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
Does anyone want to talk about the Grand Prix?
As for the Grand Prix, anyone tried the new, improved back seat?
My allegiance to the Grand Prix suffered a big hit today. I drove the '04 Malibu. Sorry, "guys", but we're (Chevy) getting the better end of the deal. Still, the GP is in my top 3 (but can't afford the GTP, that's why I'm now the way I am). If you even care, I'll be posting reactions to the test drive (as a '98 Malibu owner (orig)) over the weekend.
Still waiting on back seat reports on the 04 GTP.
I MIGHT be interested, if it can be sat in comfortably now.
Also, they claim the seats are like this because they fold flat. My Grand Am seats folded flat, are weren't nearly as bad as the GP's. So I don't understand that argument at all.
BTW - I've driven the car 2500 miles and had no need to fold the seats flat. But, I have had several people in the back seat, all of which complained.....
I see many GPs are around these days, they seem to be selling well.
Give GM credit.
For a change, they ARE listening...
In the old days, the brand executive would have said they would change this THE NEXT TIME THE CAR WAS REDESIGNED!
Midlife, what is the headlight issue? I have not noticed anything?
Ruski, We had an Accord and I can assure you it was not trouble free. GP is better though the Accord we had was a 96.
Johnclineii, Luckily I never use my back seat except for groceries and beer. I'm glad GM has addressed the issue, a poor back seat would hurt sales as some people will want a more useable seat.
Wpbharry, Saw a new Malibu the other day. GP is a much better looking car and you won't pay much more for a GT than a V6 Malibu.
Glad to hear that the GP is doing real well.
Otherwise, no problems or concerns. IMHO the '04 is a great car.
Sigh.
The new 04 has a couple of design issues that are being addressed (ie. bad back seat), but so far the quality issues with the new car seem to be very small compared to the new Accord. The 3800 is a smooth engine and since 90% of people have no idea what's under the hood, I some how don't think putting a DOHC engine in will spur sales that much.
And so it goes...
PEOPLE WHO WANT PERFORMANCE CARS KNOW AND CARE ABOUT WHAT'S UNDER THE HOOD.
Sometime in the early 90's sedans became something besides dull family mobiles. At that point the bar was raised and now folks (many, not all, but still many) look for a sedan that has some high tech and livelier character under the hood.
So on a Grand Prix GT for example, some may not care, but on a high performance GTP, folks care because performance and engines is why they are buying the car. Otherwise, why would you get a GTP instead of just a GT? And then there's the whole thing about the competition and how they produce new updated engines every couple or three years generally. All new usually.
As an aside, the Bonneville switching to the v8 mini northstar is the best thing for that car that's happened since the original SSE. In fact, also, they swapped the Aurora seats into the Bonneville, they should put the Aurora DASHBOARD into the Bonneville as well.
My brother has driven the CTS with the 3.6 and he said that it had the best of both the 3.8 OHV and the 3.5 DOHC, namely excellent low-end punch, high-end power and smoothness. It seems that cam phasing redeems multi-valve designs lack of low-end torque.
But it'll be some time before Pontiac gets that engine, I'm afraid. For now, only Cadillac and Buick can use it, I guess until 2006. Well, I might be in the market then, so...
;-)Meanwhile, GM intends to use a 3-valve per cylinder setup on the 6.0 V8 OHV and 3.5 V6 OHV engines with a single, variable-phase cam. A bit of a convoluted design, but promising for value applications (see page 5).
Those that do want performance may get an V6 Accord for the hi rev engine but the handling is only so so. GTP is still very much in the game because of the raw HP and better handling. Performance is more than engines. Really depends on what you are looking for. A buddy of mine bought 01 V6 Accord but missed the off line power of his Monte Carlo. He figures he might go back to a GP next car.
Including Automobile Magazine which called the GTP engine LAZY in its character.
dindak I think you have even said you preferred your Shortstar Intrigue to a 3.8.
those who ante up for a performance sedan aren't satisied with just fine.
Different kind of fun is all.
Then again, this Nissan engine has variable cams, which improves its low-end torque, as I stated before.
The fast decline in torque of OHV designs is not due to the pushrods, but due to the fact that they have only 2 valves per cylinder. Just try out a Mustang with the SOHC V8 and you'll see what I'm talking about.
The supposed advantage of the pushrod as detailed by others is less 'complexity'. In return for less complexity you typically have only 2 valves per cylinder which in OHV is hard to arrange in a fashion that is advantageous for a centrally located sparkplug, which is the key to improved combustion. The by product of the central sparkplug is 4 (maybe even 5) valves arrayed around the central sparkplug. Because of their position at the perimeter, the total area of the multiple valves exceeds a normal 2 valve setup, which again is why it takes in and exhausts air so much better.
More air in and out burned more completely = more power at all rpms. The rotational mass of the OHC is also less, which allows the engine to spin smoother higher and freer.
Now, it becomes a question of if you prefer less complexity basically. That simply has to be your reason for liking a pushrod engine. Because the basic design of the OHC engine allows for overall superior operation, assuming you at least incorporate multiple valves.
