As a rather powerful and torquy engine that near the end of it's run meet Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle (ULEV) standards and could pull 30+ MPG, I don't know what GM was thinking to stop producing it. What a great engine. I've owned a few and I love and miss them.
They needed to re-tool the production line and decided that they would rather spend the money on an all new design. It was just that the new design didn't turn out as well as they thought. They did keep the 3800 in production for several years longer than they had planned.
@@ohioalphornmusicalsawman2474 yep... You just had to watch out for the engine cradle mounts rotting out on those... At least here in Michigan where they use plenty of road salt.
It was the pinnacle of V-6 engine design. I’ve been an Asian import technician for 30 years and the Japanese never produced a V-6 that could exceed the 3800’s combination of reliability, simplicity, and fuel economy. 30-32 mpg without stupid cylinder deactivation. The 3.6 that replaced it is a terrible waste of aluminum and steel.
i have a 2003 bonneville SSEi, same platform but came with the L67 supercharged engine. i did the usual pulley swap, it's a very quick granny car..... not a granny car LOL. the bonneville was a sportier car in my opinion, but it was the same platform.
I had done some research about this engine a while back. Was telling friends this is probably the most significant GM engine next to the small block V8. The 3.8 had its dark years as well until the engineers changed the odd fire to even fire and then the 3 series of updates after the initial redesign with a balance shaft
I’m sorry to throw cold water on your nice narrative. But the two 15 in.³ aluminum V8 had nothing to do with the development of the cast-iron 90° V6 the Buick V6 was derived from the Buick V8 right from the inception. The reason is that the divisions were still separate, and the manufacturing line for the Buick v8 was modified to accommodate the V6 manufacturing. This is why the bore centers pistons rods, bearings, etc. match that of the V8.
@@Gwhitebeard I was not suggesting the fireball was cast in aluminum it shared the same architecture as the 215 V8 and the Buick 300V8 in cast iron. These engines were all designed at the same time. GM was pretty brilliant back in the 60’s. The V6 was definitely a compromise with its odd fire configuration which was later corrected with split crank pin’s because ok wasn’t good enough and the public wanted more refinement.
@@davidraezer5937 The longer stroke Buick 340 V8 available in the '66 LeSabre, '66-'67 Sport Wagons, and '67 Special, Skylark, and GS340 was a fine engine as well.
The Buick 3.8 sold in the hundreds of thousands here in Aust from 1988 to 2008 as the standard engine in Australia's best selling car through that time - the General Motors Holden Commodore. Terrific engine - they sounded very harsh when revved but were powerful and ultra reliable.
Too right Mate. Ive got 3 Commys A1994 vr A1997 vs and a 2001 vx. All with the Mighty 3.8 V6.Bloody good engine. Way better than the 3.6 V6. Ive got one of those too. ( cant help myself.... I love Holdens ... What can I say....) And a good old 202 powered 1 Tonner. from a Kiwi Brother.
Such a fantastic engine. The running joke in Fiero 3800SC swap groups is that the engine is going to be recalled, due to it outliving its owners... Thanks for sharing the history of this engine!
Wonderful topic to explore! Buick hit a home run with this one: a world-class, advanced, powerful, rock-solid, efficient, torque-havin' American power plant.
I visit junkyards constantly for my Firebird, and also can just turn to Marketplace of CL --- NEVER, EVER, have I ever seen an F-body 3.8 make it past 140,000 miles.
As a 20+yr owner who admins the 3800 forum, I can tell you that it plainly comes down to maintenance... Not a big trait with V6 pony car buyers. Intake gaskets done before failure and basic upkeep has people rolling past 300k miles regularly.
@@dezldave961 I’ve done the intake and valve cover gaskets and changed out the plastic water passageways for metal. 250,000 and still running strong. Great engine.
280K miles on my 94 when it was totaled. Never over 3K for oil changes and updated IM gaskets at 200K. Seemed as strong and as smooth as new, and I knew/know lotsa people with similar stories. Dexcool killed many later ones- not the motors fault.
I owned 2x of the 225ci oddfire dauntless v6's both in arrowglass boats, a 1970 and a 1971. Excellent motor 1 of them still running today stock bottom end and only 1 valve job with added hardened exhaust seats and new valve seals. That motor is a tank, and they sound so cool, very unique sound. OMC Stringer drive, total vintage goodness! Also had a 1978 3.8 even fire, excellent motor also.
I run a 225 'Odd Fire' V6 in my hotrod 'Flatfender' Jeep (titled as 1946), Kenne Bell equipped with too much carb, MSD, fat headers, 4 speed with Warn overdrive... . She's a blast, and you're quite right about the sound.
