No, the current 3.4 is still the same 60-degree engine as the 2.8, but bored and stroked. They've sinced revised the oiling system as well.

 

Why not the 4.3?

------------------
I WOULD RATHER PUSH A CAMARO THAN DRIVE AN IMPORT

1983 Z28- 406ci
LT1 intake
AFR 195's

future mods:
N20 waiting to be installed

Wifes car:

1995 Z28
AT, leather, T-tops bone stock for now. 250 RWHP 300 RWT 14.0 @ 99 MPH on a 2.2 60'

future mods:
header to tailpipe replacement and a cold air intake. Then I am just going to leave it alone (maybe)

 

The 3800 is an evolution of the Buick 3.8 liter that was introduced in 1977. It is a 90 degree V6 (vs 60 degree like the 2.8/3.1/3.4 family) like most V8s and in some ways is very similar to a Buick 350 with two cylinders lopped off. There were also 3.0 liter and 3.3 liter versions of this family and a 4.1 liter for rear-drive large car applications.

 

It's a truck engine. Basically a 350 with 2 cylinders chopped off. (6/8 of a 350 is 4.275L)

------------------
If it breaks, it wasn't high performance enough.

2001 Mustang Bullitt GT
2000 Jetta M5

 

GM has some great engines.. they just have to put them in better cars.. thats it...

Lets see what these next few hyears bring

 

The 4.3 is not a nice motor. It runs so rough, even after they put the balance shafts in in 1995. There's a motor who's time has come and gone.
The big problem with 90 degree V-6s is that they are inherently out of balance. That's why GM added balance shafts to the 3.8 and the 4.3. The 2.8/3.1/3.4 engines do not need balance shafts because they are 60 degree engines. And 60 degree V-6s are inherently balanced.

 

I can vouch for the roughness of the 4.3. I have one in my 1994 truck. You can feel the inside of the cab shake as it runs. Rev the engine with the hood open and you can watch the engine rock on its mounts back and forth severely. Its actually hilarious to watch. The amount of cubes out of that engine is nice, but it still underpowered. The 4.3 isn't a pretty engine.

 

I remember that 4.1 V6. I once had the idea of getting a V6 Monza & swapping the 3.8 for a 4.1 with the 4 barrel (yep, they made 'em), but I found out it would have been a pain to get it CARB certified, and it wasn't worth it for a simple V6 swap.

BTW, the 3.8 V6 was introduced much earlier than 1977. I gotta look in the Motors manual to be sure, but I think GM introduced that engine in the early 60's, then retired or sold it (like the aluminum V8 they sold to British Leyland), & simply brought it back.

The 3.8 was in the Monza when it first came out in 1975 (along with a 350ci V8 with 120hp!), and I know it was in at least 1 Buick in 1974.

 

Sorry, you're right. The 3.8 was introduced in 1974. It was the even-fire 3.8 that came out in 1977. I got the years mixed up. I remember the first Skylarks with 3.8 liter engines. My dad always drove them as demos at the time.

The architecture of the engine goes back to the 198 six that was introduced in 1962. and shared tooling with the 215 aluminum V8 in 1962. It eventually ended up as a 225 (sharing parts with the 340 Buick)and this is the tooling that was sold off in '67 and eventually bought back.

 

Not quite. They're better than 90º V6s, but not as smooth as an inline 6, which actually is inherently balanced. But I'm picking nits here .

GM's new V6s include both "high value" (OHV) and "high feature" (OHC) engines. This time around, though, they should be better optimized designs. Their previous two attempts at OHC V6s were both compromised: the 3.4 had to live with the 2.8's OHV architecture but with OHCs grafted on top; and the 3.5 was a shortened Northstar that was denied top-shelf technology such as variable cam timing and variable induction. GM Powertrain seems to have learned their lessons, though, with the Vortec 4200 and its siblings being truly world-class, no-compromise designs.

------------------
2000 Z28, Arctic White, Ebony leather, A4, 2.73, RS-A, 13.3 @ 105.9 stock

 

R377,
I was speaking of just V-type configurations.