Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Marmil
You can go to the Toyota post sites and find all manor of problems.People are far more likely to take the time to post a negative , rather than a positive,but those C-R surveys don't lie.All in all, even a Cobalt beats taking a horse to work. Bill C.
Oh yeah , that's a good one.....Bush should have used that to explain his Iraq problems and poorest ever poll ratings in today "pep-talk"
There's always an excuse for poor results. From cars to wars. Selection Bias hardly tells the tale however in either case. Bill C.
Ford and Chevy parts are mostly cheaper to replace, so it is far to say, not a bad used car buy. Might consider a new Mustang, but that's a maybe. For the most part I would buy used and keep the saving in the bank for repairs. If they are as good now as those saying that things have changed for the better, and a used one is so cheap, then why not go used. The warranty is short term, and the depreciation is high. Heck, maybe just get an '04 Stang GT. Very basic, nice sounding, and easy on repair costs.... I think? Insurance a bit high. And in the GM line, maybe a used Corvette or Caddy would be nice.
For style, the Solstice and the G6 coupe look kinda interesting. The LaCrosse is not bad for a sedan. The CTS is good, but not a value with the current engine. If a person really needed new and a new GM, then those may be something I personally could see as interesting. To each his own. Oh yeah, the Chevy Impala does look better, inside and out. Not a bad freshen up job there. Wonder what the new Monte will look like in RWD form? In FWD, it still seems like Toy and Honda are winning the race.
Loren
As if any of us actually floor the cars we own and use their full speed more than a couple of times a year.
Despite its humble beginnings, the 3800 is the best V6 engine on the planet. It's well-understood, powerful enough to get the job done, is very reliable, and well, gets the job done. The 4 cylinder engines Toyota and Mitsubishi use are simmilar in this respect. No need to change what already works well. The 3800 is smooth, has good torque, and is simple to fix. Exactly what you want in a family car.
As for the transmission, it's an old transmission design, but then again, so is the transmission in a Lotus Elise. Age has nothing to do with whether or not it works well, and in fact, many older designs are better because the kinks have been worked out to where it's nearly bulletproof.
My only gripe is that GM only puts it in front-wheel drive cars. It begs for a RWD application.
The best V-6 engine on the planet? I wouldn't go that far. The 3800 gets the job done, that is true, but it now lags the Honda and Toyota V-6 engines in several areas.
My parents have a 1999 Buick Park Avenue, and while the engine has been reliable and economical, it is not as smooth as the Honda and Toyota V-6s, and it runs out of breath above 70 mph.
If you like it, that is fine, but judging by the trend in Buick sales figures, an increasing number of buyers want something else.
But depending on the buyer's needs, there are simply better engines out there these days.
It's not even the best 90-degree V6 sold in the US (that title goes to the Honda C32B). The sole virtue of the 3800 is that it's cheap to build. Apart from that, every attribute can be described as "adequate" at best.
Would that be the "American Brand" Planet?
I would guess that this poster has not owned: Nissan V6 VQ, Honda or Acura V6.
Aluminum cost more per foot, and becuase of it softness, and high conductivity, it requires special tools to fabricate. Aluminum cost more.
So far there is no comparison for quality and reliability
Buicks dated 3800 has one of the highest reliability ratings of any V-6 engine, higher even than the 3.0 and 3.3 litre engines from Toyota.
maintenance on the engine, you change oil every 5K miles
Do to the complexity of OHC valve-train with multi-valves, maintainence will be higher to maintain by the very nature of the technology. If all you do is change the oil, I suggest you look at your maintainence schedule in your owners manual.
SAY WHAT!
The 3.8L in my 1982 Olds Cutlass was garbage, pure 100% rubbish. I wouldn't call that a humble beginning at all. I might go so far as to call it exhibit #1 in why and how the Japanese took over the mid size market. Bill C.
Anyway, I have a car with a DOHC engine...a 2000 Intrepid with the 2.7. I bought it new and it has 115,000 miles on it. I had new belts (serpentine/accessory belts...the 2.7 uses a timing chain) on around 85,000 miles, and had the coolant changed then, too. Also had the spark plugs changed, probably prematurely, at around 51,000. Oh, and also at 51,000 the thermostat housing had to be replaced, because it was leaking (and naturally, out of warranty...ran around $210 to fix)
Other than that though, it's just been oil changes every 3000-5000 miles and a new air filter and pcv valve every 15-20K miles.
