Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
2010+ Buick Lacrosse Engine and Powertrain Problems
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Re: jet engines, are those for commercial ones? Mil specs, which are usually tough don't preclude dino..see:
http://www.qclubricants.com/milprf6081.htm
The issue, as he explains it, for the Enclave was that a lot of folks were following the extended change interval per the OLM AND they were not monitoring oil level during the longer intervals (stupid, I'd say). As there could be a loss of maybe 1 qt/5,000 miles, and say 2-3 qts over 10-15k miles for those following the OLM exactly, that low oil level and oil flow surges could/did result in timing chain stretching for some. So, Buick decided to change the OLM programming for the Enclave.
My oil level didn't budge over the first 4100 miles but your results may vary. So, for those pushing the OLM projections to the limit- check you oil levels. Also, E-net rider posting here found high gasoline/light ends levels in his 5800 mile old oil which he sent in for analysis. This means the effective resistance to wear (viscosity) could be even lower for our engines at longer change intervals.
The part about oil surges and timing chain.
The loud steel to steel bang upon start coincides with what I have been wondering, believing to be from oil drain down between runs.
If it made the loud bang, shutting down and restarting never repeated the sound. Thus it would take time for the oil to drain down again and as I posted some time ago, my factory PF48 was missing its anti-drain back valve.
If you have a vehicle that has not yet had oil changed, I'd definitely be concerned and save that filter. There is no knowing how often one of these slips by.
As to those who had problem fixed by changing exhaust, you may have had a different problem. What I was hearing, at no point did the sound make sense as coming from something in the exhaust. It was too loud and too defined as something heavy, steel against steel. Like maybe a 3 to 5 # engineers hammer against a large anvil.
BTW, I do get a sound in the exhaust upon start occasionally. It is the sort of sound I would expect from exhaust pipes, catalytic convertor, etc.
You might check it 50 times showing no use, then something catastropic happens and it loses all oil on one tank.
I can't help wondering if dexos contains some secret ingredient to deal with excess gasoline?
There is a consensus that this engine with DI & VVT has been showing high gasoline content in UOA. And possibly tied to timing chain issues. I have not explored the siblings of this engine or any other that employ both DI & VVT, so I do not know how widespread the issue is or if issues are related to these technologies.
Because of results of UOA, many high readings with the lab calling attention to high gasoline, I will continue to test and monitor, probably avoid going below 25% or more than 5-6K miles between changes. To date I have seen absolutely no oil use, period! Even though GM is tying low oil to timing chain issues, it may extend to not using any oil but being diluted by gasoline. How bad is gasoline? My Dad runs many engines on the farm. Older ones often being more rebuildable than some newer ones and not as fussy as those with newer technologies. One thing he has used over the years are John Deere Gators. His biggest problem was because he did a lot of short runs, not allowing engine to be thoroughly warmed and burn off fuel, the gasoline engines all failed quickly and in one case right at one year. He never had issue with the diesel version because the fuel is like a very fine grade of oil. One of my sisters had 79 T-Bird w/400M that only lasted 27K because of gasoline issues. Most days it went less than 2 miles one way to work, school, or grocery. Under such extremes she probably should have been changing every 500miles or 2 months and for my Dad every 10 hours on gasoline Gator.
A sure killer of a motor if not caught in short time was the failing of mechanical fuel pump diaphram. They often leaked into the engine without external clues. A couple of basic rules for gasoline, never use as a solvent because of danger, and certainly never use on bearings because it will start rust which destroys the bearing, eventually. Sound like you want it in your motor oil? It will cause your bearings to wear out and destroy seals. It will also gum up lifters, valve seals, and rings.
I think GM owes us the truth about the gasoline, timing chains, etc. Do we need to change oil every 2K/2mo. for a long lasting engine? Or is that overkill? These bits and pieces, rumors, are not satisfactory. I do not like the idea of being the 1 in 1000, or whatever numbers game they may be using, that results in a bad vehicle.
Small engines appear to be obviously affected and Stihl, Toro, Honda warn against ethanol damaging engines. The latest proposal by the feds to increase ethanol to 20% caused a reaction by car makers (FINALLY!).
Timing chains on DOHC engines is a pretty new subject since the domestics lagged the offshore makers by 20 years on that technology IMO. The Japanese used belts rather than chains for 20+ years but replacement was VERY important and expensive. We will see if the long term durability of the newer GM, Ford engines lives up to the old Honda- Toyota engines that had VVT,DI and DOHC years ago.