I grew up in the 1960's and remember how unusual the Buick V6 seemed at the time. I owned 1992 and 2000 Bonnevilles with versions of the 3200, and they were great! Torguey, reliable, and 30MPG on vacation trips was routine.
THANK YOU for this historical documentary on Buick's trend setting power plant. As usual, a stellar performance. Had AMC not sold the tooling back to GM in 1974, they could've used it in the Pacer with positive results.
@ericresnick8490 Something that was not pointed out in this video was Buick was not the first GM division that produced a V-6, That honor actually went to GMC truck starting in 1960.
@ericresnick8490 I think you got your even and odd fire mentioned backwards. odd fire 231 was 75-76. Even from 77 on. The Jeeps used a heavy flywheel to smooth out the odd fire. Probably wasn't much of a concern for Jeep owners. The crank was stronger and it was a ballsy option over the 4cyl.
The Buick 3.8 was a great design. Good reliability and with turbo power, Grand National and supercharged power across GM lines had strong performance. I had a 2000 Grand Prix GTP with the 3800 supercharged engine. No screamer, but not bad for a 4 door family car. Mine did have 160,000 miles on it when I finally sold it in 2012...
@@johna.4334 Yes, technically the supercharged Series II, VIN-1, L67 3800 V6... That's my daily driver, though it never gets the mileage that the normally-aspirated Series I LeSabre got.
I have a 97 Riviera w/ the 3800 series 11 SC. On the highway it averages about 32-33 mpg at 60. I've seen 35 on occasion with not too many hills. City driving somewhere in the low 20's. No issues, very reliable. Great video.
I run a 225 'Odd Fire' V6 in my hotrod 'Flatfender' Jeep (titled as 1946), Kenne Bell equipped with too much carb, MSD, fat headers, 4 speed with Warn overdrive... . It's 4X4, has the aerodynamics of a a brick with huge tires and attitude. It also has considerable torque, runs cool, raps up like a bat out of hell when fed (it's a former sprint racing engine) but crawls like a cat without stalling on trails and over obstacles. Wonderful as a hot rod / runabout and very capable off road. Such a versatile family of engines; at home in such diverse applications.
I had a 94 and a 2001 park avenue ultra, they had the 3.8 L with factory supercharger, got great mileage, I was getting 32mpg at 70 mph. I put a lot of miles on those cars and loved every min of it.
One of the best motors in the 1980s. Rock solid,smooth and good on fuel. The Gen 2 has cross bolted mains which I didn't know till I recently did an oil pan gasket replacement on a 1996 Firebird.
It would be great to show a picture of the distributor rotor from the original '62 V6. It is "hooked" and it allows the distributor to generate 150-90-150-90-150-90 degree firing intervals. Really an interesting ""work around" by the Buick engineers and many gearheads would love to see it. This one was great . . . . . I was a Buick parts man at Ralph Brown Buick (Washington, DC) in the summer of '61 when these V6 Specials started arriving . . . . . they created quite a stir. Wonderful memories for an old man!
V6 just used a V8 cap with 2 terminals missing... can't believe anyone bought these crappy running V6s new... ran like a V8 with two bad spark plugs... shook back and forth 6" at idle...
@@buzzwaldron6195 Not quite accurate. The distributor cap was a "normal" 6 cylinder cap with 6 contacts spaced at 60 degrees. The "magic" was possible because of the "hooked" distributor rotor and the 6 unevenly spaced cams that actuated the ignition points. Could be tricky to set the timing. They did run a bit on the "shaky" side . . . . . . ha, ha, ha, . . .
I once had a 1975 Toyota long bed pickup with a Buick 231 V-6/Turbo 350 transmission swap. It had a 2 barrel carb when I bought it, but I put an Edelbrock intake manifold and a 390 cfm 4 barrel on it. It wasn’t fast, but it was faster than a stock Toyota 4 banger and it sounded cool!
My Dad worked as an airliner mechanic so naturally he bought Mom a 1965 Corvair when they came out. But GM's cost cutting on the Corvair's engine design drove him crazy with the oil leakage. He fabricated a drip pan for it to keep the oil off the garage floor and just lived with it. A couple years later he bought Mom a '67 Special and my sisters drove the Corvair to school. Then I inherited it. My Dad suggested we put a Special's V6 in the Corvair. We did so by reversing the cam rotation.