Now on the downside, the 2.7 is very expensive when it DOES fail completely and needs to be replaced. My mechanic said that the typical used engine is around $5,000, plus the labor to put it in. So in a nutshell, IF my engine ever goes, the car becomes a total loss. But hopefully that'll still be at least a few years off.
Now my uncle has a 2003 Corolla with about 105,000 miles on it. He does the 30/60/90K type services, although with him I think it was more like around 42/72/104K. I'm not sure what all they do on those services though. The last one was around $825, but it included brake work.
So, Kodename, at what mileage did YOUR 231 self-destruct? My '82 Cutlass started its death rattle around the 72,000 mile mark. One morning I went to start it, and the engine just sounded horrible. And the oil pressure light never went off with the other idiot lights after a few seconds, so I knew something was up, and turned it off.
One of my buddies helped me replace the gears in the oil pump. One good thing about the 231 is that they're easy to get to. I think with many engines you have to drop the oil pan. Anyway, the old gears were shredded, and there were bits of metal in the oil. The new gears did get the oil pressure back up, and it ran, more or less, for about 3-4 months until I finally sold it for $400, with maybe 73-74K miles on it. But I only paid $800 for it, with around 61K, so it wasn't a total money pit.
I remember when I bought it though, one of my managers, who was a retired engineer, predicted that it would self-destruct between 70-90,000 miles. He had one of those early 80's downsized Bonneville-Gs with the same engine, and that's when his died.
I later found out it was most likely the crappy mesh timing gear that started to go, and that's what caused it to crap out. These suckers were known for poor lubrication too, though. I think the block had too many narrow oil passages with right angles that cut down on the pressure and got blocked too easily.
In 1985 it got a new, stronger block that supposedly did away with most of the problems, and it went from being one of GM's worst engines to being one of their best.
Sure - it's not the most technically advanced anymore, doesn't have the most power, but overall, it is easily in the top 5 6 clyinder engines overall, ever, very much like how Volvo's 4 cylinder engines were.
If you replace the timing gear at 120-150K miles and the camshaft sensor(s) - the car will easily last 200 or 300K miles without flinching, while taking a crazy amount of abuse for what it is. Consider that it's not a $40,000 Lexus, afterall. It's a $20-something-after-rebates-thousand dollar car that has plenty of power for 95% of people's actual driving.
I don't think there were any FWD 231's until 1985, the year they went to the stronger block. Unless you count the 231 turbo in the Riviera, but that car was set up more like a RWD configuration anyway.
The FWD 3.8's kept on improving and boosting hp, going from 125 hp in 1985 to 150 around 1986, and soon thereafter to 165, then 170. The 2-bbl carb version stayed at 110 through the end in 1987.
There were a few other versions of the older, pre-1985 3.8, and they were pretty much crap, too. There was a 3.2/196 CID version used in 1978-79 Century/Regal, and possibly the Cutlass, as well. And a 4.1/252 version that was used as the base engine in some big '80-84 Caddies, Buicks, and Oldsmobiles, and optional in some smaller models, as well as some Pontiacs. It was actually fairly powerful for the time, with 125 hp and 210 ft-lb of torque, but would still be overmatched by something like a 1982 Electra. It was the worst of them all, because it had the biggest bore, making an already weak block even weaker. There was also a 3.0/181 version used in FWD models that, while it had the same 110 hp as the 3.8 in RWD models, was just as much of a dog, if not worse.
Now when the 3.8 went to ~200 hp (I think it was usually 195-200 in midsized cars and 205 in Bonnevilles, LeSabres, etc) I think it went to yet another, even stronger block.
Still, when I change the oil on my Dad's '03 Regal, the engine doesn't look that different from my old '82 Cutlass. It even uses the same oil filter (Fram #3387) and is in the same spot on the engine. Of course, being transversely mounted, it's in a different spot in the engine BAY!
For V6 engines, I'd rate it at the top, followed almost tied but a bit lower for the Camry V6(DOHC and all is a bit more to fix). But none are as reliable as the older inline-6 engines. By their nature, inline engines have less parts and less angles, plus can get by with one camshaft for the entire engine without actually suffering any performance-wise. DOHC is pretty reliable as well, since it's all there in one place.
But they are often too long to fit in anything other than a RWD car. I do like what some manufacturers are doing, though - they are beginning to see the wisdom of the older Mercedes philosophy. Put a very small inline 6 into the car instead of a big 4 cylinder engine or a nasty V6.
