Talk:Buick V6 engine

Series III 3.8 Liter 3800 Engine power output

I see no mention of the power output for the naturally aspirated Series III engine. Was this omitted on purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.15.117 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

There are a couple of issues on this page that are a bit inaccurate, though I didn't quite know the proper way to rewrite them to fit in the current format.

Down to where the subtitle 3800 is, that paragraph sort of glosses two designs together.

I'm also not entirely sure as to whether the 3.8L ever had a batch fire port injection, or if they were always sequential-fuel injection, even in 1984.

The engines designated with VIN code B, however had flat lifters (tappets), whereas the engines with VIN code 3 had roller lifters (tappets). Both were still called the 3.8L V6 though.

The 3800 was a redesign . . ECM and sensors are different, as well as some internal changes with "hard parts" internally (on-center bore spacing, among other things). This was introduced in 1988 and designated by VIN code C. This redesigned version was officially first referred to as the 3800.

All VIN codes refer to the 8th digit of the VIN.

Some of this information is available at http://www.gnttype.org - particularly http://www.gnttype.org/general/v6hist.html

I've gotten no information to the contrary on what I've said above, so as of yesterday, I went ahead and made changes to reflect that information. --King V 14:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in Chilton's and Motor books, I've found reference to a 196 cubic inch version, with a 3.5 inch bore, and 3.4 inch stroke. It appears to have only been used in 1978 and 1979.

Finally, under the 231 heading, it says "The bore was enlarged to 3.8 in (thus the 3800 name)..." which I believe to be incorrect. The 3300 is so-named because it's 3.3 liters in displacement, and the 3800 is names because it's 3.8 liters in displacement. King_V

I agree. The 2200, 2800, 3100, 3400, 3500 and 4300 are named as such because they are 2.2L, 2.8L, 3.1L, 3.4L, 3.5L and 4.3L displacement. The 3800 is not named after its bore size... As such I'm removing the information from the article. --93JC 01:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Changed the 225 V6's HP rating to 160, as opposed to 155. My 1966 Buick Service Manual and 1973 Chilton's repair manual show the 225 V6 to have 160hp for 1966. If there was a 1-barrel version of the 225 in earlier years, then it needs to be added that there were 1 & 2 barrel variants. EDIT - 1964-65 models had a 1-bbl carb, and the 66-67 models had a 2-bbl carb. I changed the specs accordingly. There are many sources that show this as true, including the ones mentioned above, along with Rockauto and service manuals I have. 98.125.28.60 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3.8 Liter Bore Size

The LC2 engine has a bore size of 3.80", not 3.8125". http://www.jepistons.com/cat/je/auto/buick/buick.shtml I am not sure if the other 3.8 Liter engines have the same bore & stroke.Nly8nchz 07:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3.8125" reference is incorrect. All Buick 350 V8s and Buick 231/3.8L V6s have a 3.80" bore. --King V 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of page?

Would it make sense to rename this article? "3800" only refers to the late 3.8 engines. The engine is actually named the "Fireball" V6, although it is not commonly referred to by that name anymore. Any other ideas? I suspect that the 3.0L might have been used in the L-body cars for a time. I've found a 181 CID V6 listed as an option on mid-1980s Somersets and Skylarks. Anyone have hard facts? Sable232 00:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been thinking along those same lines. You're right, the 181 CID was used in the mid-1980s on the models you mention, as well as in some of the A-body FWD cars (Century, Cutlass Ciera). Also, I think the layout/section divisions should be a bit different. The 3800 designation wasn't used until 1988, and referred to the first engine officially called "Series I". Ideally, this should be called the "Buick V6 Engine" page, in my opinion, and maybe have the "GM 3800 engine" be a redirect to the 3800 part of the page (which should be where the "Series I" label begins). Frankly, though, I'm not sure what the section should be called for the engines before 1988. I've got to admit that I've never heard the "Fireball V6" designation used, either! Might be a leftover terminology from the 1960s? --King V 14:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been moved, and the double redirects fixed. -- Sable232 17:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L67

Ok, does anyone know what the deal is with the L67? Under the 3800 Series I, the L67 is described as being introduced in 1992 and implies it's based on the Series I. However, further down under Series II, the L67 is described as being introduced in 1996, thus, obviously, based on the Series II. Without any clarification on this point, I'd think it's safer to remove references to the L67 in the Series I--King V 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is confused, somehow, but still it roughly reflects reality. The supercharged version of the Series I did appear in '92, and was produced through '95 (one year after the non-supercharged version was discontinued). Then the supercharged Series II appeared in '96. But I don't know exactly what the proper L designations are. RivGuySC 02:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. I'm thinking I'll just actually remove "L67" specifically from the Series I section, but leave all the other info in there, since, as you correctly state, there was a supercharged Series I 3800 available. I'll give it a little more time though, in case anyone comes up with the correct L designation for it--King V 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are three different versions of the L67, all are Vin: 1. Two versions are Series I and one is Series II. They are all confusingly L67s, all Vin code 1. But all the info in the article explains it pretty well. The Series III is very different, but uses the same block also, but is a L32 instead, Vin code 4 IIRC. Wjcollier07 14:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

231 Usage

Is it appropriate to have, under the 231 section, lists of years/makes/models that the engine was offered in? I believe the 231 was available in numerous models, Buick or otherwise, from 1975 to 1977. The list presented is very incomplete.--King V 21:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Buick 231 V6 engine was also used in at least the year 1981 for the Pontiac Le Mans. I know because I owned one. This Le Mans was basically the same body as a Bonneville of the same year. Mine had a ECU controlled 2 bbl DualJet carb and a distributor. 66.37.248.200 (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3.8/3.0 FWD injection - Batch fire or Sequential?

