The S/C 3.8 in the GTP is now under investigation for a very "Ford"-like problem. Fires.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...53/1148/AUTO01

 

Just some info on my Buick SC 3800 Series-I...L67

Factory 7-8 psi.
225hp 280lbft
15.74@85 in my Park Ave, fully loaded w/leather interior.. (bone stock)

stock pulley 2.85" = 7-8psi
1st stage- 2.50" = 10-11psi
2nd stage- 2.20" = 12-13psi

People are running 13psi with no reliability problems, with corrected PCM's and up-sized injectors.

Numbers for Series II's and Series III's are much higher, 240hp 300lbft.. to start. Their Eaton M90 is much larger than my M62 supercharger.

 

If you want to, sure .


To everyone else, both 3.8L motors were durable, fuel effiecient, had long lives and responded well to forced induction.

Given that, the 4.0L is a great truck motor.

 

4.2 I6 Atlas puts it to shame

 

Yeah but what 6 cylinder doesn't the big I6 put to shame?

 

Guy, I'm sure their is NO bias in your post , but one thing you neglected to mention. The 92-95 L67 for GM came with the Eaton M62 supercharger. Not the larger Eaton M90 that ford was using. M90 was used by GM in 96+ models. Also, GM did not have a fwd transmission capable of holding 300lbs+ of torque until recently with the ls4 and elaborate torque management in the computer. They tried to originally put a v8 in fwd luminas around 1990 and shredded transmissions. Again in 2000 in impalas, shredding transmissions.
I always believed Gm should have put the 3800s/c in a rwd car, perhaps camaro/firebird. I think it would have been a big hit and its true potential could have been released as with the 3.8turbo motors.
I just picked up an 87 Turbo regal yesterday. The car is scary fast with bolt ons.

 

for trucks? Nothing...4.2L I6 is the best

 

They did put it into the Holden cars. Although the block was a little different than the GMNA normally aspriated models. That would likely be a better comparison than the FWD 3.8 SC V6 that I brought up.

Any AUS members want to chime in on that engine?

 

Hey... I'm not the one who threw down the challenge of comparing GM's 3.8 to Ford's.

Since GM only put SC3.8s in FWD cars in the US, throwing down a challenge then scatting like a scalded cat into retreat when the challenge is taken up and hiding behind the "FWD excuse", makes one wonder why the person threw down the challenge in the 1st place!

Thanks about the sc writeup complement, though.



Nope.

Ford's REGULAR 3.8 V6s went through head gaskets. Typically right when the warranty expired.

The SC head gaskets were only an issue to those who did mods to the intake side without doing mods to the exhaust side. I made the same mistake with my 1st SC. I added a pulley an raised top, but didn't do anything to the exhaust. When I redid the gaskets, I redid the exhaust as well, adding headers and ditching the restrictive resonator.

In stock form, the SC head gaskets had the same reliability as just about any other pressure inducted engine.

Of course my post was dripping with bias. But I also displayed a true and honest admiration for the Turbo 3.8 from Buick.

However, to answer cries of: "GM put the engine in FWD, and therefore they couldn't give it more torque" (and to adress 91_z28_4me's excellent point) Holden used the supercharged V6 in RWD form on post VT Commodores and on Monaro CV6.

In the CV6, horsepower is 171kw (230hp) & 375nm (277 lbs/ft).

Inescapable conclusion: while the later GM made 3.8 SCs matched the Ford 3.8 SC in horsepower, it wasn't even close in torque.

For every whiner who says "GM did it because no FWD tranny could handle the torque" I submit to you in retort: "Well, the only thing that kept the Ford SC 3.8 engine from having 250 horsepower and 345 to 350 lbs/ft of torque (if the 94 & 95 SCs had simply kept the the 89-93 pulley and used a different resonator) instead of the 230 & 330 it actually had was that it would make a 3700 pound Thunderbird quicker than a 3400 pound Mustang".

Sounds pretty desparate, doesn't it?

 

yeah but it was not me either lol

 

OMG... you guys have GOT to stop! You have me teary-eyed! LOL!!!

Guy, you are just the bomb.
305fan - I like you too - you got style!

Seriously - I hate that you got a turd for your rental.
Anectdotally - I was riding with a Rockwell/Allen-Bradley tech who was working on one of my projects recently... he got put in a new (and I mean NEW as in 157 miles) Ford Escape. We went to lunch. As soon as the rear tires were off company property, he held the gas pedal to the floor until we were at 80mph - it must have reached 6000rpm! I couldn't see because I was in the pass seat. He drove it that way every day, everywhere he went. I asked him if he was trying to blow it up, and his reply was "Exactly." Over about 2 months, I saw him do the same to a new Impala and some other import label (I try my best to FORGET those to save my cranial storage capacity for American Iron ). Point is, Roger is a rental car NIGHTMARE. I cringe at the thought of buying a rental vehicle that he has had. And worst yet - his buddies up in Wisconsin are the ones who got him hooked on rental pounding - bunches of them do it.
He was with me when we busted 145mph in the 2.3 TDI Mercedes on the Autobahn in Germany too (I was the driver though, and he was the "cameraman"). He drove the pizz out of the Audi and MB rentals we had over in Germany. He's 27 and insane (fun as heck to be around though!).