My old Mercedes, with carbs, puts out 135HP. The FI version a couple of years later put out 150HP. For a 3000lb car, that's quite decent. All out of 2.3L in minne, and 2.5L in the later model. It's actually a smaller engine block than the GM 3800. The thing about it is that it revs quickly and like any 2.x L 4 cylinder engine. The idea of small and quick to rev is, of course, contrary to GM and Ford thinking. Mazda's RX-8 is the other extreme, though - lol. But in any case, you don't even need 3.0L for an inline engine.
(note - the 3.0L version of the Mercedes engine put out 180-200HP - quite astonishing considering it was in the mid 60's) GM only took - what - 25 years to catch up?
The record for one of these series engines is something over a million miles, so it's "pretty reliable". I think the engine literally has about 1/2 the parts of the GM3800, which is a lot of it.
On a side note, I'm a bit sad that Lexus decided to toss its inline-6 in the ES series and go with a V6 instead. Inline-6 with RWD is the magic combination, even after all these years. Stickshift is even better.
As for Corolla, you put in oil, filters and gas, and it runs along like the Eveready Bunny.
Loren
The 2.7 has earned a reputation for sludging, but my mechanic said that the only ones he's ever seen sludged were where owners consistently went 7-10,000 miles between oil changes, often letting them run low. With my 3-5K oil changes (I strive for 3K, but I guess lazy and forgetful sometimes). Letting the oil run low will also mess up the timing chain, which needs to stay lubricated. Now that the Stratus/Sebring have been completely built-out, the only place the 2.7 ends up is in the base 300, Magnum, and rental/fleet versions of the Charger. It's actually not a bad engine, but Chrysler could have done just as well taking the 3.2/3.5 SOHC and de-tuning it a bit for use as a base engine. However, the 3.2/3.5 may not have fit in the Stratus/Sebring.
The $5000 just for the motor does freak me out a bit, but a guy here at work recently had the 3.8 in his Windstall grenade itself around the 90,000 mile mark. That sucker was around $5500 to replace! And that's just a fairly simple pushrod engine! :surprise: In contrast, I remember the place I bought my '89 Gran Fury from said that if the engine ever blew, that they could put in another used 318-4bbl for about $1,000 total. And if, by some freak of nature, the tranny dropped, he said he could put another used one in for about $300. This was back in 1998 though, so I'd imagine his prices would be a bit higher these days!
As for my uncle's Corolla, one issue it has now is needing a new catalytic converter. The dealer wanted $1500 to put a new one on! I've found aftermarket parts online though for much cheaper, and then we'd just have to find a place to put it on. We'll probably go that route.
And this is only a sample of one, but I know someone whose brother had a 1999 or so Malibu that they ran the snot out of. The engine finally gave up, at around 190,000 miles. And these people aren't exactly the kindest in the world to cars. Once upon a time they used to buy abuseable, semi-indestructible stuff like early 70's Lincolns and Ninety-Eights with 403's, but over time those go from being just used cars to cars pushing 30 years and more, and end up losing their practicality in everyday use.
What's wrong with those that they need replacing?
The 3L version you mention is the M189, which had some similarities to the unit used in the gullwing. It can be a chore to maintain, from what I've been told. But as you mention, ca. 200hp out of an engine that size using a 45 year old design is pretty impressive.
The M103 6 from the 300E is one of the best engines ever, IMO. Very sturdy with respectable power.
On topic, the 3.8 might be unrefined, but it has served lots of people very well. Maybe not a choice for an enthusiast, but they've got it down pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_C_engine
Isn't that typical GM? Build it,sell it , let the end customers pay for R & D. What technologic or scientific break through was made in 1985 that wasn't feasable in 1982? They simply cut off two cylinders from the old V8 and thought "hey,good enough". Wasn't this about the same time they masterminded the Gasoline V8 converted to diesel? Not to mention selling Oldsmobiles with Chevy engines and the techno-topper the Cadillac V8-6-4?Our domestic manufacturers seem to cheap/lazy in too many cases to upgrade their engines untill it's all but too late. Then when they do , it's all too often unreliable, and under developed. Bill C.
:P And don't forget the sludge problem, rattles, leads in steering, popping in the unit body, drumming in the Odyssey noise, shaking at higher speeds in Pilot, and lots of others I'll have to look at my bookmarks for in other cars. And.... :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Hmmm, this quote is a bit confusing. They expect profitability but bankruptcy is possible if not?
Hmmm, this quote is a bit confusing. They expect profitability but bankruptcy is possible if not?
This is because Delphi may go out on strike. UAW you know. I guess that if Delphi goes on strike GM will have to pay all of its workers for doing nothing as opposed to just the many thousands who participate in the jobs banks now http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5185887. If you pay all of your employees for doing nothing you go out of business. It is all on the heads of the UAW.
