By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
My uncle still has his, and it still runs like a top. His was the first one I saw that got that kind of mileage, then a friend bought one for a daughter (awesome car for a new driver. At least until she dropped her cell phone and went under the back of a truck while looking around on the floor for it :mad: )
I drove our '87 Ciera from Austin, TX to Tulsa, OK in <7 hours and measured a true 30.5MPG. Like I said, perfect match of engine power curve to gearing.
I stand by my bet. We take a '98 Regal on the highway, normal traffic, normal driving, no cruise control. I give you $1 for every mile we go over the projected 25 mpg X fuel capacity less reserve tank, and you give me $1 for every mile under the projected 30 mpg X fuel capacity less reserve tank.
We're talking normal driving. I used to be able to coax 44 mpg out of my Scion but in reality the true everyday mileage was 33.
These car ads are like the equivalent of picking the best summer's day temperature in North Dakota and saying "come to North Dakota---it's always 85 degrees with low humidity here!"
AUDI -- they are like baby birds---they always have their mouths open, no matter how cute they are. They never grow up and fly away. $1800 a year sounds just about right for a used Audi. A GOOD one, I mean.
Now that '87 Regal Limited on eBay, the one with the 2-bbl 231, 3-speed automatic, and front seat that looks like the drag queen Devine and a Poseidon Adventure era Shelley Winters were romping around, in its current condition, would take an act of God to hit 30 mpg. It was EPA-rated at 19/24. Oh, and in perusing www.fueleconomy.gov, I see that Buick never did get around to offering the overdrive tranny with the 3.8 2-bbl in the Regal. It came with the Grand National, however, and that car in 1987 was rated at 17/25...quite commendable actually, considering the power it put out. And with the 307, they still offered both trannies. EPA estimate was 17/23 with the 3-speed, 18/25 with the overdrive.
Now if you took a 1987 Regal with a 3.8 2-bbl, in perfect tune, and drove it gently, you might be able to get 30 mpg. If you are the type of driver that could actually make the original-type EPA estimates, which they haven't used since 1984, then you could certainly break 30. The EPA's raw numbers for the 3.8 2-bbl are 21/31.
Did anybody ever actually hit the fuel economy promised by those old 1984-and-older EPA estimates? The unadjusted estimate for my grandparents' old '85 LeSabre (what would have actually been published had it been an '84 model) was 19/30! The one time they got 29 mpg was on a trip, driving across the flat desert in the springtime, no a/c, and when the national 55 mph speed limit was still in effect. Granddad would usually only go maybe 5 mph at best over the limit. Now Grandmom was a different story. If she drove it, that car probably wouldn't even make it's downgraded 2008 estimate!
Please tell me that 33 mpg isn't highway mileage. :surprise:
I could say "my scion gets 44 mpg" but that would be wrong.
If you showed me a log book on a '98 Regal that showed over 30 mpg averaged out over 6 months, I'd believe you---otherwise, I say POSH to that--it doesn't get 30 mpg, it just might get 30 mpg one time. I find the claim of the seller misleading at best.
Anyway yeah, that LeSabre probably wouldn't get more than 24-25 in mixed driving. Supposedly 30 mpg on the highway is really easy with those cars though. I guess I don't find the ad all that misleading though, because when I see someone post an ad quoting fuel economy, I'm going to presume they're talking highway economy. And in most cases, I'm going to expect them to inflate it a bit. But with that car it would be realistic...presuming it's in tune of course.
I had a '75 Olds Starfire with the 3.8L 2bbl and a 4spd manual. Using every trick in the book, including the removal of the cat, installing a hi-flow exhaust, and some very specific valve and ignition timing, I could get 25mpg at 60. That's all, folks.
The redesigned intake, fuel injection, computer control, and distributorless ignition system really made a nice motor out of what had been an outdated disaster.
Were all these changes incorporated into the upgrade F.I. 3.8 used in the '85 FWD Buick Electras and Park Avenues, and Olds 98s?
By the way, this V6 (the predecessor of the redesigned 3800 introduced for '88), didn't use the problematic composite plastic intake manifolds that caused so many problems. It was basically a good engine. The weakest link, as I understand it, was the composite plastic timing chain sprocket. The teeth would frequently begin breaking between ~95,000-125,000 miles, but more often than not this wouldn't result in bent valves. The engine would just suddenly die, and given Murphy's Law, it would generally be at an inconvenient time and place.
