Modern 3.6 vs the venerable 3800.
#16
Re: Modern 3.6 vs the venerable 3800.
YES! I do. I drive an M6 3.6 every day. It doesn't feel any different at 4500 RPM than it does at 6900. In other words, why even bother revving it out, there is no satisfaction to be gained.
I had a chance to drive a 3.0L for afew days, and man, what a completely different personality. It just wants to zing to redline, and it likes it too. Really a much livelier and satisfying motor.
Last edited by Z284ever; 11-08-2010 at 03:47 PM.
#17
Re: Modern 3.6 vs the venerable 3800.
So you guys honestly think GM powertrain engineers would say the same thing about the 3.6 vs the 3800 or is this just some nostalgia kicking in? You think that GM went to the effort and expense to develop and build this new engine strictly so that the automotive press and import gear heads would get off their case about using OHV? The 3.6 makes significantly more power and offers better fuel economy and lower NVH. About the only thing I can see people here legitimately missing is the more satisfying torque profile off the line.
My 4.3L V6 Silverado felt the same way except it was really pointless to rev it anything over 2500 rpm. From there on the improvement in acceleration was marginal.
I'm surprised the 3.0 feels that much different. I was under the impression that they were nearly identical motors, just different displacements.
YES! I do. I drive an M6 3.6 every day. It doesn't feel any different at 4500 RPM than it does at 6900. In other words, why even bother revving it out, there is no satisfaction to be gained.
I had a chance to drive a 3.0L for afew days, and man, what a completely different personality. It just wants to zing to redline, and it likes it to. Really a much livelier and satisfying motor.
I had a chance to drive a 3.0L for afew days, and man, what a completely different personality. It just wants to zing to redline, and it likes it to. Really a much livelier and satisfying motor.
I'm surprised the 3.0 feels that much different. I was under the impression that they were nearly identical motors, just different displacements.
#18
#19
Re: Modern 3.6 vs the venerable 3800.
The 3.6L makes more torque, except for the first few hundred rpm. By around 1000 rpm or so, they are about even, and after that it is all 3.6L.
Here's the DI 3.0L and the non-DI 3.6L (in reference to the change in base engine for the CTS)
http://img72.imageshack.us/f/ctsbaseengine.png/
[/URL]
Here's the N/A 3800 V6 (2005):
http://media.photobucket.com/image/G...powercurve.gif
Here's the DI 3.0L and the non-DI 3.6L (in reference to the change in base engine for the CTS)
http://img72.imageshack.us/f/ctsbaseengine.png/
[/URL]
Here's the N/A 3800 V6 (2005):
http://media.photobucket.com/image/G...powercurve.gif
Last edited by 96_Camaro_B4C; 11-08-2010 at 03:53 PM.
#20
Re: Modern 3.6 vs the venerable 3800.
I :heart: my 3800'.
I would have loved it if GM had built an all aluminum version, there would be one in my Camaro.
For those that knock it for its lack of high rpms, and power, it still had plenty of grunt to embarrass a GT500 and several other cars this past weekend at CMP.
I would have loved it if GM had built an all aluminum version, there would be one in my Camaro.
For those that knock it for its lack of high rpms, and power, it still had plenty of grunt to embarrass a GT500 and several other cars this past weekend at CMP.
#21
Re: Modern 3.6 vs the venerable 3800.
I :heart: my 3800'.
I would have loved it if GM had built an all aluminum version, there would be one in my Camaro.
For those that knock it for its lack of high rpms, and power, it still had plenty of grunt to embarrass a GT500 and several other cars this past weekend at CMP.
I would have loved it if GM had built an all aluminum version, there would be one in my Camaro.
For those that knock it for its lack of high rpms, and power, it still had plenty of grunt to embarrass a GT500 and several other cars this past weekend at CMP.
#22
Re: Modern 3.6 vs the venerable 3800.
A 60 degree V6 is not an ideal configuration either, though it's better than a 90. The ideal configuration for 6 cylinders would either be flat or inline.
#23
#24
Re: Modern 3.6 vs the venerable 3800.
I had a 3800 for a while when I owned my 2000 V6 Firebird. It was a torquey motor and has some nice kick off of the line. However, it felt like it fell flat on its face around 4500 RPM. It did pretty well as far as gas mileage went, especially back in the day. Too bad it sounded horrible with an exhaust, although I was young at the time and threw on a Borla Cat-back anyway. It sounded decent until about 3000 RPM, then it got raspy and just crappy sounding .
In regard to MPG's, I constintly got 22-24MPG CITY with mine, I find the new V6's dont get near that real world number.
#25
#26
Re: Modern 3.6 vs the venerable 3800.
I love my 1998 Regal GS. Supercharged 3800 is a great engine for a moderately fun daily vehicle. I average 20.6 mpg currently. I had a 1992 Lumina Z34 that the previous owner put Flomaster mufflers on. It sounded aweful. However, for some reason that car was fun to drive despite its glaring flaws.
#27
Re: Modern 3.6 vs the venerable 3800.
I recall being pretty impressed with the revvy nature of some of the last 3100 V6s that GM made. I almost liked that engine better in the Grand Prixs, at least as rental where I didn't mind beating on it. The 3800 might've been torquier and more fun for the first 20 feet, but the 3100 gave you some grins all the way to redline.
#29
Re: Modern 3.6 vs the venerable 3800.
Maybe he was in a Grand National.
My wife's 2000 Impala has the 3.8, and while it's a fine engine, it always has an episode once a day where it will stall a few times, then once it's going it will be fine for the rest of the day. Other than that it does the job.
My wife's 2000 Impala has the 3.8, and while it's a fine engine, it always has an episode once a day where it will stall a few times, then once it's going it will be fine for the rest of the day. Other than that it does the job.
#30
Re: Modern 3.6 vs the venerable 3800.
IIRC those engines are prone to carbon build up in their intakes and IAC.