Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online!
Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! 
-
Latest | 0 Rplys

Stop Feeding Overpriced Junk to Your Dogs!

GET HEALTHY AFFORDABLE DOG FOOD
DEVELOPED BY THE AUTOMOTIVEFORUMS.COM FOUNDER & THE TOP AMERICAN BULLDOG BREEDER IN THE WORLD THROUGH DECADES OF EXPERIENCE. WE KNOW DOGS.
CONSUMED BY HUNDREDS OF GRAND FUTURE AMERICAN BULLDOGS FOR YEARS.
NOW AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR THE FIRST TIME
PROPER NUTRITION FOR ALL BREEDS & AGES
TRY GRAND FUTURE AIR DRIED BEEF DOG FOOD
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Chevrolet > General Discussion
Register FAQ Community Arcade Calendar
Reply Show Printable Version Show Printable Version | Email this Page Email this Page | Subscription Subscribe to this Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-27-2004, 10:09 PM   #1
CARNIGG
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 92
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to CARNIGG
HI'S AND LOWS OF GM 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, & 3.8 LITER ENGINES?

Any body out there know much about the performance levels and potentials of these engines? I once had hold of a 89 cutlass with a 3.1 and minor mods and it was nuthin to be taken lightly. Anyway, just wanted to know the differences on these engines and ish like that...thanks..
__________________
CARNIGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2004, 12:42 AM   #2
CARNIGG
AF Newbie
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 92
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to CARNIGG
Re: HI'S AND LOWS OF GM 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, & 3.8 LITER ENGINES?

upp
__________________
CARNIGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2004, 01:00 AM   #3
MagicRat
Nothing scares me anymore
 
MagicRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: City of Light
Posts: 10,702
Thanks: 12
Thanked 82 Times in 77 Posts
Jeez, people have written books on this subject.

The 2.8 L was very reliable, especially in the iron cyl head version. They run forever, but had low power for their displacement, 110 to 135 hp depending on the year. This low power was just because they used a wedge style OHV cyl head, like on any old V8. This limited the breathing and rev range of the engine.
All this was fixed on the 3.4 L DOHC varient from about 10 years ago. Those engines were really good, but were expensive to make for otherwise humdrum cars so GM stopped making them.

The 2.8 got larger bearings in mid 1985. Earlier versions tended to spin rod bearings if overrevved. These engines reached theur best development in the Fiero. You can get 150 - 160 hp easily with bolt on manifolds and a camshaft. Serios headwork will get you 180. Use Fiero or Firebird /Camaro heads as they had bigger valves.

The 3.1 was a varient with aluminum heads. Those heads had canted valves and would breathe much better, but only raised output to 125 hp stock. Still there is more potential in a 3.1 than in any 2.8.

The 3.8 is a completely different engine design with huge potential. as awesome turbo variants were built for many different cars (ie Buick Grand National), and the supercharged versions are pretty quick too.
If you have a choice in a project, start with a 3.8. Its MUCH better than a 2.8 - 3.1
MagicRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2004, 10:34 PM   #4
CARNIGG
AF Newbie
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 92
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to CARNIGG
Re: HI'S AND LOWS OF GM 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, & 3.8 LITER ENGINES?

I See Oldsmobile Cutlass Supremes With The 3.4 Engine...are Those Any Good?
__________________
CARNIGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2004, 01:27 AM   #5
Evangelion
AF Newbie
 
Evangelion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Evangelion
Re: HI'S AND LOWS OF GM 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, & 3.8 LITER ENGINES?

Well now your looking at dohc vs single cam (regular)... both engines have extremely close HP most likely 3 -5 hp with in each other, i know the 3.8l out of a 98 is 200hp and i think the 3.4 is 195 or 198 something like that.