Wow! Really interesting to hear that Buick was worried that the Special was overpriced vs. the Falcon and Valiant. Never occurred to me that they would be cross-shopped. Particularly as the Buick was a smart looking vehicle vs. the homely Ford and Plymouth models.
@@michaeltutty1540 The V6 put in an appearance in the A-body '64 Olds F85 for one year only. For '65, Olds sourced the Chevy 250 inline for their six cylinder needs.
My last car was a 1998 Olds 88 that the 3800 V6. It's the best car that I ever had. I owned it going on 13 years before my mechanic found the front subframe was rotting out after I started to hear loud creaking and groaning noises coming from underneath it.. For reasons of safety, I took the car off the road. At that time, the car had over 200 grand on the clock and the engine still ran good and strong.
When they moved the oil pump from the outside the timing cover being driven by the distributor to the inside being driven by the crankshaft , it turned it from a weak bottom end 100,000 mile engine to a 200,000 + mile engine. When they improved it again making it the 3800, it improved to a nearly 300,000 mile engine.
I visit junkyards constantly for my Firebird, and also can just turn to Marketplace of CL --- NEVER, EVER, have I ever seen an F-body 3.8 make it past 140,000 miles.
@@vintagemotelguest I don’t have much knowledge with the 3.8 in the Camaro/Firebird . So I can’t speak for the reliability in those applications. However in the full sized H and C bodies in the late 1980s and beyond the engine was famous for having a long, relatively trouble-free life.
My memories of the first-generation V6 was one of the moms in my church choir carpool had a '63 Special wagon with the V6-three-on-the-tree and it was rough as a cob. A young couple down the street from us assembled a red Jeep in their driveway and when they finally got it running, the V6, again, felt like the vehicle was shaking apart under load. I asked about the engine, and they replied it was a Buick. At about this time my Mom got a '66 Special Deluxe which ran smoothly with the Wildcat 310 V8. When the V6 returned in the mid-seventies, a neighbor got a LeSabre four-door sedan (this was before the GM large car downsize, you could land a C130 on the rear deck), again running washboard rough. My Mom bought a Regal sedan in '83, and while Buick had managed to smooth out the firing order, the car was as slow as a snail's turd, couldn't keep up with my Dad's 2.2-liter Reliant. Some years later she traded the Regal for a Roadmonster with the 5.7-liter 260 horse V8 and it served reliably and smoothly for th rest of her life and delivered 31 mpg on runs from Atlanta to Mobile and Houston.
I think it was due to emissions and power 200 to 250hp just isn't enough from a flagship motor especially when you're trying to advertise it reliability is a thing when it's a used car not a new car
@@johna.4334 maybe that was the case 20 years ago but that is just not acceptable from a flagship motor today there are 300 horsepower minimum at this point
My first car was a 1966 Buick Special 2 door with a 225 V6 and a super turbine 300 two speed transmission. I loved that car. I put 100,000 miles on it. The car had 47,000 on it when I got it in 1972. I drove it till 1979 when I got my 1978 GMC. I sold old Slow Motion with 147,000 miles on it. That odd firing engine was real good. I use to burn kerosene in it and put water injection on it. There was two 1/8" pipe plugs on the intake manifold one on each side that was easy for the water injection to be installed. What fun that was back then 😇🙏
although with a mechanical distributor i guess you could advance the crap out of it and then the water might do something. Maybe i just answered the question i had. Possibility of running a hotter plug also i guess.
I find this subject very interesting! Some things that I had come to believe that didn't make it into your video. The 215ci V8 was a problem to produce. The foundry was having a very high reject rate for the aluminum block castings. They cost too much and the production rate was not up to the requirements. They needed an alternate engine and doing the V6 in aluminum was not an option. It needed to be an iron block. The iron block casting was producible at a much better price. In 1964 the aluminum engine went to Rover but the Buick small block V8, in iron came out. This 300ci V8 had the same bore and stroke as the V6 so it really looked like Buick had turned the V6 back into a V8. The iron 300 engine was eventually stretched out to 340ci and then 1968 to 350ci. Interesting fact: the Buick 215 and the Olds 215 were the same block but Olds used a different head that had one more head bolt per cylinder. Another amazing fact, Dan Gurney drove a modified 215 in the 1962 Indianapolis 500. The Australian Repco company designed an overhead cam version of the aluminum V8 for Jack Brabham's 1966 Formula 1 car that he won the World Championship that year. In the 1990's the 3000 series V6 in turbocharged form won the pole at Indianapolis twice. I must say that the engineers at Buick were really 'knocking them out of the park' back in the 1960's. Too bad Buick rarely got to make an image as a performance mark.
