Jump to content
NOS2006

Difference Between 3800 and 3900?

Recommended Posts

They're the same size (231ci/3791cc), but the 3900 has more power and can have DOD. Is the 3900 simply a more modern 3800 with a slightly bigger crank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I remember correctly, there's no relation between the 3900 & 3800. The new 3900 is part of the same family of "High Value" OV engines that the new 3.5l (Impala & Monte Carlo) belongs to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The GM Media site used to say that the 3900 was the same exact CCs as the 3800, but it appears they have since changed it. And no, they aren't related at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the problems wiht GM is they have to have like 43 effin engines at the same time. Jezzus. Spruce up the 3800 and keep that... make a couple versitile small V6s... we already have several ecotec variations, and then just give Caddy an V8, V8SC V12 and V16 versions of the N0* and a LS7 for the next CTS-V. Then you've got the atlas engines and LS pushrod V8s. DONE!!!! Save the damned development money for the Caprice, Roadmaster and Velite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems wiht GM is they have to have like 43 effin engines at the same time.

Jezzus. Spruce up the 3800 and keep that... make a couple versitile small V6s... we already have several ecotec variations, and then just give Caddy an V8, V8SC V12 and V16 versions of the N0* and a LS7 for the next CTS-V.

Then you've got the atlas engines and LS pushrod V8s. DONE!!!!

Save the damned development money for the Caprice, Roadmaster and Velite.

[post="62359"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

OR they cold do what they do now:

Kill the 3800 a great engine but not up to snuff anymore.
have a HV 3.5 and 3.9 sharing many parts
have a HF 3.6 and 2.5 sharing parts
N* and N* SC
4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2 sharing many parts and the 7.0 sharing a few.

Throw in the Atlas engines and it is a VERY well rounded lineup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, Im OK with it, I just wish the gas milage was up on the 3.9, Im afraid of the effect that will have on marketing it. Now, I do hope they put the Eaton M90 on the 3.9 for ultra performance, that should be kickin 280/300 - 300/320 with same mileage under normal driving conditions. AND it will have that sound and insane powerband that just keeps commin and commin. I just cant think about the 38, its way to close to home and the last grain left from Buicks life saving contribution. Edit: for that matter with the 3.5 doing so much better for gas milage that should also have a M90 option. I would expect it could smoke this NA3.9 & the FWD NA3.6 as well. Edited by razoredge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 4.8V8 is the engine I don't get... it's too close to the 5.3 in the numbers.. kill the 4.8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I say kill the 4.8 and the 5.3, I know they're good engines and designed on a tried and true base, but seriously, what was wrong with the 305 and 350?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say kill the 4.8 and the 5.3, I know they're good engines and designed on a tried and true base, but seriously, what was wrong with the 305 and 350?

[post="77724"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


gas mileage maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4.8V8 is the engine I don't get... it's too close to the 5.3 in the numbers.. kill the 4.8

[post="62472"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


I agree. I'm all for keeping the 5.3L, as it seems to have hit on a perfect combo of size/power/economy/durability, but see absolutely no reason for the 4.8L.

It's like they just keep it around just to SAY they offer another V8...even though it'll soon lack things like the DOD and power increase that is making the 5.3L even more attractive.

That said, it's dumb to keep offering it as the "base" engine in Tahoes and some Silverados--just put the 5.3L in all of those, and save any extra dimes you get from not having to offer both for future improvements on the 5.3L.

It's like the dumb combo of a 305 vs. a 350...the only difference being that there was actually quite a noticeable difference in power between the two (the 305 pretty much sucking, at least stock in most apps), and the 350 making you wonder, "Why the hell do they even bother offering the 305?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kill the 3800 a great engine but not up to snuff anymore.

[post="62361"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


How do you reckon that? The weakness isn't the 3800 it's the transmissions they tie to it. With a turbocharger you can easily output 350hp at the wheels. They get great gas mileage, great reliability, and great power. My only complaints would be it's sound and it's idle. But besides that I would say it's the best engine that GM has ever produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you reckon that?  The weakness isn't the 3800 it's the transmissions they tie to it.  With a turbocharger you can easily output 350hp at the wheels.  They get great gas mileage, great reliability, and great power.  My only complaints would be it's sound and it's idle.  But besides that I would say it's the best engine that GM has ever produced.

[post="77897"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The majority of the parts used in the 3800 date back to the 1950s. The engine was great while it lasted but come on we are still using it 60 years later! The 3900 is more compact, lighter, cheaper to assemble, offers more versatility in things that can be used on it(DOD, VVT, variable intake), better NVH, better balance. Give me 1 good reason why the 3800 should still be used when the 3900 beats it in EVERY single category of testing.