3.4 dohc - with some head work i suppose you could look at some nicer dyno records but you gotta put into perspective that means 4 cams..and a BELT ... you could custom turbo it, good luck finding a supercharger that bolts in with little to no problems.. as you can see im not a personal fan of the 3.4 but its still a nice engine and untill GM pep'd up the 3.8 it was the best managable v6.

3.8 - Stock, this engine comes with one major flaw, at 90k miles the extreme heat from the EGR dumping into the lower intake manifold that has a valve that dumps into the upper (plastic) intake manifold melts into a water jacket sitting a mer 2mm from the hole, thus causing small amounts of water to be sucked into your engine over the coarse of 3 days untill on day it doesn't get compression.... (yes this was a personal direct experiance with a 98 3.8 liter *sigh*) ..... however you slap a supercharger that comes with the supercharged Grand Prix you take care of that little problem, get some different pullies and some head mods from SLPerformance.com and you can probly push 300 to the ground.

As for the GM 4-bangers... i am very unimpressed... you can do some major engine and intake (turbo) mods and maybe get something kinda fast.. but i wouldn't mess with them personally.
Evangelion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2004, 02:43 AM   #6
quaddriver
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Huntingdon, Pennsylvania
Posts: 532
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to quaddriver Send a message via MSN to quaddriver Send a message via Yahoo to quaddriver
Re: HI'S AND LOWS OF GM 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, & 3.8 LITER ENGINES?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicRat
Jeez, people have written books on this subject.

The 2.8 L was very reliable, especially in the iron cyl head version. They run forever, but had low power for their displacement, 110 to 135 hp depending on the year. This low power was just because they used a wedge style OHV cyl head, like on any old V8. This limited the breathing and rev range of the engine.
All this was fixed on the 3.4 L DOHC varient from about 10 years ago. Those engines were really good, but were expensive to make for otherwise humdrum cars so GM stopped making them.

The 2.8 got larger bearings in mid 1985. Earlier versions tended to spin rod bearings if overrevved. These engines reached theur best development in the Fiero. You can get 150 - 160 hp easily with bolt on manifolds and a camshaft. Serios headwork will get you 180. Use Fiero or Firebird /Camaro heads as they had bigger valves.

The 3.1 was a varient with aluminum heads. Those heads had canted valves and would breathe much better, but only raised output to 125 hp stock. Still there is more potential in a 3.1 than in any 2.8.

The 3.8 is a completely different engine design with huge potential. as awesome turbo variants were built for many different cars (ie Buick Grand National), and the supercharged versions are pretty quick too.
If you have a choice in a project, start with a 3.8. Its MUCH better than a 2.8 - 3.1
the gen1 660's were hideously unreliable and had MAJOR oiling problems. power ranged from 110hp to 135hp in the HO version

the 2.8 block underwent changes thru the years to improve oiling and the heads/intake. gen2 came out with splayed valve aluminum heads and flow pretty good but still have crappy intakes - all overcomable - 250hp from off the shelf gm parts is a daily reality. 3.1 was a stroked 2.8 and hp was for the most part 140hp advertised and a 205hp turbo version. gen2 2.8s made 125ish in either MFI trim for J/L/N cars and 125 for TBI version in S/T

the 3.4DOHC variant was an abortion based on the gen2 that should have never been built. yes, it made 205-215hp but had zero gasket reliability, is a servicing nightmare and has impossible to get at accessories.

the 3.4 is a bored version of the 3.1 and exists in gen1,2 and 3 trim...gen1 for a 2.8l drop in for old s10s, gen2 was used in the dustbuster and gen3 is used in the L/N, B, W bodies today.

actually the 3.1, 3.4 and 3.5 all exist as gen3s and still have different gasket problems and knock problems, but finally oil pretty well.

the 3.8 you are referring to is likely the buick version, the chevy version didnt survive much past the early 80s (and was avail as 3.2 and 3.8 displacements) the buick had 3.0, 3.3 and 3.8 of which I think only the latter still exists, the 3.3 was a mainstay of the GM A body until recently...it is a completely different animal and far more refined and utterly bulletproof. hp ranges in the 3.8 from 165 up to 240 depending on trim, and 300hp at milford. the 3.3 actually had only 5 hp less than the majority of 3.8s produced, but had a lot less torque and no balance shaft.
quaddriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2004, 12:05 AM   #7
CARNIGG
AF Newbie
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 92
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to CARNIGG
Re: HI'S AND LOWS OF GM 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, & 3.8 LITER ENGINES?

