output as close to the 300 mark as possible, allowing Buick to have a comfortable gulf between the brands, while still having what is the new, repsectable HP rating for an eninge of that type (260HP).

[razoredge]

I believe Oldsmoboi said that the HF2.8 felt anemic and sounded noisy in the lighter CTS. A DOHC configuration (or a "high function" designation) doesn't always guarantee smoothness and refinement.

[post="59920"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Anemic ? Its .8 litre or 22% smaller so I would imagine it felt 22% less powerful.

[ToniCipriani]

Problem is DI doesn't make too much of a difference. The 2.2L with DI is on the new Vectra. I converted from DIN to SAE, it's about 152HP. The current 2.2L is already 145HP. So I doubt the 2.8L getting DI will pose too much of a difference.

[zoomtm]

it is kinda ashame that the base park avenue from 1994 has more power than the base lucerne...

[jry]

i'm with caddycruiser. 3.6/4.6 in the lucerne. the 2.8 might have a life in the HHR. someone told me that the "shortstar" was highly overrated. any truth to that? or was it just too small for the aurora?

[Paolino]

Anemic ? Its .8 litre or 22% smaller so I would imagine it felt 22% less powerful.

[post="59981"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Okay, and think of that in a larger car than the CTS, by about eight inches. We're talking a power output with 36lb-ft less torque than the current 3800... and that's on the CTS, whereas on the LaCrosse, the torque may be lower.

[Mike The Canadian]

it is kinda ashame that the base park avenue from 1994 has more power than the base lucerne...

[post="60001"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

it's kind of a shame that your wrong :lol:

1994 pa's had the 170 hp/ 225 ft-lbs version :unsure:

[zoomtm]

we have the series 2... :S and its 200HP...maybe we got a diff engine...god knows what the Buick dealers does :lol:

[BuickEight]

we have the series 2... :S and its 200HP...maybe we got a diff engine...god knows what the Buick dealers does :lol:

[post="60099"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

1995 was the first year for the series2. It had 205HP and 230 ft-lbs torque.

[jd2b]

The Holden 3.6L is the same as 3.6L here. They just used the name Alloytec.

In fact the 3800 there was branded an Ecotec.

[post="59908"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I know that, and Holden was working on a 3.8L version of the engine. I am saying that is the motor that Buick should get. The 3.6 can be used in non-Buick brands. The 3.8L should be a special motor exclusive to them.

[Croc]

I know that, and Holden was working on a 3.8L version of the engine.  I am saying that is the motor that Buick should get.  The 3.6 can be used in non-Buick brands.  The 3.8L should be a special motor exclusive to them.

[post="60140"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The days of exclusive engines at GM should be gone. They just add expense! No need for multiple engines that are, at their core, the same. This is part of the reason GM is in so much trouble...needless differentiation, yet they skimp on the meaningful differentiation like interior and exterior styling.

[jd2b]

Just like there is little costs difference between the 3.5L and 2.5L I5 engines, there would be even less expense between a 3.6 and 3.8L version of the same engine. This is how GM should maximize their offerings without adding costs.

[Drew Dowdell]

I believe Oldsmoboi said that the HF2.8 felt anemic and sounded noisy in the lighter CTS. A DOHC configuration (or a "high function" designation) doesn't always guarantee smoothness and refinement.

[post="59920"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Only 5th and 6th gears felt anemic. All the lower gears felt nearly as peppy as the 3.6 auto. I don't know if the very base CTS loses some of it's sound deadening material, but everything about the car, including the engine, seemed louder then my loaded CTS 3.6.

[Paolino]

Only 5th and 6th gears felt anemic. All the lower gears felt nearly as peppy as the 3.6 auto. I don't know if the very base CTS loses some of it's sound deadening material, but everything about the car, including the engine, seemed louder then my loaded CTS 3.6.

[post="60345"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Oh, so then we don't have to worry about that because GM would just team it up with the 4-speed auto lol :lol:

[caddycruiser]

Oh, so then we don't have to worry about that because GM would just team it up with the 4-speed auto lol  :lol:

[post="60385"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I know...sad, but funny at the same time... :lol:

They'd cheap out, and you'd never have to worry about it revving much and actually getting the power down to the ground, because it only has 4 widely spaced slushbox gears to choose from... ^_^

[The O.C.]

