3.4 or 3.8 reliability question
Well, I might be getting rid of this damn Integra beater/daily driver. I kinda want to replace it with a 3.4 or early 3.8 Camaro (or Firebird in a pinch)... which is to say I'm looking for something in the 93-96 range. I just want to make sure I'm not buying into a big time headache.
What are things to look out for? One I'm looking at has 115K on it, but it still seems solid. I don't want another money pit like my 94 Z28 was... Kinda hoping to get a decently reliable car with good looks, even if it accelerates like a pig.
My Integra does that anyway.
What are things to look out for? One I'm looking at has 115K on it, but it still seems solid. I don't want another money pit like my 94 Z28 was... Kinda hoping to get a decently reliable car with good looks, even if it accelerates like a pig.
My Integra does that anyway.
Hey Nate!
Both have solid engines. I'd advise going with a '96 with the 3.8. More power is always a good thing.
The only thing that has ever really gone wrong with mine was the rear main seal and intake leaked. Then of course the typical routine stuff like plugs and wires.
Its been a very reliable car...never died on me, always starts. Doesn't smoke or drink excessive oil. Though my security light just turned on (ignition cylinder) but nothing major.
Test drive her first...get a feel for how she shifts.
Good luck...
Both have solid engines. I'd advise going with a '96 with the 3.8. More power is always a good thing.
The only thing that has ever really gone wrong with mine was the rear main seal and intake leaked. Then of course the typical routine stuff like plugs and wires.
Its been a very reliable car...never died on me, always starts. Doesn't smoke or drink excessive oil. Though my security light just turned on (ignition cylinder) but nothing major.
Test drive her first...get a feel for how she shifts.
Good luck...
going by magazines... I remember reading that 3.4Ls were the only 4th gen listed not to avoid(in reliability for the average consumer)
My thoughts...
My 1994 3.4L has well over 130,000 miles, only adjusted the rockers once to get rid of a slight tick, Car ran fine, but had a slight tick, and I had to replace the ignition lock cylinder. And the few problems associated with high mileage cars. 02s going bad, cat died at 100k, etc....
All the other problems I had with the car were mianly clutch/tranny problems caused by my drivng habits. This was my dad's car before me.
Car had well over 350 drag passes, dozens of autocrosses, a road race, and lots of fishtailing and drifting with the lsd in the rear, lots of beatings on the street, had gone mudding, offroading, spun out and hopped curbs, plowed through bushes all kinds of hell that alot of cars woudl never hold up to. When I sold the car had more drivetrain problems(tranny) but the motor started and ran like a top, guy fixed tranny and put brakes/tires on the car and was running it to new best times at the track.
My 2000 3.8L
7k miles, master/slave cylinder blew out, fried the clutch. $3k in damage, under warranty. this happened a day after I took it to its first time to the track. Car wasn't driven nearly as hard as my 3.4 on a weekly basis.
Years later I buy the car off my dad.
~37,000 miles CAT goes bad, gets replaced under warranty(the 7year/70,000 warranty on emissions equipment.
39,000 Power steering pump blows out internal seals. Once again this car nowhere near driven like my old car.
Car total has 40 or so passes on the track
Last few times when race prepped and at the track clutch slips at launch and at 1-2 shift. But drive fine at the street. Clutch was dealer installed and only has 33,000 miles on it. I went through clutches alot on my old cars but this one was babied by my dad when it was his car, only driven on weekends, I only had the car for 5,000-8,000 miles and I don't beat on it nearly as much as I did on my old car.
Overall
My 2000 is more reliable and gives less headaches then my 94 did. But my isn't HUGELY more reliable, and my 94 was 6 years older and had 90,000 more miles and well over 300 more drag passes.
And for the most part the 3.4L was mildly modded the 3.8L is near 100% bone stock at most times.
My thoughts...
My 1994 3.4L has well over 130,000 miles, only adjusted the rockers once to get rid of a slight tick, Car ran fine, but had a slight tick, and I had to replace the ignition lock cylinder. And the few problems associated with high mileage cars. 02s going bad, cat died at 100k, etc....
All the other problems I had with the car were mianly clutch/tranny problems caused by my drivng habits. This was my dad's car before me.
Car had well over 350 drag passes, dozens of autocrosses, a road race, and lots of fishtailing and drifting with the lsd in the rear, lots of beatings on the street, had gone mudding, offroading, spun out and hopped curbs, plowed through bushes all kinds of hell that alot of cars woudl never hold up to. When I sold the car had more drivetrain problems(tranny) but the motor started and ran like a top, guy fixed tranny and put brakes/tires on the car and was running it to new best times at the track.
My 2000 3.8L
7k miles, master/slave cylinder blew out, fried the clutch. $3k in damage, under warranty. this happened a day after I took it to its first time to the track. Car wasn't driven nearly as hard as my 3.4 on a weekly basis.
Years later I buy the car off my dad.
~37,000 miles CAT goes bad, gets replaced under warranty(the 7year/70,000 warranty on emissions equipment.
39,000 Power steering pump blows out internal seals. Once again this car nowhere near driven like my old car.
Car total has 40 or so passes on the track
Last few times when race prepped and at the track clutch slips at launch and at 1-2 shift. But drive fine at the street. Clutch was dealer installed and only has 33,000 miles on it. I went through clutches alot on my old cars but this one was babied by my dad when it was his car, only driven on weekends, I only had the car for 5,000-8,000 miles and I don't beat on it nearly as much as I did on my old car.
Overall
My 2000 is more reliable and gives less headaches then my 94 did. But my isn't HUGELY more reliable, and my 94 was 6 years older and had 90,000 more miles and well over 300 more drag passes.
And for the most part the 3.4L was mildly modded the 3.8L is near 100% bone stock at most times.
3.4's are troopers.. they can take quite a beating...Even our 3.8's can still start up and ride through most situations I've been through... If you get a 3.8 though, watch out for that dreaded misfire... Every 3.8 I've testdrove either had it coming or was dead in it... basicly if you get a 3.8 with 80K + miles... prepare for an immedeate tuneup...
Re: 3.4 or 3.8 reliability question
All engines have their problems, and they all tell a different story. Any car can run forever if properly maintained. The trick is to know the common issues with your vehicle, and be prepared for an problems. You are talking about buying a 10 year old car. Even new cars have things that go wrong; a Camaro will be no different. But, if you spend the time to learn the vehicle and have the patience to fix a problem when it may arise, then there is nothing to worry about.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dbusch22
Forced Induction
6
Oct 31, 2016 11:09 AM
CamaroRSguy
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
12
Jul 8, 2002 09:39 PM