When Jack Brabham and Repco were looking for an engine block to use for the 1966 F1 season they chose the Oldsmobile version for the extra head bolt. Jack Brabham 1966 championship was the only time a driver won the F1 championship driving a car of his own make. Jack working earlier with Bruce McLaren and Dan Gurney likely inspired those two drivers to develop their own F1 cars, but did not have a much success driving them.
It was good for the time, but heavy and hard to manage for crash. GM trying to modernize and compete with DOHC VVT engines that were widely available. All old tech goes away guys…just the way it is. Also, a 90 degree V6 is always unbalanced. They had to put a bunch of countermeasures on these engines to make them work. They did a great job and it was a great engine in the end. Thanks for the history lesson Adam…great work as usual.
It is not just the 90° V6 that has balance issues, all V6 engines do other than the 180° or horizontally opposed engines. 60°, 90° and 120° V engines all present slightly different issues. 60° and 90° can have even firing with split crank throws. The 120° V has even firing but even worse balance issues especially with rocking couples. These balance issues with the 120° bank angle relegates them primarily to racing applications where vibration is tollerated more. For a street car those vibrations are difficult to damp out. Also a 120° bank angle is almost as wide as a horizontally opposed or 180° engine. 60° and 90° bank angle engines are simpler to deal with. The somewhat limp.wristed 60° Fiero V6 can be very easy be replaced with a 3800 Buick V6 and probably get as good or better fuel economy. In a way it is too bad the General never OEM installed aluminium heads on the 3.8/3800 to reduce weight. The problem with aluminium heads on a cast iron block is the different expansion rates will bring on head gasket failure eventually which is not a problem area for iron block/head engines. On that thought, you would have thought the General would have learned from the aluminium block cast iron head Vega engine disaster. But not so as they had to do it with the Cadillac 4100, 4300 and 4500 engines that were also short lived. The 215 V8 was dropped after the 1963 model year partly due to costs. The cast in place iron cylider liners suffered from a lot of core shift rejection of blocks. When Rover bought the rights and tooling, they changed to press in iron liners that fixed that. They also strengthened the blocks, which increased their weight some, but they were still lighter than the 4 cyl engines they replaced.
I have the 3800 Series III in my current car - 2008 Buick Lucerne. I bought it in 2010. Dealer had no idea how special the engine was and was only interested in selling SUV's. So, I got it for a song. They just wanted to unload it. I have to say that its one of the best cars I have ever drove and worked on. Price of ownership though are the intake manifold gaskets, The plastic coolant pipes back by the Alternator. Those factory gaskets were a joke. I have 161,000 miles on my Lucerne and still fires up nice. Mother decided to get a new car about a year or so ago. She decided to part with her 2007 Lucerne (loaded) and I bought it off her pretty cheap. It is garage kept and babied. No rust and 36k on it. We call it "Black Beauty" as its the glossy black color and camel leather interior. My GF drives it.
I worked on a lot of the 80's carb cars (Regal, Cutlass, etc). When the grand national debuted with fuel injection, turbo charging, and DIS ignition, you could see they had a winner. The first fuel injected ones used in Delta 88 for example, were really crappy. I fixed a lot of DIS issues (coil packs), mass air flow sensors, and some injectors. The 88 3800 changed it from an embarassment to a world class engine.
I'm just not a GM guy, but I give credit where it's due. Imo the 3.8 Buick developed and shared was a fantastic power plant...good power, and very good fuel economy, and good durability. It was in a Pontiac Bonneville owned years ago.
Spectacular video! You confirmed many details about these engines that I have been curious about for some time. Thank you for pointing out the 215 V8 sold to B.L. That engine was highly advanced for it's day, and evolved into a truly outstanding motor in the following years. Cheers.
thanks to Top Gear and channels like Big Car and Twin Cam, the Rover V8, and the tumultuous history of the British car industry as a whole, is becoming known over here
I suspect that Rover had employed people from the British aerospace industry (most likely from the Bristol aircraft company) who knew how to cast aluminum alloys better than Detroit who had a bit of a "not invented here" syndrome.
My parents had a 225 CID Buick V6 / OMC Stern Drive fishing boat in the 1960s. It was super reliable and had a neat industrial sound and vibration to it.
I run a 225 'Odd Fire' V6 in my hotrod 'Flatfender' Jeep (titled as 1946), Kenne Bell equipped with too much carb, MSD, fat headers, 4 speed with Warn overdrive... . She's a blast, and you're quite right about the sound.