I know...sad, but funny at the same time... :lol:

They'd cheap out, and you'd never have to worry about it revving much and actually getting the power down to the ground, because it only has 4 widely spaced slushbox gears to choose from... ^_^

[post="60402"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think a 2.8 and 3.6 HF combo would be GREAT for LaCrosse.....but 2.8 would be too weak for a base Lucerne.

Of course....like Paolino said....a 4-speed would just ruin it. They really need to get those new 5-6 speed autos out fast.

[razoredge]

Okay, and think of that in a larger car than the CTS, by about eight inches.  We're talking a power output with 36lb-ft less torque than the current 3800... and that's on the CTS, whereas on the LaCrosse, the torque may be lower.

[post="60024"][/post]

If I understand what you are saying correctly I agree and stated something similar, earlier in this topic. The 2.8 is too small for this size car. It should be used in smaller cars but then again it seems it has no benefits above the 3.6, if it weighs the same and has the same overall dimensions.

Does it achieve better mileage ?

Unrelated but to the topic : I do have a gigantic concern about haveing engines in our N American GMs that are not made in our country. Miight as well drive a Hyundia, whats the point of haveing N.American or what we have always called Domestics auto manufactures when its just a front to pedal products built overseas. Do they pay income tax's to support our infrastructure ?

Now the engine is going on its second year in production and we are crying in the US to get this "new" technology standard in the upscale cars........yet where is it? Austrailia, thats where it is. Not a problem with Austrailia but the N American market is where GM is dying, not haveing a DOHC V6 engine plant in the US that can produce the volumn that 38's were once sold at is a terrible display of foresite.

So here we sit, twidelin' our thumbs. Saab has a turbo 2.8, Caddy a twin turbo 4.3, Pontiac & Chevy a 5.3 V8, Pontiac the SC 3800, and Buick.....the former Domestic KING of the Turbo V6 and American V6 combined with some darn good V8's of interest...........nothin', nothin', notta !!!!!!!

We get a detuned expensive N* or a detuned naturally asperated 1996 Series II with a stupid electronic throttle butterfly. BFD !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im not tryin to flog the dead horse as Im always accused of but does anyone know or remember that in 1985 the Buick Wildcat show car had a belt drivin SOHC aluminum 3.8 that had the then new technology of ECM controled fuel delivery & ratio, spark advance, knock sensors, ect., ect. :blink: I think it produced 230 but was kinda low in torque. Actually fastautos say this for 85 Wildcat but Im not sure if its correct.
Engine
Type: V6
Displacement: 3785 cc
Horsepower: 360 bhp @ 7000 rpm
Torque: 398 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
Redline: ---- rpm
Performance
0-60 mph: 4.5 sec
0-100 mph: --.- sec
Quarter Mile: --.- sec @ --- mph
Skidpad: .--g
Top Speed: 180 mph
Curb Weight: 2910 lbs

The concept site at trishield.com says this

Wildcat, 1985 -- This spectacular red model incorporates four-wheel drive and a McLaren engine based on Buick's 3.8-liter V-6 block, mounted just behind the seats. The engine has 24 valves, dual overhead camshafts and field-programmable sequential-port fuel injection. Unlike other Buick dream cars, this one emphasized engine. The top of the powerplant is visible through an opening in the rear deck.
Type: 3.8L V-6
Displacement: 231 cu.in.
HP @ rpm: 230 @ 4000

so Im a little confused, my memory from two years back while looking at the engine was it only had one large sprocket per bank, well what ever it was they did it back in '85

That was 20 years ago last show season !!!!!! As we know from then, 1986 and on, the 38 drove the wheels of all Bonneville, LeSabre, Delta 88, Park Avenue and Regency, in addition to other models with the option. It sold in huge volumns and recieved much satisfaction.......yet after 2 decades now we sit here at Buick twidelin our thumbs wondering were the hell our engine is ?

:unsure:

[The O.C.]

[post="60405"][/post]

You know what......I know how hard and time-consuming engineering new platforms and new cars is........but in MY mind, there is NO excuse for Buick not already offering THIS car for sale RIGHT now......

The reason GM is sucking SO much wind in the marketplace now is because invariably it's a competitor that ends up bringing something like this to marketplace.

