Hey, I've been thinking about how many cycles/versions the 3800 V6 has gone through. I can come up with these:

1) original version developed by Buick in the 1960s (sold to Jeep and then bought back)

2) 1970s version, returning in 1975, adapted for unleaded fuel and updated distributor/electronic ignition (odd-firing) (105 or 110 hp)

3) 1978 version, crankshaft journals are offset (becomes even firing) (105 or 110 hp) - remained well into the 80s, powering GM RWD intermediate series such as Cutlass Supreme, Regal, Grand Prix and Monte Carlo (though Chevy 4.3 V6 powered the latter two toward the end of their lives as RWDs)

4) 1985 version, modified for FWD, powers the FWD Olds 98 and Buick Park Avenue/Electra down-sized full-sizes, and used again in 1987 for the new Pontiac Bonneville but not yet called Series I (about 150 to 165 hp)

5) 1990 version, through 1994 (Series I) - has received the tuned port induction system (about 170 hp)

6) 1995 version, through 2003 (Series II) - weight reduction, crappier intake manifold, and increased horsepower (about 200-205 hp)

7) 2004 version, through 2008 (Series III) - powder coating of metals, revised and stronger intake manifold, and electronic throttle control (about 200 hp)

Am I right? Is it a total of 7 versions since its inception? It looks like Series I and Series III are considered the better versions. Comments?

Series III goes to 2009 with the Allure slash LaX

Series One was present in the Dustbusters for 1995 so there was a year of overlap. The Series I Supercharged engine served alongside the naturally aspirated Series II for one model year in the Buick Park Avenue before the inception of the Series II Supercharged engine.

Lots and lots of factoids here. Production officially ended August '08. Several displacements besides 3.8 for the 90 degree family. Was surprised to see it was offered in the '75-76 LeSabre...it must have looked tiny in the huge engine compartments of a B-body of that era.

Edited September 28, 200916 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

Lots and lots of factoids here. Production officially ended August '08. Several displacements besides 3.8 for the 90 degree family. Was surprised to see it was offered in the '75-76 LeSabre...it must have looked tiny in the huge engine compartments of a B-body of that era.

Thanks for the link, moltie, and the info on co-existence of various versions, von.

Good Gawd, '75-'76 LeSabre, that's when they were still huge, before the '77 slight "downsize." The little 231 looked funny enough in '76 and '77 Regals. It looked even funnier when the car was a loss leader (ad special) with NO air conditioning and you could see the pavement beneath all around the engine compartment!

Series 1 Supercharged in my '95 Riviera. Supercharged Series 2's debuted in '96.

Does anyone know the longevity the old 231 cubic inch V6s - those of the 70s? I heard that the odd-firing versions were not timing-chain-friendly. Still, the other components ought to be unaffected (they were all supposedly non-interference engines). Maybe the even-firing ones did a little better?

(I know that the 3.8 in the '84 Cutlass Supreme was still going strong at 171,000 miles when we sold it).

Edited October 2, 200916 yr by trinacriabob

If you wanted to stretch the number of variants some more, you could also throw in the 3.0 and 3300.

If you wanted to stretch the number of variants some more, you could also throw in the 3.0 and 3300.

Yes. Changing the displacement some, the 3300, as I recall, was definitely its "little brother." I remember it well, as it powered many Centurys and Cutlass Cieras. I don't remember the 3.0 as being around that long, but I didn't realize it had the same architecture as the 3.8/3800. Nor do I know if the 4.1 litre V6 by Buick of the early 80s was created from the 3800?

my 77 buick century coupe (regal body) had the 3.8. and the whopping 105hp or whatever.

i ran pretty well actually. it was indeed slow, but it not in an attention grabbing slow sort of way.

and it got good mpg.

there was a ton of unused room under the hood. so much so that kitty used to sleep up in the engine compartment on hot days. one day i took off and kitty came out on the pavement bouncing a few hundred yards from home.

the lack of power was great from a winter driving standpoint. you never put yourself in a dangerous position. and compared to our 77 electra with the nose heavy v8, my century had very neutral handling. i bet it was 50/50 or close to it. i actually used to go out driving during snow storms because it was so controllable in the white stuff.

never had another rwd car that was tame like that in snow.

the 3800 was a good match in that car.

Yes. Changing the displacement some, the 3300, as I recall, was definitely its "little brother." I remember it well, as it powered many Centurys and Cutlass Cieras. I don't remember the 3.0 as being around that long, but I didn't realize it had the same architecture as the 3.8/3800. Nor do I know if the 4.1 litre V6 by Buick of the early 80s was created from the 3800?

I remember seeing an ad from one of the car magazines in the early '80s advertising the 4.1 V6 and it's mileage in the Caddy de Ville..

Info on the 4.1 and more here...

Wikipedia article

Does anyone know the longevity the old 231 cubic inch V6s - those of the 70s? I heard that the odd-firing versions were not timing-chain-friendly. Still, the other components ought to be unaffected (they were all supposedly non-interference engines). Maybe the even-firing ones did a little better?