About 20 + years ago, I had a 1988 olds 88 with the 3800 engine, which was the first year of the 3800 with the balance shaft, that was a incredibly smooth running engine, in my opinion that design, along with the style of fuel injection and exhaust was a much smoother idling and running design than later designed ones. The only real more major type of repair I ever needed to do to it was replaced the timing chain and tensioner. And that wasn't until around 160,000 miles, so no complaints there. At least not from me.
Note the most incredible thing in the thumbnail picture for this video. Instead of having to disassemble the entire dash to replace the blower motor, on the car shown all you need is a 1/4 ratchet wrench, five minutes and job done.
I drove a company car with this engine for about 7 years. Climbed a 3400 foot highway pass twice a day during that time. Never a hiccup in that engine during that period. I would love to have that Le Sabre back again.
I got rid of my Pontiac with 263K on the clock. 3.8 series 3. I had a rear main seal replaced under warranty, and at 167K, the front timing chain gasket split. I replaced the timing cover gaskets myself. The timing chain was still tight. I left that alone. The engine was still going strong when I traded it in. The transmission was haunted, and the body was rotting up to the door handles.
My parents had a 64 Buick Special with this V-6 engine. I was only 4-8 years old when we had it but my memory was that it was very problem prone. The radiator and cooling system seemed to be the cause. They traded it in for a 69 Skylark with a 350 which was bullet proof and lasted over 10 years.
I learned to drive at 15 in my mom's 63 Buick Special station wagon with the Fireball V6. Even as a neophyte, I realized it was a rough running engine. The counter balancing shaft in later years was a great idea. The 63, for us at least, was reliable if not exactly a powerhouse.
I've always been under the impression that the V 6 was produced because the aluminum V8 was expensive to produce and they wanted a lower cost alternative.
Ah, I always love when the 215 gets mentioned. Way back in high school in the late 70's I got an Olds 215 from a wrecked F-85 (the Olds version was actually different than Buick and Pontiac's in that it had 6 head bolts around each cylinder as opposed to 5 for Buick and Pontiac, due to Olds having a turbocharged version) , freshened it up with a mostly stock rebuild, other than a mild cam from Clay Smith, a Holley 450 4 barrel, and dropped that into my '73 Vega with a TH350 behind it, courtesy of Advance Adapters. That engine was not much heavier than the old 4 banger, and with a 3:73 rear end, propelled my little red wagon to low 14 second quarter miles. Sadly less than a year later that car went off to the boneyard after a drunk hit me. Parted out the car, and Dean Moon from Moon Racing bought the engine from me!
I use Advance Adapters headers on my 225 'Odd Fire' equipped hotrod 'Flatfender' Jeep (titled as 1946) which also has an AA from bellhousing to the 4 speed. She's Kenne Bell equipped with too much carb, MSD, fat headers, 4 speed with Warn overdrive... . Windshield down, goggles and a grin.
I had 3 Impalas LS in the early 2000’s with the 3.8 V6 and all had 200 bhp. You’re right on the highway I constantly seen over 30 MPG and as high as 35mpg if the trip was a steady 50-55MPH. which is the case from where I live in Mass. to NH. 40 minutes round trip. Never had an issue and plenty of power at that time.
I had a 1994 Buick Regal with the 3800 V-6. I sold that car after 150,000 miles & I should have never done that. I continued to see that car around for several years to come with hundreds of thousands of miles on it!
I run a 225 'Odd Fire' V6 in my hotrod 'Flatfender' Jeep (titled as 1946), Kenne Bell equipped with too much carb, MSD, fat headers, 4 speed with Warn overdrive... .
I have told this same story to many people over the years. The early steps to make this a really good engine happened in the late 70's when the crankshaft was redone to make it a smoother running engine and then new cylinder heads were added that made a big difference in power. But the engine had serious oil sludge issues because too many customers used oil change intervals that were too long and they also didn't replace the antifreeze as often as they should have. I had a 1979 model and replace my oil every 2-3 months or 2-3 thousand miles, plus I installed the easy to replace oil pump with the high volume unit. When the car rusted away around the engine years later, I inspected the engine and found it to be as clean on the inside as the day it came down the assembly line. These were good engines that were not tolerant of owners who didn't maintain them. When Buick turned the engine sideways to begin using it in the new full size FWD cars many things were redesigned for the better and started the beginning of the engine becoming an exceptional one beloved by many. I still believe that GM made a huge error in judgement by not keeping this excellent engine in service.
