I found this post by rls at ClubGP so interesting I had to share it with you guys:

 

Didn't the Shortstar morph into the current high feature 3.6L?..or are they different engines.

The 3800 Series III Supercharged is such a weird engine with TQ management. In terms of components and HP, it is a better engine...yet it is slower out the box and has a super restrictive computer.

 

I'm pretty sure they don't share anything.

 

Interesting .

David

 

They are completely different. Most significantly, the 3.5 was a 90º design (being based of the V8) whereas the HFV6 is a 60º.

 

I thought - and I'm kinda fuzzy on this - that the reason the 3.5 went away had something to do with emissions compliance/certification(?) and the fact that it was used in only two vehicles - Aurora and Intrigue both of which were on death's doorstep - left the engine to be orphaned by GM.

 

It was an expensive engine to produce. None of the other divisions making W-cars thought it worth the extra cost over the 3800 so when the two Olds died, its days were numbered.

I shudder to think of how much money GM wasted on DOHC V6s before they finally got it right. Neither the 3.4 nor 3.5 were ever built in decent numbers and were shelved after a relatively short run. Both were heavily based off of existing engines that were not entirely suitable to make a DOHC V6. It kinda reinforces the fact that cutting corners doesn't work and it's often cheaper to do it right the first time.

 

My own .02...(because I loved Olds, and the Shortstar).

SUPPOSEDLY, according to a 1999 C&D article when the Intrigue first got the Shortstar, all W bodies were supposed to get the 3.5. Olds paid all development and tooling costs, as they did with the Quad 4 back in 1987. When it came time to pass around the cost sheet to the other divisions, Buick, Pontiac and Chevy kindly said "I'll pass." Cost was the only reason. Also, the Shortstar was rated at 19/28 in the Intrigue vs. the 20/29 (later 20/30) the 3800 got.

It didn't matter the 3.5 made 15 extra HP. It didn't matter the engine was more refined. It didn't matter that the 3800 has the aural performance of a can opener at WOT. They saw cheap, they wanted cheap, and they kept cheap. I love 3800s...but the 3.5 was/is superior. Period. I've driven more Intrigues than many people on this board have driven cars. All of them were more refined, better performing and more responsive than their 3800 brethren (s/c 3.8s aside).

I believe the 3.5 may have been one reason why Olds crashed and burned, as well. Think about it. Olds suffered ALL of the production costs I believe...the engine was not offered in any other division. Limit the tooling and development costs to ONE DIVISION, and gee...this car line got more expensive to make a whole lot faster, didn't it? And we all know that it all comes down to dollars and cents. Olds wasn't making any $$$, and it was axed.

Aside from GM management itself, I think you can also thank its fellow divisions for helping kill off Oldsmobile. Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist here...but it makes sense to me.

 

My sentiments as well. I have driven both 3800 and shortstar powered versions of the Intrigue and I would lean somewhat more in favour of the 3.5. I too, have mucho respect for what GM has wrought with the 3800, but....

On top of that, of all the W-body variants, my hands down favourite is/was the Intrigue. For a while, it was at the top of my next car purchase (growing family needs:-) but when it came time to go new - Intrigue was already cancelled and the Olds obituary was written and I couldn't find one optioned the way I wanted, or with low enough mileage, so I went Pontiac instead. Sales slid pretty good after the death knell was general knowledge and used versions, while cheap, were pretty scarce, especially GL and GLS models.

 

Interesting post--good reading. I drove a 3.5L Intrigue and over all I really liked the powertrain. Very smoot engine, that made great sounds. Why they ever went 90 degree though... I felt it had more potential. I liked the Intrigue better then the Grand Prix, Impala and Buick. One of GMs best, underated, sedans.

 

I love the 3.5L (shortstar) its a bit lacking under 3K rpm compared to the torquey 3.8L, but get it above 3K and it puts down some good power. The intake is pretty ristrictive, adding on a CAI lets the engine breath and make some really good sounds.

My wife has had her Intrigue for a good while now and we have yet to have a single problem with the car. At the time, we were leaning toward a Grand Prix or Impala. After driving the Impala we didn't care for the interior. After driving the Grand Prix, she didn't like the looks of the GP, even though I tried to talk her into a GTP. After driving the Intrigue it was clear this was the car. The interior had a much high quality feel and construction to it, the leather was higher grade. Instead of the corporate GM gray interior, the Intrigue had nice colors of tan and netural accents. The Intrigue has a really great suspension setup, it really handles great and feels really tight and at the same time has a great highway ride too.
Overall we are very happy with the car, we were lucky to find a fully loaded one, most you see are basic models.

Another note on the 3.5L V6, there were plans to introduce this engine into the top Aleros. There were even some cars shown with the engine called Alero OSV. Just like they had Intrigues with the Auroras V8 called Intrigue OSV, which was planned for production just before the plug was pulled.

 

Re: 90 degree vs. 60 degree, and using existing engines as a basis.

M-B has for years used 90 degree OHC V6 engines. In fact, even their new whiz bang 3.5L DOHC 24Valve V6 is a 90 degree design.

I think even Honda sold Acuras with a 90 degree V6 at one point, like this one ( ). They also used 90 degree V6s in their sedans (and the first Accord V6, with a 2.7L V6) the first time around. And they didn't have an existing production 90 degree V8 to start from; they just made the engine that way...

Point being, the "Shortstar" 90 degree V6 based on the Northstar was not unique in being a 90 degree V6, and was fairly advanced as I recall. MB just came out with that 3.5L for 2005, so it isn't like it is an old engine on its way out the door.

 

I still stock a ton of used ones. I love them. And I also love pointing out to people looking at them that they beat the Accord and Camry in a 1999 C&D road test

Sometimes, C&D CAN get over their hatred of domestics. Supposedly, in the new C&D the Fusion finished 2nd in a 4 way comparo, comparing the new Sonata to the current Camry and Accord. I thought for sure they'd rate the new Sonata over the Fusion. Surprise, surprise, the Accord won...

I know one thing...I'm with that angry C&D reader that couldn't believe the RSX-S won the sport compact comparo...I'm waiting for the day C&D has a comparison test without a Honda, but a Honda still wins the comparo.

 

Add BMW to that list..... not that BMWs aren't necessarily top-tier but c'mon. In a recent issue (I believe it was C&D, but it could have been MT (but, one's as bad as the other anyway)) involving a sport sedans comparo the Bimmer won despite being dogged by electrical/technology gremlins. If it had been a Caddy, Buick etc that suffered the same gremlins... it would have been sent to the back of the pack. As far as comparos go, I find that R&T is actually more fair, with less bias than either C&D or MT. Off hand, I can think of comparos featuring Vettes, CTS, Cobalt and HHR that won comparos in R&T but given lower scores by the other two mags when compared against the same cars. Not that I think the General's offerings are hands-down-winners all the time, far from it, but once in a while, just a little credit would be nice.

 

I realize that there's plenty of 90º V6s running around. But IMO it's not the optimal design for a few reasons. In a nutshell:
- First is balance, a 90º V6 is not inherently balanced and requires a balance shaft to properly quell the vibration.
- Second is related to the first, in cases where you base the V6 off of a V8 design. In order to get even firing (and you do want even firing) you have to split the pins of the crank throws. This puts the throws off-centre WRT the bore, which adds to wear and creates NVH issues.
- Third is packaging considerations. An engine that wide requires a much wider engine bay, and because of the engine's width, it compromises a DOHC layout because you can't have the outer cam out as far as you'd like

On the other hand, a 90º layout gives more room for a better intake design and accesory mounting. In cars where the width isn't such an issue (like on RWD cars), this might be a good tradeoff.