Question?......How can GM get away with the making of one engine (3.8) for so many years and have it be highly successful? That block or should i say that displacement has been around for years. I mean, was it that good a design from birth or what? And I guess no matter how good a cutlass with the leather and a 3.4 DOHC badge on the side looks, is it just safer to stick with the 3.1?
__________________
CARNIGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2004, 09:23 AM   #8
daveo211
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Coleman, Wisconsin
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Re: HI'S AND LOWS OF GM 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, & 3.8 LITER ENGINES?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelion
Well now your looking at dohc vs single cam (regular)... both engines have extremely close HP most likely 3 -5 hp with in each other, i know the 3.8l out of a 98 is 200hp and i think the 3.4 is 195 or 198 something like that.

3.4 dohc - with some head work i suppose you could look at some nicer dyno records but you gotta put into perspective that means 4 cams..and a BELT ... you could custom turbo it, good luck finding a supercharger that bolts in with little to no problems.. as you can see im not a personal fan of the 3.4 but its still a nice engine and untill GM pep'd up the 3.8 it was the best managable v6.

3.8 - Stock, this engine comes with one major flaw, at 90k miles the extreme heat from the EGR dumping into the lower intake manifold that has a valve that dumps into the upper (plastic) intake manifold melts into a water jacket sitting a mer 2mm from the hole, thus causing small amounts of water to be sucked into your engine over the coarse of 3 days untill on day it doesn't get compression.... (yes this was a personal direct experiance with a 98 3.8 liter *sigh*) ..... however you slap a supercharger that comes with the supercharged Grand Prix you take care of that little problem, get some different pullies and some head mods from SLPerformance.com and you can probly push 300 to the ground.

As for the GM 4-bangers... i am very unimpressed... you can do some major engine and intake (turbo) mods and maybe get something kinda fast.. but i wouldn't mess with them personally.
I must disagree with your notion that the GM 3.8L v6 has a "major flaw" I've been around the 3.8L(front drive i assume since you mention a plastic intake cover) for some time now, and the only "problem" the engine has is that it outlasts the car's body. I've got 156,000 miles on a 1999 lumina in my driveway that has had absolutely no problems ever. Like with any auto though, it has to be well maintained, and correctly maintained. did you change your antifreze shortly before this happened?? there is a special fill procedure for this engine so as not to trap a bubble of air in the intake manifold coolant passage. Also there are any number of intake plastic cover arrangements, they are not all the same, and it's possible that we don't have the same one. My egr isn't clost to ANY plastic at all. I've heard NUMEROUS reports of this happening with the 3.1 frontdrive v-6. those I wouldn't touch. I've found the 3.8 to be nothing short of bullet proof, and have heard of no problems that plague it.
daveo211 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1991 Cutless supreme 3.1 stalling mandude Cutlass Series 9 02-06-2015 01:16 AM
knocking after oil change 3.1 moemo Cutlass Series 1 10-20-2010 07:37 PM
2002 3.1 thermostat removal DigduG1975 Grand Prix 1 05-29-2010 09:47 PM
1995 cutlass supreme water pump 3.1 moemo Cutlass Series 1 05-02-2010 09:55 AM
3.1 interchange info please. Ponyak Grand Prix 2 06-08-2009 11:58 AM

Reply

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD

Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Chevrolet > General Discussion


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:36 AM.

Community Participation Guidelines | How to use your User Control Panel

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
 
 
no new posts