The timing gear issue you refer to was a problem throughout GM and some other manufacturers. The nylon overlay on the gear was to quiet the gear/chain interface, which it did. All the replacement gears we sold were all metal, and I didn't really notice that much difference in sound.
The '87 GM intermediates with this drive train were the first of the new downsized cars that could light up the front tires from a stop. The 3.8L with all the new technology generated a lot of torque down low, and breathed much, much better in the 4K to 5500 rpm range. Surprising little sleepers, these were.
About the one good thing I remember about the 231 in my '82 Cutlass, is that it actually was pretty torquey in some situations. Peak torque was 190 ft-lb, which it hit at something like 1600 rpm IIRC. From 0-60 the car was a dog. My Consumer Guide tested a 1985 Regal with the 3.8 2bbl/3-speed automatic, and said that 0-60 came up in "around 13 seconds". However, by this time I think they were also improving the electronics and carbs and such and general driveability of the cars, so a 110 hp 3.8 in 1985 probably performed better than a 110 hp 3.8 in 1982. All I know is, my Cutlass couldn't do 0-60 in 13 seconds!
Still, if you got up to about 45-50 mph and had to stomp on it for whatever reason, like passing, it would downshift and take off surprisingly well. And it was a good highway cruiser. My first car was a 1980 Malibu with the Chevy 229 V-6, which had 115 hp, but I think less torque than the Buick 231. From 0-60 I think it was about as quick, but it wasn't as good with passing, or high-speed cruising.
I wonder how hard it would be to take one of the more modern transverse-mounted 3.8's and put it in something like my old '82 Cutlass Supreme? I know it would never be worth it from a financial standpoint, but for someone who really likes the style of the RWD cars, but wants a bit better performance and economy, it would be a cool swap.
I'll usually see an '86 or so Regal or Cutlass Supreme coupe for sale at Carlisle, with a 307 V-8, for a reasonable price of around $2500 or less. And I have to admit that I'm always tempted!
Hmmm, a nicely preserved or restored RWD '80s GM intermediate with the latest generation supercharged 3800, would be interesting. Suspension and braking improvements should be included.
I'd be curious to see what upgrading to a modern supercharged 3800 would do for one of those cars. Or even the more sedate ~200 hp unit. Even with the 200 hp setup, it would put out around the same hp as the 455 did in 1976. However, the 455 would still out-torque it.
As for an '80's GM intermediate with the supercharged V-6, I wonder how that would compare to the old Grand National turbo V-6 in performance?
Don't know, but my perception is that the GN would be quicker. However, I recall that the Buick Division modified a one off (red) supercharged Regal, with a higher boost, that generated ~260 horsepower and greater torque than the standard GS, to gauge consumer reaction. I thought it was neat, and looked good too, but it never went into production. I guess the LaCrosse Super is the spiritual successor to the GS and older GN. How do you like the Super, andre?
Lemko, how do you like the LaCrosse and Lucerne Supers?
As for the supercharged 3800, didn't they offer a 260 hp version on the Grand Prix for a couple years?
Based on the movie, apparently all cars from the '70s explode from minor impacts.
You guys might want to watch out for that.
The basic motor was so good, I really have to wonder how that would turn out.
And in the realm of what could have been, in 1970 Olds developed a 455CI engine with dual overhead cams, chain driven. Made some outrageous horsepower.
From OldsOnline:
Iron 4 valve 455 Hemi (W-43)
There was also an engine coded W-43 in 1969 to 1970, though it was never offered as a production unit. It was a four valve per cylinder 455 CID engine. It was developed in 1969 and 1970 by John Beltz, Lloyd Gill, Joe Jones, and Frank Ball. It was rated at 500 to 550 hp at 6500 rpm with a single Rochester Quadrajet on an aluminum manifold. It was constructed with a cast iron block and heads as well as an aluminum block and heads, which shaved 75 pounds of the 455 CID production engine weight. The engine had narrow valve angles for super-efficient combustion chamber design, central spark plugs and could be adapted for chain or gear driven overhead camshafts.
The 455-inch-configuration block has 4.625-inch cylinder centers, 4.125-inch bore and 4.250-inch stroke. Making use of 3.00-inch main bearings and 2.50-inch rod journals, the engine was fitted with a specially-prepared cast crank fitted with SAE-1140 forged steel rods, forged 10.20-to-1 pistons and riding on Morraine 400 bearings. The four-bolt-main block boasts two additional 5/8 inch oil drain holes.