BTW don't throw well you can turbo it and get this because anything you can do to the 3800 you can do to the 3900.

Edit:

To those saying why keep the 4.8 around think of one thing. Everyone that wants the 5.3 pays for it. It is an upgrade engine and therefore costs more. More cost=more money. Edited by 91z4me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of the parts used in the 3800 date back to the 1950s.  The engine was great while it lasted but come on we are still using it 60 years later!  The 3900 is more compact, lighter, cheaper to assemble, offers more versatility in things that can be used on it(DOD, VVT, variable intake), better NVH, better balance.  Give me 1 good reason why the 3800 should still be used when the 3900 beats it in EVERY single category of testing.

BTW don't throw well you can turbo it and get this because anything you can do to the 3800 you can do to the 3900.

Edit:

To those saying why keep the 4.8 around think of one thing.  Everyone that wants the 5.3 pays for it.  It is an upgrade engine and therefore costs more.  More cost=more money.

[post="77899"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Not that I'm saying we should keep the 3800 around longer, but the fuel economy of the 3900 has been, well, poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me 1 good reason why the 3800 should still be used when the 3900 beats it in EVERY single category of testing.

[post="77899"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Until GM can produce a decent successor engine that has the same extrodinarily-low emissions standards and great fuel economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of the parts used in the 3800 date back to the 1950s.  The engine was great while it lasted but come on we are still using it 60 years later!

OK! credibility out the window you have no idea WTF you are talking about.

The 3900 is more compact -BS-, lighter, -how much, 10 lb's ?- cheaper to assemble, -BS- offers more versatility in things that can be used on it(DOD, VVT, variable intake), better NVH, better balance. -yea, yea, yea, maybe however nothing has been proven yet, and there nothing there that could not have been applied to the 38 including aluminum heads, yet becasue of all the 60* crybabys GM gave up on the best engine they ever developed.-  Give me 1 good reason why the 3800 should still be used when the 3900 beats it in EVERY single category of testing. -yea, yea, yea, nothing has been proven yet except that gas milage is worse than SC 3800, torque is down from SC 3800, reliability has never been as good for the 60* family....does any of this critiera fall into that "EVERY single catagory" ?....how many versions has their been of the "Chevy 60*" ? They tried this and they tried that, had this failure and that failure, but yet the 38 just kept on a going.-

BTW don't throw well you can turbo it and get this because anything you can do to the 3800 you can do to the 3900. -yea, yea, yea, but everything that has been done to the inferior 60* family could have been done to the 38....as well, and GM would not have had to look back-

**Im not opposed to the 3900 or the recent 3500 but once again BS is BS, your talking about an engine that has been ignored for the most part since 1995, yet is still superior.**

[post="77899"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Edited by razoredge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[post="81945"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

OK Razor here we go. I am talking outta my BUTT? My bad the 3800 dates back to the 60s not the 50s I made a mistake, sue me. Want the full history?
http://www.gnttype.org/general/v6hist.html

Now about this well it could have been done to the 3800. Check this out 60° V6 engines are smoother running. Who else besides GM makes a 90° V6? Mercedes does based on their 3 valve OHC V8s. That is IT! NOBODY else makes them does that tell you something.

I will BET MONEY that the 3900 IS more compact than the 3800. It is a 60° V6 that has the same size block as the 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 V6 GM has been refining since the early 80s! The 3900 achieves its more compact design while getting more displacement by using offset bore centers, insiders could go into more detail about how this was done I frankly don't know. The 3800 uses equal bore centers AND it is wider, taller, and heavier than the 3900 despite both having IRON blocks. The 3900 would still be lighter if both had IRON heads but it doesn't it has aluminum heads.

The 3800 crybabies need to get over the fact that GM has moved on beyond their old outdated engine. The 3.5 shortstar should have replaced the 3800 in 2000 when it came online for the Intrigue, but NO the penny pinchers at Pontiac and Buick wanted to squeeze every dollar they could out of the damn boat anchor 3800 before being forced to change it out nearly 10 years later. If Olds didn't have to use its own budget on the 4.0 and 3.5 Olds motors and the grannies at Buick and Pontiac would have chipped in a little bit Olds might still be around. But instead of using a more advanced, smoother, better gas mileage motor (which there were performance variations developed making 270 hp BTW) they decided to stick with the old "tired and true" 3800.

