best engine???

Which lumina engine is the best (in general) for reliability, gas mileage, etc?
A. 3.1L
B. 3.4L
C. 3.8L
D. 2.2L / Other

defenatly has to be the 3.8, althought i have a 3.1, the 2.2 was never put in a lumina (that im aware of), it was a 2.5 all iron, and the 3.4 DOHC although may be quick, i would never buy one being that hard to get parts for and hard to work on.

The 3.8 is great - my wife has 150k on her '98 LTZ. The only real pain is the leaking oil pan gasket (twice), and how much fun it is to change.

I've owned three 3.4's. There a little more involved to work on (like the oil pump drive seal that is a breeze in the 3.1's....gotta take the rear head off in a 3.4), but nothing compares to how well they run. They're my pick.

Maybe it was the 2.5, I just had the 2.2 in my head. I don't know. I just wanted another option (D.) for my poll.

The 3800 has the best all around performance/reliability/economy bar none. The 3800 can outrun a 3400 DOHC, and has more power than the 3.1/3100. I have to give it to the OLD style 3.1 Vin-T from 90-93. I've had two (one in a 91 Grand Prix and another in a 91 Cavalier Convertible) with over 250k trouble free miles and one 2.8L (same basic engine) with over 400k in a Celebrity wagon (go ahead and laugh, it even had the 3rd rear facing seat, no wood-grain though). The 3100 Vin-M and J are good engines, they are just subject to GM shoddy intake gaskets. Fix that, and you should easily get 200k+ relatively trouble free miles out of them too!!

I'll go with the 3.8 as well, much as I do believe the 3.1 is a helluva motor in it's own right, the 3.8 has a long history, is very well developed and refined, excellent power and reliability, and good economy for it's relatively large displacement...

The SOHC 3.4 is a good engine, I don't know if it ever came in the Lumina, but I had one in my 2000 Impala, and it had the same character as the 3.1, just a little more pop to it...

The DOHC 3.4 is a cool toy but not for the casual owner...it needs what it needs and is not forgiving...

The 2.5's were good paperweights...boat anchors...parking stops...etc...

well, jeff, i had the 2.5 ironhead in my 1990 lumina. It always, always alwyas started, -20 degrees F, and the car started. no block heater or anything. It did have a couple faulty o2 sensors towards the end, which i attributed the 2nd failure of the same one towards the octan boost poured in with 92 octan fuel to give it the pep. I drove it home with a bad o2 sensor dumping tons of fuel in, and melted the cat converter. replaced the o2 sensor again, being under warrenty, and traded it off at the dealer for my 2001, good thing the didnt drive it first, cause i could only get her up to 45mph towards the end with the restricted exhaust. lol

well, jeff, i had the 2.5 ironhead in my 1990 lumina. It always, always alwyas started, -20 degrees F, and the car started. no block heater or anything. It did have a couple faulty o2 sensors towards the end, which i attributed the 2nd failure of the same one towards the octan boost poured in with 92 octan fuel to give it the pep. I drove it home with a bad o2 sensor dumping tons of fuel in, and melted the cat converter. replaced the o2 sensor again, being under warrenty, and traded it off at the dealer for my 2001, good thing the didnt drive it first, cause i could only get her up to 45mph towards the end with the restricted exhaust. lol

Yeah, "The Duke" was a tough engine...better suited for tractor service than transportation, though. Slow revving, noisy, gutless, but tough...

that is true. Was a noisy motor, mainly becasue of timing gears instead of chains or so i've heard. mine was gutless, hence the octance boost. It had a little pep with 91 octane and a 4 dollar bottle of boost. it always claims its safe for o2 sensors, but one just wonders how a brand new one could quit working after only about a month of service. Oh, well.

Buick 231, bar none. For a small displacement, it had gobs of torque (which it was why the design was sold to AMC/Jeep in the early '70s). The main and rod journals are massive for an engine of that displacement - Strong enough to later take turbo and superchargers which tripled the power output without a major redesign. The decks are cast thick and strong, and the basic design is timeless. Regardless of the iteration, be it iron head, aluminum head, flat tappet or roller, straight or offset crank throws, carbureted, batch EFI, SFI, turbocharged, or supercharged, I seriously doubt that another example of raw durability and elegance in design could be found from any manufacturer.

