Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Oldsmobile Intrigue

17374767879396

Comments

  • j_colemanj_coleman Posts: 143
    yellowperil: Instead of Trig, how about 'Trigue? Or N'Trigue? Or even *Ntrigue.
  • 71ss71ss Posts: 39
    The 3.8 is a droner---boring!!!like a tractor..

    The 3.5 is a whiner---like a Ferrari....

    Good test yellowperil!!!!

    Saturn is not too upscale the last time I looked; so I hope Intrigue fades out as a winner..

    The entire Saturn project was based on GM divisions supplying parts at less than cost to overcome the Asians.. Roger Smith sold the whole piece of baloney to the Board.. Saturn would make a good lawnmower..
  • j_colemanj_coleman Posts: 143
    I think they use the 1.9L SOHC Saturn engines in some of the Briggs & Stratton self-mulching models...
  • vcjumpervcjumper Posts: 1,110
    Man this play on names is making me thing of Trigonometry and nsync. Make it stop!
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    I think that the 'Nsync reference was way over the line. We should quit while we're ahead because i am feelin the urge to alliterate.
  • How about "NTG?" Oh wait--that's nitro . . .
    Coleman--that was too funny re: Saturn mower!
  • swagledswagled Posts: 195
    I just console myself that whatever my Intrigue gets is sooo much better than the 14-16MPG I used to get in my old 1974 V8 "college beater" :-)

    If you let the cuise control handle your speed, you can get 30-31MPG on the highway in an Intrigue. (But if that's what you want-- isolating yourself from the driving experience with cruise-- then maybe the Intrigue isn't really the car for you!)
  • desmierdesmier Posts: 9
    Now what's wrong with using cruise on a highway?
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    I take great comfort in knowing the mileage I get is so much better than all those SUVs crawling up and down the highways. While the Intrigue's mileage is nothing to write home about, it's competitive with all the major V6 sedans out there and uses regular fuel. An extra 8-10 cent a liter for premium in a Maxima is a never ending nightmare.
  • jgriffjgriff Posts: 362
    I whole heartly agree with you about sedan/Trig better gas mileage than those crud-guzzling SUV.

    However, I have never been able to understand peoples big hang-up on prem. extra 8-10 cents. Assuming that you fillup once a week, with 15-gallons that is a whopping buck-n-half. Over a course of 1-year you are talking less than 100 dollars. Even 200 if you must fill it twice a week.

    If money is that tight maybe one should consider down-sizing to 4-banger.
  • 71ss71ss Posts: 39
    Love those low octane burners..I think the only GM engines requiring prem fuel in the current model lineup is the 3.8 supercharged. Caddy is a low octane burner starting with the 2000 models.

    The non-domestic small displacement engines require the premium stuff to develop the legs to run with the larger displacement.. The prem fuel is a cheap fix for the 3.0/3.2 bunch..

    At the gas pump we normally have the choice of three grades; however the prem. user only is up the creek.. I know, for the 96 Northstar isn't too happy on the mid-grade; and the 87 octane would be used for downhill trips only!!!!

    The $0.10/gal difference is normally the spread between the mid-grade and the top end. The 87 vs. prem. is .13-.20 difference.. For years, I used the Sunoco 86 in the 2.8 and 3.1 GMs and after 90k/100k miles it didn't make any difference.. Never had any tuneups or sure didn't need any either..
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    Actually, I'm talking 8-10 cents more per LITER. On a 50 liter full up that is C$4-5 a fill up. Why pay more for no reason. If I had a Vette, it would be well worth it.

    Problem is gas already cost more here than in the U.S. Premium just makes it worse.
  • vcjumpervcjumper Posts: 1,110
    Well I was feeling "frisky" at a stoplight today on my way to work after cruising at 150km/hr on the highway with an LS1 Camaro. Pulled up beside a midsize Mercedes thinking I would simply gun it at the light a bit and take his left lane to take the next left turn.

    Unfortunately he had other ideas and as he walked away from me hard then took my lane to take the next right, I saw the AMG logo on the back of the car. Doh!
  • j_colemanj_coleman Posts: 143
    vcjumper: stoplight racing in the Intrigue should be limited to truck/SUV and 4-banger econo-car competition. Save it for the highway where it really shines...
  • 71ss71ss Posts: 39
    Filled up the GLS yesterday at $1.47/87 octane.. Heard on the radio this a.m. to expect $3.00 this summer in some sections..

    The local Mobil is trying to get there quick, for I noticed the Prem.@1.84 and the 87@1.70; so our enviro whacko friends and the camel jockeys have once again joined forces to screw the USA..

    Good old Easter weekend is a great time to raise prices..