You know, it's maddening. Just when the information I have seems to indicate that the 3.8 with fuel-injection ALWAYS had sequential injection (even in the front-drive cars, even in the 1984-1/2 Century), I then come across something else that says otherwise.

So, while I definitely know that 1986 and later front-drive 3.8 V6 engines had sequential fuel injection, I'm not so sure about 1984 and 1985. Nor am I sure about the 3.0 once it got injection as well.

I would assume that GM wouldn't create a separate computer system (from what they used in the Turbo 3.8) just to have a more primitive injector-firing system in the FWD cars for just those two years. On the other hand, GM has done some strange things before.

Does anyone have any definitive evidence one way or the other?--King V 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

Ok, answering my own question, sort of, a bit, I've managed to find that:

The 3.0L V6 doesn't have a cam position sensor.
The 3300 V6 doesn't have a cam position sensor.

Also, I've done some parts lookups, and it appears that:

In 1984 and 1985 the 3.8 FWD V6 doesn't have a cam position sensor. Furthermore, the Chilton's references I've found list the engine as only producing 125 horsepower that year, instead of the 140-150 produced in 1986-1988.

The lack of a cam position sensor would indicate a batch-fire injection system rather than sequential, since there's no practical way for the ECM to know exactly when a particular cylinder is about to begin its intake stroke.King V 16:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current 3800 engine not Buick design

The current 3800 engine, and near as I can tell all with the 3800 designation are NOT descendants of the Buick V6. They are supposed to be mostly identical to the 3.1 engine. I was told this by several co-workers and didn't believe it at first. I went looking through the yard and sure enough, I found a Toronado Trofeo with a 3800, this engine clearly did not have a 90° angle between the cylinder banks and looked pretty much the same as the 3.1 sitting on the floor of the shop. Unless somebody can prove otherwise, the 3800 section should be moved to the 60-degree V6 page. --Sable232 20:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems highly unlikely. Actually, I should probably ask what you're referring to as "current", though, as the Toronado Trofeo has been out of production for a few years. However, I would assume that to be absolutely certain, you'd have to see the crankshaft for split rod journals (hallmark of the even-fire 90 degree V6), or have a block with the heads off and measure the angle of the deck surfaces relative to each other. Having just looked at my 1989 Olds Eighty-Eight, eyeballing it seems to indicate 90 degrees. Oddly, I've found that, in the engine bay, the 2.8/3.1/3.4 family appears wider, and more difficult to access the spark plugs, than the 3300/3800 family, likely due to head and/or valve-cover design. I think someone's pulling your leg with that whole 3800-is-60-degree stuff.--King V 00:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully one of these engines will be torn down sometime soon so I can check. There's an '81 Cutlass with a 231, if I can get to it and open the hood I'll be able to tell if they're the same or different. It does seem plausible that GM would have all their engines of one class off one block design, and it also wouldn't surprise me if GM killed the Buick design as punishment for the GNX. --Sable232 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know how it goes. It might not be easy to compare the 1981 motor because with the 3800 starting in 1988, it was a fairly significant design change over the previous versions of the engine.--King V 04:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just put the heads back on a 1993 Bonneville's 3800, and it is for certain a 90 degree block. 24.117.140.103 14:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently have torn down both series 2 and series 3 3800's, they are absolutely 100% 90 degree v6's. The 3100,3400,3500,and 3900 are the 60 degree engines.

Thanks. The guys I heard this from (who were beyond convinced that that was true) are eating crow.

As someone who has personally installed about a quarter million crankshafts into the 3800's from 2006 on, I can guarantee you that they are the split-pin 90° even-fire type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.87.149 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3800 V6 section of article

It seems a bit inappropriate to have definitions of Naturally Aspirated and Supercharged in that heading. I think they should be removed. Also, I'm considering a header-rearrangement of sorts, as the 3800 should probably be the same "level" of heading as the Fireball V6, with all the Pre Seriees I, Series I, II, and III as subeadings under that. Not sure if that's entirely a good idea, though.--King V 18:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The definitions stick out like a sore thumb. The article at the moment makes the Fireball V6 and the 3800 V6 seem like very different engines. Lavenderbunny (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong picture

The picture listed under the series II, L36 Naturally aspirated section is actually that of a series 1 3800. The Series 2's exhaust manifold's are evenly spaced, the series 1's are not. Here is a pic of a 3800 Series II SC http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/bv/images/04_3800_sc-1.jpg Also, the alternator, power steering pump, and egr valve are all in the wrong places for it being a series II engine. That engine is clearly a series 1 3800.