Topping off this unique engine is a pair of four-valve heads with 1.750-inch intake valves (SAE-8460 steel) with 22-degree stems and 1.375-inch exhausts (214-N stainless steel) with 15-degree stems. Special Stellite seats, bronze-alloy guides, o-ringed plug tubes, 14-mm spark plugs, 3/8-inch pushrods, and aluminum rocker arms complete the head treatment.
Aluminum 4 valve 455 Hemi (OW-43)
There was an experimental engine based on the W-43, coded OW-43. It was designed for road racing applications. It had the same basic configuration as the W-43, but the materials were different. The block was cast from Reynolds-356 alloy and fitted with pressed in dry steel cylinder liners for the forged 12.2 to 1 pistons. It used billet steel connecting rods and a machined forged steel crank.
The OW-43 was developed at the same time that Chevrolet released its all aluminum ZL-1 427 engine, but the Olds engine was far more advanced and exotic than the Chevrolet engine. It had a redline just under 8500 rpm, and put out 300 HP at 3000 rpm, and 600 HP at 6000 rpm. The top output recorded for this engine at the Lansing dyno facility was 700 REAL horsepower at 6800 rpm. Tests were run with both carburetion (four Weber 48-IDA two barrels) and injection (three-inch ram stacks), with injection showing the most potential over 6000 rpm.
I've heard some people refer to the 2005-07 LaCrosse looking too much like the ovoid Taurus. If you put the two cars side-by-side, they really look nothing alike. I'd say that generation LaCrosse is a prettier version of the Lexus GS.
The bold chrome grille works better on the Lucerne Super, but I'd have had the grille stretched to fill the voids between the headlights and grille. I'd have also had full-with taillamps to distinguish the car from the rear. The back end looks too much like a Passat on steroids and very un-Buick whereas full-width taillamps have been a big Buick hallmark since the early 1960s.
http://southbend.craigslist.org/car/610179008.html
Not a project, just an observation - depreciation is eating these away..and I am sure it could be had for less
Regading that boattail Riv - when I was a little kid I thought those were very bold and interesting, with that huge shapely rear window. They were getting old even then. I knew a girl from France at that age, her parents had one of those along with a ca. 1980 t-top Z-car...made the Buick seem a little exotic.
Caddy XLR - never did seem to catch on, I see very few of them around Dallas, thought this would be a good market for them.
If your wallet is feeling too full, buy this...it will be lighter in no time
i drove is few hundred miles on a road trip, once.
never spooled up the engine, though.
Oh, please don't spoil my fantasy with those practical considerations; cost-to-own be damned, that red Bentley looks mighty sweet!
That's their plan!
I was getting tired of my Harley and I was looking for something a little more fun. Hmmm....maybe I'll trade it for one of those classic Reliants I always wanted.
That could be my 77 year old Aunt Dorothy's car except hers is white and has something like a whopping 55k miles. It has been good to her over the years with very few problems.
And for even more fun...well, a 426 Hemi can be made to fit into a PT Cruiser, and I know I've seen older 80's K-based minivans sporting 440's, so I'd venture to guess that it would be feasible, if not very financially sane, to do something similar with this car. I think it would be fun to take something like this, a car so unassuming and wallflowerish, and set it up so you can embarrass your snobby neighbors. :shades:
Nah, it would be mounted longitudinal, which means major modifications. I looked up some info on the PT Cruiser Hemi, and they had to lengthen the engine bay, although I think they did that by making it intrude more into the passenger cabin rather than making the hood and fenders longer. For the RWD setup they used a Viper rear suspension.
I remember seeing some pics of a Dodge Caravan lighting up the front wheels at a drag strip, but it turns out that one had a turbo-4cyl put in. So I could be wrong about seeing a 440 in one...although I wouldn't be surprised if somebody tried it.
I saw a 70's Dodge Colt hardtop coupe with a 440 put in, but those were RWD to begin with.
I guess the most reasonable way to hop up something like that '89 Reliant would be to just put a turbo in it. Chrysler got something like 224 hp out of the 2.5 Turbo used in the Dodge Spirit R/T...I imagine something like that could be pretty brutal. Torque steer would probably be horrendous though. I had an '88 LeBaron coupe that just had a 146 hp 2.2 turbo, and torque steer was pretty bad on it.
It looks like someone's actually put some effort into trying to bring it back from the grave, but they still have a long way to go. It might actually make a serviceable beater as-is.