.
http://www.heckflosse.nl/engine4.htm
Note - these figures are 15HP low from listed specs in the books and are with the A/C installed/running. Yes, the A/C took 15HP off of the engines. The maintainence issues on the 3.0L engine were the fuel injection - it was probably the first Bosh system - very simmilar to the mess used in the later Zs, the Volvo 164E, and the BMW CSI.(among others). PITA to work on, but worked superbly when the 50 or so clamps and hoses were all in proper condition.(heh)
These figures are also SAE at the wheels, and not gross like today's cars, so 170+15=185+10%=200HP at the crankshaft without the A/C running. Not too shabby. Mated with the 5-speed manual, it was a seriously fast far for its day. 185km/h is - yeah - quite a fast car for 1961. (went to 190 with the manual in 1963).
45 years ago Mercedes was making a car with 200HP by today's standards that had a top speed of ~115-120mph. That's impressive to say the least. Even old Jags and Porsches from that era weren't much faster.
The 220SE engine put out what the last two years' 230S did (better carbs by far) - or 135HP(have the book in front of me - without A/C installed). That's also at the wheels.
***
If you replace the timing gear at 120-150K miles and the camshaft sensor(s)
What's wrong with those that they need replacing?
***
Well, they tended to use synthetic teeth on the main cog to keep down noiuse or some nonsense, and also used a teflon spacer/tensioner at the end of the camshaft to hold it in place instead of a unit with bearings. Add in the fact that the camshaft position sensor, ingition coil packs, and timing sensors all tend to blow up at about 10-15 years or 150K miles...
But - all of that is maybe $500 to replace with steel and bearing componets. Find an old Buick that won't start anymore - and the owner can't figure it out. Laugh as you take the car, put in new timing gear and sensors, and have the car last for 200K more miles.(this is a one-time "fix"/expense and the #1 reason most of these cars end up inpoerable.
Simmiilar to this would be the manifold problems the mistubishi engines used to have. Find a poorly running Mitsubishi - just makes a lot of noise and runs like crap. Replace the exhaust manifold. Presto - $400 car you bought now runs like the $2000 it really is.
(problem was that the manifold would crack right before the o2 sensor, making it run impossibly bad)
I've heard that the Olds 307 also used that mesh junk. Everybody I've known with a 307 though would usually just run them until something else went bad on the car and then finally got rid of it (or in Lemko's case, still has the car in pristine condition!) One of my bosses had an '87 Electra wagon with the 307 that he never took care of. I think it finally bit the bullet around 170,000 miles. The biggest culprit was, get this...sludge!! At least he admitted to not changing the oil and maintaining it like he should, though.
As for the Oldsmobile diesel, while it was based on the 350 gas engine, the production diesel was not the same production gas engine with a diesel head bolted on, which is what you imply. You really have no concept of reality.
While Cadillac's 8-6-4 V8 was troublesome, it was a one-year production model except for the limo's. The 8-6-4 did not meet Cadillac's or GM's expectation for EPA fuel economy standards, so they rushed the 4100 V8 into production. This engine was also flawed with a standardization flaw that caused a significant percentage of production engines to leak coolant into the crankcase. This problem took years to sort out as it was a very subtle problem. Testing cars by running them 24 hours per day, 7 days per week does not make this problem show up.
Did something happen to the V-6 tooling in those years (c1968-1974) that Jeep had it? Or were the older Buick 225 V-6es from 1964-c1967 (before they sold it to Jeep) just as bad?
I know those old original 198 V-6es from 1961-63 were unreliable, but I always thought that's because they were aluminum. The 215 V-8 was pretty bad too, and even the aluminum Mopar slant six was troubleprone. The mass market was just not ready for aluminum engines yet.
As for the Olds Diesel, it would have been better if GM had just designed a Diesel from the ground up, instead of converting a car engine. But yeah, the Olds Diesel was beefed up over the passenger car version. I think the Olds had the strongest block back then (moreso than Buick and Pontiac, and way more than Chevy), so that's also why they used the Olds block as the basis for the Diesel.
The Olds diesel was designed to be a light weight engine, and as cheap as possible. The Mercedes diesel was a much more expensive, and reliable engine. The big problem with the Olds diesel, I think, was that water could build up in the fuel tank and then it would take the fuel injection pump out. Owners were not careful about where they filled up - I always went to truckstops with my 78 Olds 98 diesel. The owners may not have been careful about the type of oil they used either, my diesel required a CD grade diesel oil, not compatible with oils for gasoline engines.