Just thinking here. Chevy trucks in 1960 came with a inline 6 or V8 but in you got a GMC truck in 1960, they came with a 305 V6. We had a 65 Buick with the V6 when I was a kid, the car got passed down to my older brother then passed down to me, that car lasted forever. Thanks Adam for posting.......
Yes GMC had a V6 but it was a VERY different motor! It had a 60 degree V instead of the Buick's 90 and had spark plugs that went into the heads on the valley side of the head instead of outside of the engine near the exhaust manifolds. It was a very heavy duty truck engine by design.
Heavy duty is a understatement, my uncle had a 62 or 63 GMC "it was a million years old" but the engine look like it could have been a anchor for the Titanic......@@keithstudly6071
An interesting point about the aluminum one, is that with all the corporate mergers in England during the 70’s and 80’s, that engine also ended up in land rovers and jaguars. Then when Ford bought jaguar, they ended up with it. My father has a Lincoln LS, that is built on a jaguar platform, and powered by Buick’s aluminum v6 engine.
The 198 V6 of 61-63 is completely different from 64 and newer versions. The early V6 and 215 have two large openings on the back of the block for cooling of the automatic transmission. On a manual trans the bell housing would cover these. The 64 and newer would use what was later known as the BOP trans/bell housing. The flywheel was shared between the 198 and 215 but not with any of the later versions.
The 3800 saw its best use IMO in the Australian Commodore - these were light cars, most with independent rear suspension and the 200hp+ and high torque really shone in that application, even keeping up with the heavier and barely more powerful 5L V8 of the era. Very good on fuel as well, with the low weight manual editions beating out cars like the Toyota Prius in economy. Great motor!
Nice video. I've been a fan of these engines for years & was able to get one in a 2006 Buick Lucerne. Not the fastest accelerating car, but great ride, and very quiet & reliable engine. It's old, but w/61K on it I hope to keep it a while, especially in this economy.
My parents had a 1965 Special with a V6 when I was a kid. They kept the car for nine years. It had a very rough idle at stoplights, but wish I was old enough to inherit it when they finally got a new family car, a unsold 1973 Ford LTD with 400 cid. My mother backed into a ‘72 Mark IV at a country club leaving an identity mark on the rear bumper and for many years I would see that Aqua Buick roaming around town.
Ya know,, In shop class in high school I needed an engine to "Rebuild" or really take apart and measure everything, etc. A buddy of mine worked in a junk yard and gave a Buick Wildcat 455 cu in V8 engine,,, I got lots of comments about that engine from my class mates but because it sat outside without any of the ports closed up for years,,, so the block, pistons, everything was about junk and I don't even remember what I did with that engine, Wish I could have it today.
Kaiser no longer owned Jeep when the V6 was sold back to GM. AMC was the owner at the time but had stopped building it in favor of their own straight 6 line of engines. My family bought a new 76 Buick century with the 231V6. Gutless, rough and prone to repeated timing chain failures, it and the horrible T200 transmission that backed it soured our relationship with Buick.
Quite right about Kaiser and AMC. It was AMC's change to their in house (and inline) six that saw the nose of CJ5 Jeeps extended by two inches. I run a former sprint racing 225 'Odd Fire' V6 in my hotrod 'Flatfender' Jeep (titled as 1946), Kenne Bell equipped with too much carb, MSD, fat headers, 4 speed with Warn overdrive... . She's a blast!
They were called senior compacts, because they were upscale from the Corvair, not bigger. The 112 inch wheelbase, is intermediate territory, and in 1964 they went to the 115 inch wheelbase, which was full size, in 1957. The Intermediate Rambler Classic (the prototypical " compact"), at 108 " wheelbase, from 1956-62 ( the wheelbase Ford used for the Falcon, and Chevrolet used on the Chevy II), switched to the 112 inch wheelbase in 1963, which it kept through 1966. By 1967, all the intermediates had grown larger than the full size cars, of 10 years earlier.
Cuz that was a 60 degree Chevy V6, different beast. Same with the 3.1, 3100, 3400, 3500 V6's. Multiport Injection helped tremendously. Those early TBI 2.8's were rough.
Through this video I kept having Deja vu feelings. Now the memory returns. When I was a little kid in the early 60's there was this old lady at our church, Mrs. Upton, who drove a Buick Special very much like the one pictured, except it was a blue/silver-ish color IIRC. I thought it was a good-looking car then and I still do now. P.S. Glacier Blue was the color. (Thanks google images)
I've got the new 3.6lt v6 in a 2013 VE commodore running on straight lpg . It's has very good good performance and is very reliable. All that's necessary is to change the oil regularly so that the timing chains don't wear.