It has powered vechicles for over 45 years, and has no practical service end in sight. It has survived high compression, high lead/octane fuels, LPG and CNG use, low octane 1970's embargo (camel urine) gas, unleaded, alcohols of all varieties, belt blowers, single and twin turbochargers, numerous head designs and materials, and just keeps taking whatever they can throw at it. It's essentially the V-6 durability equivalent of the SBC V-8, in that it is going to be around for a long, long time. It already has, and nothing other than the SBC V-8 comes close in service history.

As a further testament to it's design, the "antique" continues to eclipse other, more "modern" design engines that have multiple camshafts, more modern metallurgy, enough valves per cylinder to require a calculator, multiple exotic head designs, etcetera, while all these others are still trying to catch up. It's good enough that several other V-6 manufacturers have copied the bore/stroke numerous times.

Hands down, the Buick is the King of reliable V-6s in my opinion. Others may eventually be as good, but they don't have the historical proof of that.

I wouldn't trade my 202,000+ mile 3100 for 10 3800's, as long as I keep those gaskets and fluids changed!!

:D

Maybe when it has over 40 years of history, it might rate. No one said the Chevy V-6s are not good engines. I think the newer versions may be kept in service for a good number of years, too. But the Buick is right along with them every year, still gaining "experience."

I wouldn't trade my 202,000+ mile 3100 for 10 3800's, as long as I keep those gaskets and fluids changed!!

I agree , somewhat, that's why I kept my '93, 3100 lumina when I bought my 3800. That 3100 has given me 4+years and over 80K miles of dependability. I wouldn't even think of trading it. To me it's worth ten times what the blue book says. Great cars!!!

just for tblake: I got bored today and was flipping through my Chilton repair manual for my lumina. I found the page that listed the available engines/transmissions for specific years. Luminas did have an available 2.2L in '93 (if I remember correctly). I guess it didn't go over too well as that was the only year I saw it listed. If you have a repair manual, check it out this bit of info was fairly interesting. It makes it very obvious which engines were good and which were junk.

thats too funny, I dont remember anything like that, i though the last year the 4 cylinder was put in a lumina was 1990, mine, and had no idea they came with 2.2's. I guess i better do some research before i open my big mouth huh? And as a side note, i have access to a data base online, i have shared my UN and PW with a few members, if anyone else would care to pertake, send me a pm, just dont share the info i give you. It very interesting to just go on there and read about your car.

I don't know much about the other engines but the 3.1 is my favorite lol my first car i had about a year ago was a 1.5 liter Mitsubishi Mirage Hatchback ( 85 horsepower) getttin a 3.1 v6 i feel like i'm drivin a corvette haha its nice to have some power.

Just a FYI i have a 91 with a 2.5 as far as reliability, a 2.5 is as good as any engine, and my 91 has roller lifters and the same timing chain setup as a 2.8 or 3.1. So no way i can say this engine is noisey.
Has 250k on engine with only a new timing chain becaue original tensioner wore out and chain snapped. Sure if you want performance a 2.5 in a lumi is not the way to go. But this little iron engine has plenty of torque to run just fine if you are a driver who just wants transportation.
But i agree a 3.8 is the all around best because of its reliability and performance. I once had a Chevy Monza with a carbed 3.8 and a stick shift, great little runner dont remember exactly but i think it was like a 78ish year. Brother had one with a 305 V8, and my 3.8, well lets just say the 305 had nothing on the 3.8

But i agree a 3.8 is the all around best because of its reliability and performance. I once had a Chevy Monza with a carbed 3.8 and a stick shift, great little runner dont remember exactly but i think it was like a 78ish year. Brother had one with a 305 V8, and my 3.8, well lets just say the 305 had nothing on the 3.8

How does the 3.8 compare to a 305? Surely the 305 is more powerful. Perhaps a reliability issue between the two?

I think the Series I 3.8 was both reliable and so fun at low end torque, this from the time it evolved to even firing, and until it went to series II. Series II was even more of a performer of course, more of a revver, which series I never was, but somewhat plagued with reliability problems with the intake manifold, and to me this makes it less desirable, because it was an unnecessary evil.

How does the 3.8 compare to a 305? Surely the 305 is more powerful. Perhaps a reliability issue between the two?

Well, cousin has a 91 Buick LeSabre FWD with a 3.8 FI and you would think you were driving a V8, be it a small block. not comparing to a 454 now LOL

Time to close this poll and thread that's been running since 2006. Everytime someone votes in it even though they don't leave a response, it gets resurrected.