Pictures have been moved to appropriate section, and captions have been changed accodringly.

If the Buick V6 is no more, what powers the base 2009 LaCrosse?

I accept that Plant 36, which built the GM 3800 (née Buick Fireball V6) was closed this year.

Given that fact, however, what is the 3.8 litre V6 powering the base 2009 Buick LaCrosse?

LaCrosse specs & info: http://www.buick.com/ngis/buick/vehicles/2009/lacrosse/features.do?year=2009&brand=lacrosse

Did the factory make enough inventory to last a year after its closing? Was the manufacture of the 3800 moved to another plant? Or is the 3.8 currently in use a new design enlarged (or reduced) to 3.8 litres?

Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, Road & Track 2009 Buyer's Guide states on page 38:

The roomy LaCrosse is available with GM's proven 3.8-liter pushrod V-6.

while the 2009 Ultimate New Car Guide from the editors of Automobile are more specific on page 36:

GM's old workhorse iron block pushrod 3.8-liter V-6 pulls engine duty for CX and CXL models, but it is coarse and noisy at high engine speeds.

This sounds like the base 2009 Buick LaCrosse still uses the GM 3800 engine. But how?

Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We did fill the factory up will completed engines prior to closing. They were stacked floor to ceiling all over the plant. They're probably still shipping them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.87.149 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for discontinuation self-contradictory?

Alright, has anyone else noticed this? The introductory paragraph for the Series III states that this engine meets SULEV standards, and to the best of my knowledge, the V6s slated to replace it do not. Yet, in the Future of the 3800 section, it states the reason for ceasing production as being emission standards - presumably implying that this engine couldn't meet the standards. So, which one is correct?--King V (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some fun: http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/searchresults.php?year=2004&make=Pontiac&model=GRAND+PRIX&x=19&y=8

LEV 2 LEV and LEV 1 LEV.

No SULEV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.9.214 (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However in 2005 it seems SULEV was met, and PZEV was met later on.

http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/searchresults.php?year=2005&make=Pontiac&model=GRAND+PRIX&x=42&y=13 http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/searchresults.php?year=2007&make=Pontiac&model=GRAND+PRIX&x=44&y=3

Looks like the information is very scattered as the lower rated 3.8 shares the same engine family code as other vehicles with 60* engines and is listed as having a 5 speed automatic which GM has not employed short of sourcing external ones.

http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/searchresults_engine_family.php?engine=5GMXX03.8148&x=16&y=18

Series II 3.8 Liter 3800 Engine Recall?

The engine under the Series II section has just been recalled due to potential fire risks and affects over 1.5 million vehicles. Maybe a small blurb about this info should be included?

Sources: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/gm.recall/index.html

http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-recalls-almost-15-million-38-v6-equipped-cars.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.254.193 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"General Motors says it will voluntarily recall nearly 1.5 million 1997 to 2003 Buick, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Pontiac vehicles equipped with the automaker's then-venerable 3.8-liter "Series II" V6 engine over a faulty spark plug wire retainer that could allow oil to leak onto the exhaust manifold during hard braking, thus potentially causing a fire.

The automaker will recall nearly all 1,497,516 Chevrolet Luminas, Monte Carlos and Impalas, Buick Regals, Oldsmobile Intrigues and Pontiac Grand Prixs equipped with the naturally aspirated L36 V6."

Engine of fine lineage

A mechanic I know says this engine (one of which I once owned in a `91 LeSabre) is actually descended from an Olds engine. The article gives only Buick development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.137.57 (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The Buick V6 is based off of the aluminum 215 V8, designed by Buick. There WAS an Oldsmobile variant of the engine with an extra head bolt per cylinder, but that's it. 98.125.6.3 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that the original Buick V-6 was made from the 215 aluminum V-8. This is a common writing. But to make a new engine as cheaply as possible the old 264 iron V-8 (introduced in 1954) would probably have been easier to use. Cut off the front of the engine block. Cut off the 1st 2-cylinders, & glue back the front. Use this block for a mold for another mold for a V-6 of 198 CID. Then take the crank of 4-throws @ 90 degrees, & cut off one throw. The use of the 215 engine would have been problematic except that it was aluminum (easier to cut). I don't know what Buick did. But I guess the writers are actually wrong, and Buick did it my way. The article also talks about 120 degree throws for the original uneven firing engine. I think they were at 90 degrees. The new crank had 6-throws @ 60 degrees (not @ 30 degrees). Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taorps1 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

L27

The L27 in my Pontiac Trans Sport comes with 123 kW (European Version) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShalokShalom (talk • contribs) 06:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many images crowding out the "show" button on the L67 SII supercharged bar.

The show button is obscured by the abundance of images in that section. The bar can't be opened to view the vehicles as a result. Would you guys be amenable to shifting the images around, or removing one of them? Mr. Chair Chair (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone tried to fix this on May 25th by removing the bold on the "Applications" text. As it's still broken for me even after this change, I switched it back to bold again to better match the other entries on the page. A more universal solution needs to be found. Thunderbird32 (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]