I kick myself for selling my 2001 Bonneville SSEI about eight years ago. It was a beautiful car but the wife wanted something with all wheel drive. It actually was the supercharged version of this engine. I believe it was around 240 hp.
I worked at a Buick dealership back in the seventies. This older gentleman would come in with his '62 Buick Special 4 door Dark red . It was like brand new. It was garaged kept . You could tell it. He would have it serviced totally. Everything was checked. He bought this car, new, from the dealership I was working at. I learned from this Buick Dealership... you respected family, meaning the Buick Family. That service department had a service waiting area with fresh coffee or Cocoa in the winter with doughnuts. That was back in the seventies! So Lexus or Acura has nothing on dealership respect for it's customers. Over Buick...
The most important aspect of people showcasing past successes and their replacements is that when the media tells us that old engines were inefficient and REQUIRED to be replaced we can show our children how important it is to think for themselves and never trust mainstream media. Imagine if the 3.8 with today's materials and technology where to be turbo charged and installed into a hybrid SUV. I drove a friend's BMW 340 with a 3L turbo gas engine and electric motor and it almost gave me a nosebleed it was so fast. He told me that combined mileage was between thirty and forty mpg depending on how he drove. American car makers could easily have produced something similar but chose not too. Its as if they were paid to make this an exclusive idea.
The four door Skylark in the video has great styling...difficult to put larger car styling cues on a compact but they transitioned really well...shame that we can't have something like that. today.
Don't forget the 1962 Chevy 2, maybe not a BOP 'Senior Compact,' but it did exist. Another 3800 improvement was the offset crankshaft which allowed even firing.
The offset crankshaft was added to the late 225 before it became the 231. I run a 225 'Odd Fire' V6 in my hotrod 'Flatfender' Jeep (titled as 1946), Kenne Bell equipped with too much carb, MSD, fat headers, 4 speed with Warn overdrive... .
A marine version was used by Outbound Marine Corp to power their stern drive (Inboard/outboard)boats. It produced 155 HP. OMC used this engine for nearly 10 years.
For sure, and they were great engines in the stern drive appication. Light, and powerful. Very reliable also, which is amazing in such a rough/salt water application
Very cool to know. They don't put engines into the marine market that aren't rock stars. Ive seen several boats powered with these v6 engines and the owners sang nothing but praises in terms of performance and reliability. I didn't know they were 3800s tho. Thanks for sharing. I love the comment section
Nice history. I wonder if the engine was any smoother in the early 60's than it was when Buick brought it back to widespread use in the mid-70s. I drove a beautiful '76 Buick Special with that engine and it was pretty awful. It shook way too much and was gutless in that not-small mid-sized Buick. I'd say, the balance shaft was about 26 years too late. The mid-70's Buick took 16 seconds to reach 60 and even for the time, that wasn't great.
That is why by 1974, as a 17 year old, I knew that the japanese cars were going to permanently increase their market share from the american cars because a 1975 Honda Civic CVCC 1.5 litre engine would do 0-60 in 14.1 seconds, had no catalytic converter, EGR, or a air (smog) pump, all of which contributed to poor drivability, and reduced horsepower.
I don't know where people get the idea that this engine is somehow "smooth". They were 'smooth" at low revs and low loads, but if you upped the ante, they were quite coarse and unrefined.
We still have 2 Series II's in the driveway. 2004 Monte Carlo SS does indeed get 30 MPG. My 2000 GTP does not but it's quite fast for a 23 year old car!
Ive never met an unhappy 3800 owner. My 94 Regal custom was still to this day the most reliable car Ive owned. And it wasnt just the reliability. The performance and fuel efficency were were beyond exceptional as well. And my 95 quad4 powered Olds Achieva was the opposite end of the spectrum. It was the worst car Ive ever owned. 2 cars made at the same time and worlds apart in quality and reliability. Thats why gm sunk. It doesnt matter how reliable your good cars are if your cheaper cars (which sold in higher numbers) burn the customer base.
I have...Both myself and my father. The 3800 was a step down in the Holden Commodore compared to the Nissan RB30e and that is before we start talking about the Ford Barra
This was quite good to hear more on the history of the 3800 V6. You filled in some missing points. That is appreciated. I also liked how you showed images and explained so much. I do not know why GM stopped producing this engine. I own two Oldsmobiles with the 3800 Series I and II. They should have kept it and updated it. They have the Chevrolet 350 V8 and Ford has engines it still uses as well. If they had kept that engine and updated it and installed it in so many later GM vehicles, they would have a better reputation for engines. I know Holden used the 3800 V6 too. It is also why it was supercharged for more power in the 1990's. I heard about the 3.6 liter V6 and I appreciate you being honest about the engine. I knew about the issues and reputation. Thank you Adam.