Obviously the car exists in concept form....so you KNOW GM has the talent to design something like this....but somewhere, somehow, the ability to execute gets all muddled up in the masses.

This car could make a whole BUNCH of import-drivers wake up and take notice of Buick....

[evok]

You know what......I know how hard and time-consuming engineering new platforms and new cars is........but in MY mind, there is NO excuse for Buick not already offering THIS car for sale RIGHT now......

The reason GM is sucking SO much wind in the marketplace now is because invariably it's a competitor that ends up bringing something like this to marketplace.

Obviously the car exists in concept form....so you KNOW GM has the talent to design something like this....but somewhere, somehow, the ability to execute gets all muddled up in the masses.

This car could make a whole BUNCH of import-drivers wake up and take notice of Buick....

[post="60426"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

At this time it would not be smart and there are many road blocks and other priorities.

1) Where do you build it?
2) Where do you price it?
3) What is the real volume?
4) Would you rather have a 4 door to replace Lucerne?

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

No, the 3.6-liter DOHC High Feature V-6 engine, with 255hp, should be the standard engine for all current Buicks. The High Value engines should be phased out immediately, the 2.8-liter brought to the Pontiac G6 as standard, and on a Buick version (Skyhawk) of the Chevy Cobalt (because the Cobalt's a compact and the Epsilon is a mid-size, and not a compact). And where is the long-rumored 3.2-liter version of the High Feature/Alloytec V-6 family? It would be perfect for Chevy Malibu, Malibu Maxx, and Equinox, the G6, Saturn Aura and VUE, and maybe even the slightly smaller LaCrosse. And I never heard once on GoAuto about a 3.8-liter version of the HF/Alloytec-it was probably a misprint if it was mentioned.

[BuickEight]

razoredge, I have a 2-page brochure on the Wildcat. The 3.8 is in fact a dual overhead cam with 24 valves. It made 230hp and 245 lbs torque. The car weighed 2,910 lbs. Full time four-wheel drive and anti-lock brakes on this 1985 concept! The trans was a 4-speed auto with shifting done manually with the lever...no clutch. On the inside, the car had a heads-up display showing speed and gear, and Buick's GCC that also included a compass, tire pressure, tire slippage, and a "G" meter. Buick truly was the king of tech back then. And to you people that bash the 3.8 for being so old, Buick is the company that pioneered the modern computer-controlled V-6 that everybody has today!

[caddycruiser]

And to you people that bash the 3.8 for being so old, Buick is the company that pioneered the modern computer-controlled V-6 that everybody has today!

[post="60495"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, so? Times change and sometimes that means it might also be a good idea to update and improve your equipment to match those times. The Buick of TODAY would be very well suited to again have the latest and greatest in terms of powertrains, with DOD, 6-spds, and much more refined, higher performing OHC V6's.

[razoredge]

razoredge, I have a 2-page brochure on the Wildcat.  The 3.8 is in fact a dual overhead cam with 24 valves.  It made 230hp and 245 lbs torque.  The car weighed 2,910 lbs.  Full time four-wheel drive and anti-lock brakes on this 1985 concept!  The trans was a 4-speed auto with shifting done manually with the lever...no clutch.  On the inside, the car had a heads-up display showing speed and gear, and Buick's GCC that also included a compass, tire pressure, tire slippage, and a "G" meter.  Buick truly was the king of tech back then.  And to you people that bash the 3.8 for being so old, Buick is the company that pioneered the modern computer-controlled V-6 that everybody has today!

[post="60495"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Thanks Eight !, not that that will sink in to anyone that needs to obsorb it. All they need to know is that GM & BUICK never did nothing but sit around and watch the clouds drift by. :rolleyes:

I envy you on that brochure. I have many Olds and Buick from the 70's & 80's but not that one. Didnt know there was one.

I went to the 100 years of Buick tour that came through 3 or so years ago and when I saw that Wildcat I couldnt believe my eyes. I only got back into cars within the last 10 years and slowly at that. So this Wildcat was a shocker to me, actually shamefully so was the Wildcat II on display, I never knew. What a beautiful engine that aluminum DOHC 3.8 was but I guess my memory became distorted over the years. We forgot to take the camera and there really isnt any good shots over the rear deck of the engine on line, that I have found.