Perhaps we would all be driving BOF box cars of the 80s if people like you had your way. GET WITH THE PROGRAM "Gramps" the 3800 is DEAD and it had way to many stays of execution for its own good.

I will give it to those that designed, built, and improved it over the years that they did a great job BUT if the 3900 had been in production since the 70s with only little tweeks here and there it should be pretty bullet proof too.

And don't try that it could have been done to the 3800 because there was more than enough stuff done to it to give it the edge. Also I would like it noted that the 3900 beats the 3800 NA top to bottom, even you must see that. When the 3900 SC comes out I am SURE you will think it is the second coming because it makes more power, gets better gas mileage and la deda deda than the 3800 SC. Until then how about you pull your head out of the sand, go drive a 3900 car, or better yet a LS4 car and see what the real wold can do NOW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what's with the argument? we all know that DOHC engines are ALL superior to the inferior pushrods that GM is flogging. :P :P :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry pally your still talking out your ass. Dont get mad at me because you came around spredding nonsence and I stood up to it. That story on gnttype is only page one, you have no credibility on this and have shown it but dont worry, 10 other uninformed people will read your BS and believe it, just like you apparently have. That story on gntype only takes that engine up through 88 or maybe the TP of 90, which is after 3 complete retools. It has undergone 2 more since. In fact if you had read it you would have never made your comment becasue it clearly outline in 1988 that the engine was a complete retool.

No one here needs to have a problem about what ever is going on with the 38 until some uninformed like yourself pulls up and wants to start throwing nonsence and dirt, when it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Now are you going to tell us all about the carburated 2.8 that dates back to the late 70's as well ?.........well are you ?

There is no arguement, the 38 came together and worked out real well, I doubt great engineers could even explain why, if they had the secret formula and understanding they would not have pondered for the past two decades how to build a better engine to replace it with, though they tried over and over and over. Now finally all hope is on this 3.9 but its not delievering, mileage is a bit low, torque suffered and the VVT is not working.................................................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm no technical person, but isn't the LS7 based on a 1950's design? i suspect there is more to the 90degree vs 60 degree decision made by GM that we are not aware of. probably GM needed a souple of versions/sizes to go into a bunch of cars and 60 offered more choice. as for which one is better? hard to say. all i know is the 3.8 was the engine upgrade over the 3.4 in the Impala! :P and if GM had decided to invest into a Series 4 version of the 38, it would have been a heck of an engine i expect. as for the 3.5 in the Intrigue. wasn't that GM's second attempt at a DOHC (after the 3.4? what happened to that one?) and wasn't it a NS with 2 cylinders lopped off? but expecting Buick to dump the workhorse 38 for the new 3.5 would have been a tough sell at the time. alas, all that is history. the LS family gets high praise, the DOHC family is getting decent press and the 60 degree are luke warm being renamed valve in head (or something like that) instead of pushrod. I'm sure the new name will address all the concerns the media has. :P :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Razor here we go.  I am talking outta my BUTT?  My bad the 3800 dates back to the 60s not the 50s I made a mistake, sue me.  Want the full history?
http://www.gnttype.org/general/v6hist.html

Now about this well it could have been done to the 3800.  Check this out 60° V6 engines are smoother running. - I do appreaciate your informing me about bank angles and such.....thanks so much.....however Ill pass judgement on the quality of an engine on more important things than simply bank angle -  Who else besides GM makes a 90° V6? -See below, who would want to take candy from a baby when your around, so much more fun-  Mercedes does based on their 3 valve OHC V8s.  That is IT!  NOBODY else makes them does that tell you something.

I will BET MONEY that the 3900 IS more compact than the 3800.  It is a 60° V6 that has the same size block as the 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 V6 GM has been refining since the early 80s! Wow they took that same 2.8 litre block and turned it into a 3.9....1100cc extre out of the same size block....that engine is a phenom....:unsure: ......OK The 3900 achieves its more compact design while getting more displacement by using offset bore centers, - :rolleyes: offset bore centers create a longer block- insiders could go into more detail about how this was done I frankly don't know. -I can tell - The 3800 uses equal bore centers AND it is wider -90* is wider-, taller -60* is taller-, and heavier -OK but how much ?- than the 3900 despite both having IRON blocks.  The 3900 would still be lighter if both had IRON heads but it doesn't it has aluminum heads. -and you know this...how ? the lighter part ?-