GM is rushing to market a 3 valve design for the next Vette and other cars utilizing OHV. They are attempting to gain the benefits of a central sparkplug and additional valve area.
But to me then, you are adding complexity. There is additional rocker arms and rotational mass. ('horizontal' rocker arms?). It seems to me that then, this new pushrod mill is evolving to the point where the "complexity" is equal to that or exceeding that of a basic run of the mill OHC setup. GM seems to put a lot of stock in just trying to be different for different sake. But if it works as well as the current Vette mill then fine. Its just that the other GM pushrod mills don't get near the attention and performance levels the corvette motor does.
In my estimation, it would be much more impressive if GM would develop the 3800 like they do the Corvette motor so that they get class leading performance out of it without resorting to slapping a blower on it. If the 3800 is 2/3 of Corvette motor in displacement, then it ought to make at least 2/3 the power. Without a blower. I could be impressed by a 3800 that makes 275hp and impressive torque and revs to 7500 rpm or more. For as much time and effort they put into keeping those pushrod factories open, they could at least move to a 60 degree design and aluminum block and heads. Then we would have a motor that is close to class leading and also not 'complex'.
I just want to add that I also understand GM's love for pushrods. Unlike almost all other manufacturers, V6 are standard on many models whereas the competition offers V6 only for a premium, if any. Therefore, making cheap V6 is much more important to GM than to others, who can have the luxury of selling barely 50000 V6 models, but GM sells over 1000000 V6-equipped cars annually.
Not that I think that pushrod should be the only choice as it is right now (paraphrasing H. Ford: "any engine you like, as long as it's a pushrod"), but I guess that GM is actually in the right direction keeping a pushrod engine for value applications and a DOHC engine for others.
I think it's great that the Malibu gets a 3.5 V6, unlike most if not all of its competitors, but the issue I think, concerning this forum, is when will the GP have the 3.6 DOHC V6 for the same price, which is IMO a tad high?
;-)You do realize that they had to add variable valve timing to the DOHC engines, otherwise they would be a complete DOG to drive off the line or until you hit 2500-3000rpm.
Both engines are good, I like both the 3800 and DOHC. I have the both of best worlds with the 2 cars. The funny thing is that everyone compliments me on the GTP, but in the I30t it just blends in with everything else, not a standout car.
One thing people FAILED to mention here is that the I35/Maxima/Altima with the 3.5VQ have VERY BAD torque steer, worst in class. Much worse then my modified GTP. That is funny because the 3.0VQ, my I30t doesn't have that much torque steer, when they went to that 3.5, its horrible. It's annoying to use full acceleration sometimes.. it rips the wheel from left to right and right to left. Where as the GTP just has a gentle tug to the right. Whats up with that?
Finally the DOHC 3.5VQ only gets 26 on the highway, where as the 3800 Supercharged gets 28?? So much for technology, right? Old pushrod is just as fast and gets 2 more mpg on the highway to boot. Both engines reccomend premium gas. For 2004 you can use regular in the supercharged, but premium is recommended
1997-2003 GT were rated at 8 seconds 0-60
2004 GT1 & GTW were rated at 8.5 seconds 0-60?
Both generation have the same 200hp 3800, same weight/size and I believe the same 3.29 gearing?
Whats up with that? 8.5 today isn't too fast for a V6.
One magazine had a stock Impala 200hp at 7.8 seconds...
1997-2003 GTP 240 horsepower 6.8 seconds
2004 GTP 260 horsepower 6.6 seconds, CompG is 6.5 sec
That's basically the same to me. If you add a pulley to a 1997-2003 GTP it adds about 30 horsepower, giving you a total of 270 and a 0-60mph run of in the mid to low 6's..??
I would like to know where this magical 20 hp went?? The 2004 is only what 50 pounds heavier? same size car for '04
Some auto magazines had the 1997 GTP rated as good as 6.6 seconds the same as a 2004 with 20 more horse?? S omething is odd here.
GM throttle linkages are set up in a non linear fashion, which contributes to the 'launch feel' from low speeds.
Its also why, when travelling at higher speeds, you have to push waaaayyyyy down to get the thing to kick in. The throttle linkage is much more aggressive at lower speeds, even though with a gm product you usually have to get several inches of pedal down before you get a wakeup call.
Most other normal cars have a much more linear and quite frankly, natural correspondence between the throttle linkage and delivery of power. BMW is frequently praised because of linearity of its throttle controls.
a 2 mpg difference over 15000 miles a year is about 40 gallons of gas, or maybe 60 or 70 bucks. A year. In a performance car that you pay over 25 grand for or often times quite a few hundred a month for, I hardly see it as being a big deal. In other words, if you got that much money to spend on a car, the 40 extra gallons of gas a year ain't gonna kill ya. It would be more beneficial to have the enhanced performance of the more complete engine under the hood.
If you were talking vs. 14 mpg in an SUV then yes, there's a big difference. But 2 mpg, WHO CARES?
And GM's ARE normal cars.
And, in the interest of forum solidarity and maintenance, one GM car is the...
PONTIAC GRAND PRIX BY GENERAL MOTORS