We also had the Oldsmobile Aerotec around the same time period that had a few things going for it. These performance items and gidget gadgets were not important back then, now today every car from a cheap econo box to a pickup truck must have every possible gimick imaginable and a few yet to be thought of or your not "class leading" :rolleyes:

[razoredge]

Yeah, so?  Times change and sometimes that means it might also be a good idea to update and improve your equipment to match those times.  The Buick of TODAY would be very well suited to again have the latest and greatest in terms of powertrains, with DOD, 6-spds, and much more refined, higher performing OHC V6's.

[post="60520"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

What do you mean "yes so" ? What the hell kind of attitude is that ?

The Buick of today is the Buick of today because the fortune made off the massive volumn of BOP cars was spent on Fiat, Cadillac, satanurine and millions worth of management bonuses.

Times change - oh really, thanks for the education.
Good idea to update ! well they did until no more money was available and the division became ignored, no ! worse than ignored, it was widdled down to two automobiles with little mechanical R&D. All funds went into saving Cadillac from the dead, not that Im complaining but when someone wants to bash Buick ignoring the history of the past 20 years Im going to stand up !

I wish some people would stop running around talking like some of us dont know nothing about nothing. 6 sp tranny, bla bla bla, why ? cause its got two more? toot, toot. Mercedes own press release about their multi speed tranny stated it offered little more than smoother shifts. No improved gas milage, I think it shaved an entire 1/10 or 2/10 of a second of a quarter mile. Now thats a "yea so". All that money for nothing but more complicated problems and searching transmissions. Well ya gotta have it now because the others do and the mechanically challenged believe its the next best thing to..........

[BuickEight]

Here are some pictures I took back in '88. Not too many old people cars there! I wish I took more of the Wildcat, but what did I know at the time, I was only twelve. ok...I give up on the pictures Edited December 19, 2005 by BuickEight

[ponchoman49]

to bad buick didn't just get the shortstar (3.5) from Olds a few years ago ..at least as an option...but it is underpowered compared to 3.6 now.

edit: i did think of making this a topic a few days ago.

[post="59922"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Not neccessarily so! I have an 02 Intrigue with the 215 hp Shortstar that gets to 60 in 7.5 seconds consistantly. That engine really comes alive once your off the line and provides more than enough power for a mid size sedan. The LaCrosse is bewidering with the 240 hp 3.6 DOHC engine. Some reports have it at 8.0 seconds while others say 7.0 flat and 7.4. It's strange that this engine can provide such different times. 2 things stand out. The 3.6 as used in the LaCrosse puts out less rated torque than my 3.5, 225 vs 230 ft lbs. The Lacrosse weights 300 lbs more than my Olds. And while some will argue that the 3.6 puts that lower torque rating at lower revs it really has to do with the total powerband of these engines. I haven't actually driven a 3.6 LaCrosse, just a 3800 version which left me very underwhelmed. I would therefore conclude that the LaCrosse would be a tad quicker than my car is at high rpm's. My point here is that putting the 2.8 in either of these cars would seem like a waste of time considering that the 3.6 hardly overwhelms in the lighter LaCrosse. Buick would need to install the 255 hp version of this engine in the Lucerne to generate decent performance times and even then it won't compare to the Toyota Uglyon which is claimed to do 6.2 seconds to 60. Lets hope when Buick comes to there senses and installs the 3.6 in the Lucerne that they also include the 6 speed automatic with it.

[The O.C.]

Not neccessarily so! I have an 02 Intrigue with the 215 hp Shortstar that gets to 60 in 7.5 seconds consistantly. That engine really comes alive once your off the line and provides more than enough power for a mid size sedan. The LaCrosse is bewidering with the 240 hp 3.6 DOHC engine. Some reports have it at 8.0 seconds while others say 7.0 flat and 7.4. It's strange that this engine can provide such different times. 2 things stand out. The 3.6 as used in the LaCrosse puts out less rated torque than my 3.5, 225 vs 230 ft lbs. The Lacrosse weights 300 lbs more than my Olds. And while some will argue that the 3.6 puts that lower torque rating at lower revs it really has to do with the total powerband of these engines. I haven't actually driven a 3.6 LaCrosse, just a 3800 version which left me very underwhelmed. I would therefore conclude that the LaCrosse would be a tad quicker than my car is at high rpm's. My point here is that putting the 2.8 in either of these cars would seem like a waste of time considering that the 3.6 hardly overwhelms in the lighter LaCrosse. Buick would need to install the 255 hp version of this engine in the Lucerne to generate decent performance times and even then it won't compare to the Toyota Uglyon which is claimed to do 6.2 seconds to 60. Lets hope when Buick comes to there senses and installs the 3.6 in the Lucerne that they also include the 6 speed automatic with it.