The 3800 crybabies need to get over the fact that GM has moved on beyond their old outdated engine.  The 3.5 shortstar -S* was a 90* V6- :blink:  should have replaced the 3800 in 2000 when it came online for the Intrigue, but NO the penny pinchers at Pontiac and Buick wanted to squeeze every dollar they could out of the damn boat anchor 3800 before being forced to change it out nearly 10 years later. -no there were far to many cars demanding quality V6 engines so GM stuck with the highest quality, highest production V6-  If Olds didn't have to use its own budget on the 4.0 and 3.5 Olds motors and the grannies at Buick and Pontiac would have chipped in a little bit Olds might still be around. -grannies? chippin in ? OK, glad you know what happend to Olds-  :unsure: But instead of using a more advanced, smoother, better gas mileage motor (which there were performance variations developed making 270 hp BTW) they decided to stick with the old "tired and true" 3800. -high performance SC3800 are putting over 350 to the ground, and stock SC 3800 had superior mileage to the stock S*.-

Perhaps we would all be driving BOF box cars of the 80s if people like you had your way. -people like me ? hmm ?, sounds like an attack-  GET WITH THE PROGRAM "Gramps" - now that was an attack, I wonder how many warnings you have recieved, I have been watching you and your attacks and insults of other posters for a few months now, I wonder if the moderaters will ever call you on it ? - the 3800 is DEAD and it had way to many stays of execution for its own good. - I realize this statement was based on your extreme understanding of these engines..........but..........I will continue this as long as you are willing - we'll get into CAFE, fleet mileage requirements and necessary power outputs needed for large GM cars that the 60* family could not previously meet.......thank gawd for that VVT ey ? -

I will give it to those that designed, built, and improved it over the years that they did a great job BUT if the 3900 had been in production since the 70s with only little tweeks here and there it should be pretty bullet proof too. - the 60* family has been in development since the 70's and has recieved as many or more revamps as the 90* but it just never pulled it off, while its not the worst engine GM has had on the market it has had its share of reliability problems........but now were to that other GM perception topic.-

And don't try that it could have been done to the 3800 because there was more than enough stuff done to it to give it the edge.  Also I would like it noted that the 3900 beats the 3800 NA top to bottom, - its tuned different and has shown better hp with a comparitive loss of torque, its larger, its a upgrade that came 10 years after the 38 last one, and it gets poorer mileage...... "even you must see that."- When the 3900 SC comes out I am SURE you will think it is the second coming because it makes more power, gets better gas mileage - but its not getting better mileage-  :unsure:  and la deda deda than the 3800 SC.  Until then how about you pull your head out of the sand, go drive a 3900 car, or better yet a LS4 car - I have, reminded me alot of my L67 - and see what the real wold can do NOW! - hop down off that horse, Ill let you know when Im impressed and I wont be as easily as you -

Once again ! **Im not opposed to the 3900 or the recent 3500 but once again BS is BS, your talking about an engine that has been ignored for the most part since 1995, yet is still superior.**The 3.9 is just a replacement engine that has recieved a few advancement, that could be giving to any engine, however the verdict on the 3.9 is years away from being known


[post="82044"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[post="82116"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I have NEVER been warned by a moderator. I won't be because I am not the one who started this. I simply am defending my position against someone who wants to keep old outdated tech, when GM is clearly not doing this. Wanna keep responding go ahead I am out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply am defending my position against someone who wants to keep old outdated tech


Alrighty then, let me direct you to a post I made on this topic over a month ago.

Yea, Im OK with it, I just wish the gas milage was up on the 3.9, Im afraid of the effect that will have on marketing it. Now, I do hope they put the Eaton M90 on the 3.9 for ultra performance, that should be kickin 280/300 - 300/320 with same mileage under normal driving conditions. AND it will have that sound and insane powerband that just keeps commin and commin. I just cant think about the 38, its way to close to home and the last grain left from Buicks life saving contribution.

Edit: for that matter with the 3.5 doing so much better for gas milage that should also have a M90 option. I would expect it could smoke this NA3.9 & the FWD NA3.6 as well.

[post="62460"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


I won't be because I am not the one who started this.


Alrighty then, let me direct you to the "starting point"

The majority of the parts used in the 3800 date back to the 1950s.  The engine was great while it lasted but come on we are still using it 60 years later!


at which point I replied

OK! credibility out the window you have no idea WTF you are talking about.


Cant have people passing around misinformed information, it creates a bad "buzz" Im glad you understand the situation and the truth now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I'm saying we should keep the 3800 around longer, but the fuel economy of the 3900 has been, well, poor.

[post="81665"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


The 3900 - I had it in an Impala rental....competent: yes....quiet and good gas mileage, even like Chevy's previous 3.4: no Edited by trinacriabob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...