GM had QC casting problems with their 215 BOP; adding to its demise. Plus owners would use the incorrect antifreeze. I believe that all the 215/3.5, V-6 and the Buick 300 have some common characteristics that can or could (w/modifications) limited interchangeably parts. My powered Fireball Opel GT is not fast for a V6, but very fun to drive.
I waited to order the new "short north" 3.5 L V6 engine in my 1999 Olds Intrigue , while it was smoother and had power all the way to redline and more HP than the 3800 the car was not any faster and got worse gas mileage according to all of the car magazines. I guess I shouldn't have waited and gotten the 3800 but I fell for all the hype that a new engine based on the NorthStar would be better, but it wasn't. At least it didn't have a timing chain stretching issue like the newer 3.6L engines but at least it has the power I was hoping for with my 3.5L.
I had a '99 Intrigue also, girlfriend had a '98 with the 3800. Mine was the 3.5, but I swear it was faster(in my mind). It had that 4 valve potential, like the Northstar, but they gave it a lame tune.
My '62 Skylark V6 convertible order was cancelled for an early shutdown the revise the assembly line for the '63 change over. Buick offered me an aluminum V8 for the same price. The real reason a V6 was developed the initial aluminum V8 block was porous leaking water into the oil. Casting using better grades resolved the problem but increased the base cost. Lopping off two cylinders in cast iron could ulitize the same tooling. Co$t $ave! The rest is history. I was driving a '60 American Motors Metropolitan convertible, they discontinued sales of existing inventory in the summer of 1962. Concerned for parts availability I needed a new convertible hence my order with Amberman Buick in Stewartstown, Pa. Moving from 52 Nash horse power to a 4 barrell V8 was my reason to decline the upgrade. Bought a 2 barrel 221 cu in '62 Ford Fairlane 500 V8 instead, the first version of the 289 Mustang and Cobra engines. But did put a '64 Buick V6 in my '30 Ford coupe in 1984!
I visit junkyards constantly for my 4th-Gen V-8 Firebird, and also can just turn to FB Marketplace or CL --- NEVER, EVER, have I ever seen an F-body 3.8 make it past 140,000 miles.
I've owned 2 Pontiac Grand Prix's 95,02 with the 3800 and 1 Firebird 02 plus a 1977 Buick had a 3800! Wonderful power decent economy never had any issues with this engine !I believe if you look it up it's one of the top 10 best engines in the world!
They took a V8 and left out 2 cylinders. Firing order testing implies creating a specific camshaft for each configuration, I think. Each division did something so unique to that compact Y/Z body. Major innovation at the peak of GM. I had the Buick 3.8 V6 in a 1983 Malibu Classic - so smooth but a bit underpowered.
@@MisterMikeTexas Its been a few sleeps ago and I'm just going by memory. I had a few s10's in the 80's bought new. The earlier ones only had an iron duke or 2.8, It wasn't till 88-89 that you could get a 4.3.
I had a few of them over the years, a couple of mid 90’s 3800 Bonneville’s, one with the supercharger and a 90 A body Buick wagon with the 3300 version. All were great torquey engines that were also very fuel efficient. 30 mpg on the highway. Not as smooth as more modern OHC V6’s but that wasn’t a vice as it gave them a little growl
This engine dates back to David Buick himself in 1912 as one of his many innovations that he later sold along with the right to use his name to Bill Durant in 1920 as Buick had other ventures so left GM around that time, the 1st V6 engine was based on a 215 aluminum V8 engine but fortunately was cast iron with 105hp205 lbs torque 4600/2500 respectively (1962-67) after a 6 hiatus the was to be a base economy engine compact and mid size cars, the first engine was a 225ci the 2nd engine was a 231V6 rear wheel drive from 1975-87 including turbo charged and front wheel drive 3.0,3.3and the flagship engine the 3.8L engine, the the late 70,s engine produced only 110hp190lbs torque, real change didn't come until 1984 when Buick made history with their 1st 200 HP distributorless ignition RWD and 3.0 carburetor 1982-85 fuel injection engine 1985-88 3.8 fuel injection MFi 85 only 3.8sfi 1986-88 3300 V6 engine 1989-93 the granddaddy of them all the 3800, the best of the best, but due to corporate mismanagement the engine was dropped after 2009 .