[post="60790"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

However the 3.6L HF is a way more refined and quiet engine.

The ShortStar Intrigues I've driven were quick.....but sounded and thrashed like an old 3800....in fact you could think you WERE driving a 3800 if it didn't rev a little cleaner...

The 3.6L I drove in a LaCrosse CXS was almost Lexus-quiet even at redline...with a nice, expensive-sounding growl.

[Northstar]

However the 3.6L HF is a way more refined and quiet engine.

The ShortStar Intrigues I've driven were quick.....but sounded and thrashed like an old 3800....in fact you could think you WERE driving a 3800 if it didn't rev a little cleaner...

The 3.6L I drove in a LaCrosse CXS was almost Lexus-quiet even at redline...with a nice, expensive-sounding growl.

[post="60817"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think that may have something to do with the quiet tuning. Didn't a mag complain that the 3.6 in the SRX was noisy?

[Paolino]

When will we know what changes to the LaCrosse will be made? i.e. engine and transmission changes (if they put the 6A into it)

[Imaj]

I think the new 3.9 will fit Buick batter than the 2.8..

[razoredge]

So whats with de tuning the 3.6 for Buick ? theres no competition with Caddy. Our SC 3800 is more responsive than the 3.6, It should be at 280 lb ft and all the "thrashing" is priceless :o That "quick" Uglyon is geared like a tractor, it better be fast to 60. All across America, Toyota buyers are lining up at traffic lights to blow the doors off the competition..... but no one can look them in the eye

[Paolino]

So whats with de tuning the 3.6 for Buick ? theres no competition with Caddy.

Our SC 3800 is more responsive than the 3.6, It should be at 280 lb ft

and all the "thrashing" is priceless  :o

That "quick"  Uglyon is geared like a tractor, it better be fast to 60. All across America, Toyota buyers are lining up at traffic lights to blow the doors off the competition..... but no one can look them in the eye

[post="61009"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I thought the hp/torque stats were lower in the LaCrosse because of something having to do with the car just losing power being FWD. But I could be WAY off... this is one of those things that is way out of my league for understanding.

As for the 3900 in the LaCrosse, that wouldn't be wise because it would totally make the CXS trim obsolete other than a few ride enhancements. Think: Impala w/ 3900, 242hp/242lb-ft - and 3.6 in LaCrosse, 240hp/225lb-ft. The 3900 would actually be more powerful in the LaCrosse than the 3.6L. Edited December 20, 2005 by Paolino

[Northstar]

I think the LaCrosse and Rendezvous have a different exhuast and maybe intake than the Cadillacs which results in lower power, I don't think it's really FWD vs. RWD. It also could be that Cadillac is above Buick and GM doesn't want the LaCrosse to have as much power as the CTS.

[ponchoman49]

However the 3.6L HF is a way more refined and quiet engine.

The ShortStar Intrigues I've driven were quick.....but sounded and thrashed like an old 3800....in fact you could think you WERE driving a 3800 if it didn't rev a little cleaner...

The 3.6L I drove in a LaCrosse CXS was almost Lexus-quiet even at redline...with a nice, expensive-sounding growl.

[post="60817"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Again, I haven't driven the 3.6, only started a few up at the dealers. The 3.5 Shortstars were by no means thrashy sounding. I have owned quite a few 3800 equipped cars and have driven many Shortstars and the Shortstar is much quieter and more refined sounding. My 02 Intrigue is so refined in fact that a friend that owns a Toyota Camry commented on how my engine was nearly as refined as his but had a nicer, sportier exhaust note. That sportier exhaust note may what your confusing with thrashiness. In day to day driving my Intrigue is just as refined as any Accord or Camry. I even have to on occasion look at my tach to see that my engine is even running as it is so smooth.