With someone like Roger to "break-in" vehicles for rental companies, you can expect anything. Maybe some day you will get a chance to ride in another V6, and we'll see if it is as bad as the one you had. I was pretty impressed with the ones I have been in, and I have a pretty good list of experience and car history to base that upon.
Oh well, chit happens! ... and we move on...

PS - speaking of the Atlas 4.2L I6, did you know Ford has had a 4.9L I6 for years?!?! Funny... we can do things like this with GM and Ford products, but nobody can do it with Toyonda products or even Mopar stuff to the same degree. Neat, isn't it?

 

2 used cars I'd advise anyone against buying:

Used city police cars (highway patrol vehicles are actually pretty good), & a used rental. They do get thrashed. I often treat rentals as my own test vehicles.

 

.... and to be fair and balenced (been watching too much Fox lately), Ford's 3.8 SC:

*Iron block. Alumunum heads.
*Forged steel crank
*8.2 to 1 compression ratio (high for a forced induction engine)
*Supercharger: Eaton M90 (displacement: 90ci) Post 93 versions had epoxy coated rotors.
*Supercharger's maximum speed 15,600 RPM
*Stock maximum boost: 12psi
*Boost of 94-95 SC with '89-93 pulley, 15psi.
*factory horsepower:
89-93: 210 hp, 315 torq
94-95: 230 hp, 330 torq
*Unlike GM's 3.8SC, Ford's came with a manual.

Stock automatic SCs run mid 15 quarters, while manuals typically run low 15s. Times vary wildly depending on air tempreature.

Changes in the Ford 94 & 95 3.8 SC:
*Newer high efficency Eaton supercharger (Ford actually increased the pulley diameter to purposely keep power down). You can identify it by the larger square SC inlet in the back.
*Revised (stronger & lighter) connecting rods.
*Revised heads and slightly different computer tuning.



Easy performance mods:
Headers, dumping the 2-into-1 resonator, and going with a larger single or a siamesed-dual, along with a spacer between the SC and the exit on top and a 5% reduction pulley = easily over 60 horsepower (290) on the 94 & 95 engines.

Revised chip in addition to this adds at least an additional 15 horses, pushing the total to a minimum of 300 horses, 355-360 torque (depending on whose dynometer you believe).... and still pass California emissions and without opening the engine in any way. Again, I'm using minimum numbers here.



Downside of Ford's SC 3.8 engine:
*Internal reinforcements in the heads take up some of the cooling passages from the regular 3.8. While the heads aren't likely to warp, they do tend to run a bit hotter than regular 3.8s. Any mods to the engine without opening up the exhaust eventially will blow the head gaskets. Open up the exhaust, and change coolant regularly and the engines will run well over 150K miles as dependably as any other engine under similar use. People breaking 3.8SC interanals is almost unheard of.



One trick you can do on a Thunderbird SC that you can't do on a GM's SC 3.8s:
1. Mount a cooling fan on the outside of intercooler. More power, and enables you to keep the performance when it starts getting hot outside.

Something almost all Ford SC owners do:
* Use GM's supercharger lube. It's the exact same thing Ford uses (both from Eaton) but it costs alot less from GM.


Post '96 Mustang 3.8s use many of the internal components from the Thunderbird's SC engine, and can easily handle aftermarket supercharging. This is also the year Ford started using better headgaskets.

 

Somebody better throw some cold water on this boy before he REALLY gets fired up!

Good-Lawd!

 

13.86 mostly stock except...1st stage pulley..not mine, but I'm looking for a GS to play with this spring.



http://www.dragtimes.com/Buick-Regal-Timeslip-8186.html

I use the GM (and only GM) synthetic Lube in my M62 as well, made by or for Eaton anyways.
Competition aside, it's neat how much can be done cheaply to these cars...

The biggest problem with the GS's is the "U-Bend" in the exhaust, really restrictive. But they can run 10-11psi with no other modifications, and no intercooler.

And now, the Cobalt enters the arena with the Eaton 4cyl., already I'm seeing them here with intercooler upgrades exhausts, and a lot of boost...these things have nearly indestructable bottom ends...you probably know that tho..

http://www.dragtimes.com/Chevrolet-C...slip-8593.html