    Save the Caribou!!!! Hello recession!!! and how long do you think you would like to stick around????

    vcjumper----I like the way you step up to the task and make a Mercedes owner at least defend his $70k purchase. Keep up the challenge for it's great marketing and will spread the word; don't mess with Intrigue owners.
  • teoteo Posts: 2,508
    The 3800 V6 like a tractor??? What???? Hey, I wish Tractors and Buses would sound this good!.

    I have driven the 3.5L and it is indeed a smooth and powerful engine in the top end....the low end is no where near as powerful as the 3800.

    The 3.5L will eventually be axed and the 3800 keeps going..hmmmmm I wonder why...
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    Price of gas here just popped up to around 75 cents a liter from 67 last week. Must be a long weekend coming up.

    Surprise!
  • 71ss71ss Posts: 39
    teo---When the 3.5 is axed, it seems as though we will be backsliding.. Must admit it is a bad scene, for the 3.8 is way beyond its useful life except providing basic transportation needs.

    GM has frittered away too much money developing a hi-tech V-6 based on beancounter input..I enjoyed the 3.8; but doesn't sway any future consideration. GM is my favorite car co.; but they have lost the race with dull engines!!!

    The 3.5 is pure silk and inspires driving on the fast side; with the lack of low end torque a non-event, who needs it????
  • vcjumpervcjumper Posts: 1,110
    I wish I would have known he was going to gun it that hard, I went for a simple quick launch. It was a beautiful car but like you said 71ss, 3 times the price of an Intrigue, maybe more with AMG mods. Sure was fast.

    Gas is sky high so I'll be limping the car around hoping to ride out half a tank till prices go down again. No more keeping it out of overdrive on the highway for s%$ts and giggles.
  • yurakmyurakm Posts: 1,345
    I have read somewhere, that with the same rpm, and up to some maximum, the torque depends mostly on the displacement volume. This is why 3.8l have about 10% better low-end torque, and better acceleration at low speed.

    The older pushrod engine starts to lose breath at about 3600-4000 rpm, and almost dies at 5500. This higher rpm band is about the optimum for the new 3.5l engine.

    On the other hand, 3.5l is about 10-15% more than the 3.0-3.2l at Honda, Toyota, etc. This is why Intrigue have better low rpm torque/acceleration than these cars, even when they bear the Acura/Lexus badge.

    GM planned to produce a 3.7l version of the Intrigue engine for new Pontiac GP. About the same displacement as the current 3.8l. But, probably, now it will be shelved.
  • vcjumpervcjumper Posts: 1,110
    The 3.5 doesn't have the low end torque of the 3.8, but what mainstream sixes for cars do? If low end torque was desired by most, more cars would have it. The Intrigue has atleast as much as the foreign competition.

    Put a 5-speed auto with the Shorstar and I think acceleration times would take a nice jump. That is a no brainer and GM would be dumb not to. Honda was smart mating one to their 3.2 and I wouldn't be surprised if their next Accord has one.
  • yurakmyurakm Posts: 1,345
    First of all, I would dare to say the mid-size GM cars with 3.8l engine are about mainstream.

    As to who needs the low-end torque, well, it depends on the driving pattern.

    For example, I work and a city and live in a close suburb. Do not need to use highways, except for pleasure trips. I even intentionally drive home from work twice a usual distance by highways about once week at winter for practice, to not lose the skills.

    The same with my wife, except she drives our son to swim pool twice a week - one exit by highway.

    So we practically do not need the high-end performance. But a good low-end acceleration helps very often for different reasons: with changing lanes with fast start from traffic light, with merging into street traffic, and couple of times it let my wife to avoid the imbeciles who run a light.

    On the other hand, I have friends who are commuting 40-60 miles one way. They live close to highway, and work near highway. Such driving pattern really asks for the high-end power, but barely for the low-end acceleration.

    I believe, about the same is true with the "road warriors", e.g. corporate salesman.
  • ghostzghostz Posts: 19
    Looking at the gmpowertrain.com site, there is not a huge difference in the torque curves of the 3.5 v. the 3.8. I have read that GM designed the 3.5 specifically to provide good low end torque. Never owned a 3.8 car. Are we really talking that big of a difference?

    JR
  • swagledswagled Posts: 195
    People make a lot of gloomy forecasts about the 3.5. Is this just rumor or is there any published news to this effect? I'm skeptical that GM would axe the 3.5... Their next generation of high performance engines would surely be Northstar-derived, and the 3.5 has already been road tested for 3 years and is a logical place to start.