I know both the 198 and 215 were dropped for 1964, when they went to a 225 V-6 and 300 V-8, which were an iron block, deep skirt design. Then the 300 went on to become the 340 and then the 350. The 225 tooling was ultimately sold to Jeep, and what little need Buick had for a small engine in the late 60's was satisfied by the Chevy 250 inline 6. When GM got the tooling back from Jeep, they enlarged the bore so that the V-6 could use the same pistons as the Buick 350, and that took its displacement up slightly from a 225 to 231 CID.
I still wonder though, where the V-6 picked up its lubrication problems, while the V-8 never seemed to have them.
The 300 cubic inch V8 that was available in the 64 model year, replacing the aluminum V8, was based on the cast iron V6, which had been developed from the aluminum V8. :confuse: This engine was enlarged to 340 cubic inches for the 66 model year and then 350 cid for 68. This 350 continued till the end of Buick V8's.
It was a great (gasoline) engine with that Quadrajet. Flooring it from a dead stop was exhilerating with the sound and the acceleration.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It's not just GM folks like many of you think. Do a lil' Research on the Delphi site and look at all the customers Delphi supply's. It's not just Automotive.
Rocky
Chevy also used a cheaper grade of iron in their block. Oldsmobile used a higher content of nickle in their block, which made it much stronger. As a result, the block itself could be thinner and lighter. It was more expensive, however, and I think when you have a higher nickle content, if you slack off on coolant changes you'll be more prone to having the cooling passages rust and clog up, and then start eating at the freeze plugs.
As the 70's wore on, the Pontiac block was ultimately dropped because it just couldn't meet emissions controls. Pontiac engines tended to run cool, and when they were heated-up to run cleaner, they just didn't take well to it. I don't know why, exactly, the Buick block was ultimately dropped, if it had any real disadvantages or not. The Oldsmobile engine was the best of them all when it came to emissions, and was much better suited to high-altitude areas, and the stricter emissions requirements in California. This was probably one reason that the Olds 307 held on for so long, last being produced in 1990. The Chevy block mainly stayed around simply because it was cheap to manufacture, but still "good enough" for the most part.
My '76 LeMans has the Pontiac 350, but just with a 2-bbl. It has a nice rumble to it, no doubt helped by the aftermarket dual exhaust. It takes off pretty nicely too, although that's probably more a credit to the shift kit in the tranny and some head/cam work that was done before I bought it. I can't imagine a 3800+ car with only 155 hp being very much fun in stock form! :P
Rocky
The engine is good because of the parts interchangeability, ease of working on it, simple design and pretty robust. Granted the engine in some displacements could be doggy. The second gen is still being produced you know. A company I worked for a few years back built sold GM and CAT/Perkins engines for use in industrial and agriculural markets, like in HVAC systems, tree trimmers and the like. The Vortec 4.3L and 5.7L and even the 2200 and 8100 Vortecs were being used.
Here's a link I think you might be interested in:
Gm Engines
The title speaks for itself. I found some interesting things:
The 215 in Buick form is 350lbs dry and is heavier than the Olds and Ponco versions
The Buford 300 is 405 lbs dry when using the heads, intake from the 215, but when it switched to the iron heads, weight shot to 467 - 62 lbs increase :surprise:
The 348/409s weighed less than the Mark IV
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006603150331
I didn't say it was "stupid" to rush the trucks nor cancel them. But I did state they shouldn't have taken money from the car programs to get these things into production while the car programs die off or get delayed into infinity. These are going to be needed to help shore up the EPA numbers that are due to arrive soon. I still think this is short money gained on a long death spiral.
I also stated and agree with many here that they shouldn't put all their eggs in this SUV basket. Again, just looking at what happened when fuel hit $3, which it's getting to here in a hurry (premium in some spots is already @ 2.80/gal) the demand will drop. What then?
GM, agreeing with other reports, admit the market's going to be in 750K range, not 1 million, a 25% drop. But yet they're investing to be able to make SUVs at the Pontiac, Mich plant I believe (can't exactly remember which plant, but believe it's the Pontiac one that is getting the investment). With the current plants already capable of producing the vehicles, a) why try to bring up another facility to produce the vehicles on b) too early to tell sales figures when c) the market's down and d) is volitale due to gas prices?
I just think they may take this news and again rest on their laurels, thinking this early surge is going to continue throughout the vehicle's life.
The products are a vast improvement though. Of course, they really had to be.