Good luck to us all.
Automakers have made statements about E85, high alcohol content, claiming they can't make engines last using it. I find this a bit strange since alcohol burns cleaner than gasoline. Is it Brazil that has been using it in lieu of gasoline for probably close to 50 years?
I have not received a satisfactory answer as to why, just that other new ones do it also.
GM must think we are stupid and can't understand a real explanation.
For me it is of concern in many ways but in part because that range is so close to cruise RPM at a number of lower speeds. Unless they are actually shutting fuel off to some cylinders, it would be indicative of a poor burn.
BTW, I'm now seeing a long hesitation when I need to suddenly accelerate.
At 45, you are not in 6th gear.
I thought one of the advantages of VVT was a flatter torque curve. I wish I had the curves for torque & HP, just to see what they look like at speeds around 1800 -2500 RPM.
I think the engine you mention was TBI and most engines of that time did not put out near the power of newer versions. My son-in-law has a Tahoe which I believe has the 4.1 Vortec. Nothing under powered about it according to him. He claims if you put foot in, it will put you in the seat. He uses it to tow and when he goes camping it gets a 19' boot loaded up with lots of camping & other gear. It does not bog at all when he gets into the big hills.
GM engines have traditionally been a long stroke giving more torque at lower RPM. GM has had a couple of engines that were down stroked models of others and those typically like more RPM. The 327 downstroked to a 302. The 4.6L Aurora downstroked to 4.0L.
I had the 4.0L with 4 speed tranny. It would be in OD at 45 MPH and I typically only saw about a 5 MPH or less drop going up that bridge.
Just a different operating car that requires relearning operating tricks.
Are you wanting graphs for the 3.6?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You make it sound like this would be better mated to a CVT transmission.
I am going to play a bit and try to figure how wide a range I'm seeing the big delay when I want acceleration.
Wow, the torque curve is far flatter than I imagined possible with the addition of VVT. According to old rule I had run across, engine peak efficiency occurs around maximum torque. Those older engine curves had quite a big change and this one is near flat.
This is the 3800 version that was in the Lucerne. I can't find a graph of the leSabre/ParkAV version earlier.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Great visual portrayal of the different performance.
Thanks!
In the new LaCrosse, much depends on the match of the engine torque to the final and transmission gearing. And also now there's even more pressure for high gas mileage.
I haven't followed the discussion closely on the engines and torque so I probably am off on a different point than the actual topic, so I'll just keep reading.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
For me and at its current mileage (~4800) and state, my CXS has a good balance of auto shifts and mileage. Even when it downshifts on mild uphill climbs, my speed doesn't drop.
BTW, last evening in torrential rains and some minor flooding on roads, the traction control/stabilitrak and 18" Michelins worked great and I felt very secure.
If not, then the Michelins were doing the job.
It is impossible to guess whether the latest additions to engines is for pollution or mileage or some combination of.
Comparing those two charts, compare torque or HP for an equal RPM of both engines. It looks like the 3.6L is higher in all cases.
Traveling a steady speed, Lacrosse with 6 speed & smaller body for wind resistance compared to Lucernne with 4 speed, it would seem that there would be more than just 1 MPG difference for highway. That is what I remember window stickers to show anyway.
Overlay curves of fuel consumption for those graphs might reveal something, but not hopeful at this point.
The graph I showed was not for the 3.8L. It is the 3800 which is vastly changed from the 3.8s of the 80s.
The particular graph is of the later version that was in the Lucerne. I believe the earlier version had slightly better horsepower and/or torque rating.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I am nnot clear on what you mean here. The 3800s were not related to the 3.9L.
The chart was for the 3800 in the Lucerne, the last iteration of the engine. It had sequential port fuel injection, AIUI.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I do know that whatever Buick was putting in those older vehicles, 90's, must be one tough engine. There are a lot of them on the road yet.
BTW, the battery that went dead in less than three months and was replaced. It has been replaced again. It was leaking acid and developed a corrosion spot where it was dripping.
Every day I am more and less impressed.
Also found out tha it takes these cars a VERY long time to drain down for a good oil level check, which I guess is the idea. I have read no posts of oil consumption on the 3.0/3.6L family in current posts. Once the consumer stopped relying totally on the oil life monitor and started to check the dipstick. DUH! Ours has the 3.0 that is in Cadillac SRX models and good motor so far.
Mine certainly did not take much time to drain down during the time that filter was on. I'd check very frequently, even after just filling gas the stick would be up.