    Regarding the endless comparisons between the engines... There is one area that the 3.8 certainly has a huge advantage. And that's aftermarket upgrades. But that should change as the 3.5 is used in other lines, if GM keeps building it.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    If Gm had never put the 3800 in the intrigue we would be comparing the intrigue's acceleration to the Camrys and accords of the world, not intrigue against intrigue.

    Still it is an interesting comparison. The reason for the difference is mainly due to the 4 valve vs. two valve difference. Any time you increase a naturally aspirated engine's breathing ability, low end power will suffer.

    This is true in pushrod engines also. If you have a small block 350 CID Chevy that has a stock 1.94" intake valve. Replace that valve with a 2.02", port the heads to take advantage of the increased flow and you have killed some low end power, but gained something on the top end.

    Since that small block chevy now flows more it needs a camshaft that has the lift and duration to take advantage of the engines new found breathing ability. That new camshaft can really kill low end power. You will now need steeper gearing( which the intrigue needs) and higher stall torque convertor or a manual tranny(the intrigue has neither).

    The 4 valve engine in the intrigue has the same effect on low end poweras the 2.02 valve in the small block chevy. It kills low end power.

    The intrigue does not have a high lift camshaft either, because if it did it wouldn't be so smooth at idle. The intrigue also has fairly short intake runners to help with midrange and above flow.

    The 3800 has relatively small valves and longer intake runners to help with low and mid range power.

    Acura and honda use a lot of gearing to get their cars going. This is why the acceleration times are so close. The steeper gearing hurts their highway mileage numbers.

    If the intrigue was running 3.55 or 3.71 gearing, a 5 speed auto and a looser torque convertor i would fully expect a 0-60 time of 7 flat or less.
  • redly_oneredly_one Posts: 122
    It was published in Wards Auto World that the 3.5L goes away in '02.


    http://www.homestead.com/redly1/Oldsmobile_stuff_Intrigue.html

  • redly_oneredly_one Posts: 122
    Anyone been following Olds long enough to remember when the Intrigue (or Cutlass Supreme) was supposed to come out? 1995, if I remember correctly. If you read old reviews about the CS, you will find it. Coincidentally, that year the Cutlass Supreme got a slightly similar dash to the Intrigue. Makes me wonder how long the 3.5L was in the works.
  • ian18ian18 Posts: 133
    Info from a metals newspaper:
    GM 3.8 V-6 engines will be out of production by 2006. Replaced with all aluminum, overhead cam, "Electron" V-6s starting in 2003. GM considered using the 3.5 premium twin-cam engines but they are costly and underpowered for some of the cars in which the 3.8s are used. A stronger, upsized version of the premium V-6, displacing 3.7 liters is also being developed.
  • swagledswagled Posts: 195
    Imagine how much different that would be if sales had just been better... the 3.5 might have made it to the Alero to replace the 3.4, and the upsized 3.5 -> 3.7 might have been an option on the Intrigue. That might have satisfied those who kept hoping for a Northstar Intrigue....

    Still, that article doesn't make it definite that the 3.5 will never be built again. We'll have to see if GM scaps the dies or just puts them in storage for another line.
  • etharmonetharmon Posts: 399
    Again, some of you make the 3.5 sound like it is an Asian four banger when compared to the torque of the 3800 and this is not at all true. I have a 98 Intrigue with the 3800 and yes that engine has alot of low end torque. Floor it at a stop light and you'll immediately engage the traction traction. I could switch the TC off and do that and finish off whats left of the Goodyear Eagles in about 10 seconds. Now, having said that I'll say the 3.5 DOHC V6 has pretty good torque too. I've driven several service loaners with the 3.5 and recently spend an afternoon with a brand new GLS and I found that when you give the 3.5 a nice jab in the gas, it leaps forward pretty quickly as well. Personally, I love the way it will stay in a lower gear longer and let that wonderful engine rev. The 3.29 axle ratio on PCS equipped models also helps. So don't discredit the 3.5 just because alot of it's competitors don't have as much low end power. It's really an impressive engine. And I've always been very fond of the ultra reliable 3800. Now, as for the future of the 3.5, there is a guy who posted in the 2003 Cadillac CTS thread that Automotive News has reported that there is indeed a larger displacement version of this engine coming in the next generation Grand Prix. I asked him how reliable this source was and he claims Automotive News is very reliable. So thats good news to us Shortstar fans.

    71ss(aka 1415) I am so in agreement with you on post 2264. What these tree huggers don't understand is that energy is what drives our economy and while $3 gallon gasoline may drive more people out of big SUVs it will also cause the US economy to slow even more. I filled up the Intrigue this evening and I noticed 87 octane was up to $1.45 a gallon. My father is now spending $30 or more to tank his premium drinking 95 Aurora up. THANKS ALOT LIBERALS!!
Sign In or Register to comment.