(I know that the 3.8 in the '84 Cutlass Supreme was still going strong at 171,000 miles when we sold it).

Aside from normal ring/bearing/valve wear, I'm not aware of anything that would doom a 231. Definitely they are non-interference. Lots of these well north of 200K.

IMHO, it was the last good clean-sheet or majorly recast engine design GM had until the LT/LS series V8 came around.

I'm going to miss the 3.8, and I doubt the "other" V6 will ever win me over... between the total lack of power in the 2.8 and 3.1 and the 3.4 intake manifolds dropping hot coolant into the crankcase. 15 years after the Series II 3.8 L36, the 3.9 still only has 20ish hp more.

As for the Series II, I'm feel they are a good upgrade over the Series I... the plastic intake is not that much of a problem... the REAL problem is intake gaskets that did not play nice with Dexcool. If you are having the intake gaskets replaced, you can block the coolant passages to the intake, which solves the intake coolant leaking problem near the EGR stovepipe and keeps hot coolant from circulating in the throttle body. Cooler throttle body means better performance. This is all a non-issue on the supercharged engines.

I actually drove one of those 1976 Lesabres with the 231 V6, back when it was new. The lasting impression I've got of that long-ago adventure is the vibrating steering wheel. One could definitely feel the firing impulses.

I decided to stick with my '72 Olds 98 after that test drive.

'76 brochure doesn't list the 231 being available in the Les, the 350 was standard and the 455 was optional.

Chitlon's '82 manual also does not list a VIN code for a 231 in a Riv/Les/Ele Buick until '77.

http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Buick/1976_Buick/1976_Buick_Brochure/76%20Buick%20Pg%2069.html

I would've bet against a 231 being in a pre-'77 full-size... not sure what's RPO here.

'76 231 : 105 HP @ 3400, 185 TRQ @ 2000

'76 350 : 155 HP @ 3400, 280 TRQ @ 1800

'76 455 : 205 HP @ 3800, 345 TRQ @ 2000

'76 brochure doesn't list the 231 being available in the Les, the 350 was standard and the 455 was optional.

Chitlon's '82 manual also does not list a VIN code for a 231 in a Riv/Les/Ele Buick until '77.

http://www.oldcarbro...%20Pg%2069.html

I would've bet against a 231 being in a pre-'77 full-size... not sure what's RPO here.

'76 231 : 105 HP @ 3400, 185 TRQ @ 2000

'76 350 : 155 HP @ 3400, 280 TRQ @ 1800

'76 455 : 205 HP @ 3800, 345 TRQ @ 2000

IIRC from an article in CA, it was mid-year addition for the LeSabre. It was in an article about how GM bought the V6 tooling back from AMC.

Also, from Wikipedia:

The '76 LeSabre was the only American full-size car with a standard V6 engine, which was Buick's brand-new 3.8-litre (231 CID) V6 engine. The V6 was only offered on the base-level LeSabre and not mentioned in initial 1976 Buick literature issued in September 1975 because the V6 engine was a last-minute addition to the line. The 350-cubic-inch V8 was the base engine on the LeSabre Custom and the 455-cubic-inch V8 was optional. Both V8s were optional on the base LeSabre.

Edited December 23, 201114 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

There was also a north/south version of the later series engines for use in the Aussie RWD vehicles.

Can someone explain to me what even firing is v. odd firing?

Yeah, I think the 231 was a mid-year thing for the 1976 Lesabre. I would have test driven the car sometime in the late spring, maybe May or June. The sales manager for the local Buick dealer was a family friend and he actually called to tell me about it.

It was a lot of car for that engine. Heck, it was a lot of car even for the standard 350.

Kk WRT the 231 being mid-year.

NeonLX said it well; that's a LOT of car for the lil' 231- the shipping weight for a dry '75 LeS 4-dr sedan was 4355.

IMO, Buick was nuts with that move.

Edited December 23, 201114 yr by balthazar

Can someone explain to me what even firing is v. odd firing?

Wikipedia has a good explanation of this under 'V6 engine'.

Basically, it has to do with design limits of the early V6s based on V8 designs, where three shared crankpins were arranged 120 degrees apart. This caused the firings to occur at odd intervals because of the 90 degree banks... 0, 150, 240, 390, 480 and 630 degrees... instead of 120 degree intervals. The even fire design uses split crankpins, 15 degrees apart to achieve an even 120 degree firing interval.

And this was a bad thing because?

^ I believe it resulted in undue NVH...

3900>3800?

was the 3.8 more reliable or something, why would it be in LaCrosses in 2008?

Just because it is a "Buick" engine?

Ive personally observed many 3800s going 350K mi and more one had 503,150! not ever rebuilt.

The most I've seen a 60* V6 go was around 250K mi was a 3.1

Yeah, more than NVH, as Balthy mentioned, the odd fire engines ran very rough. At least rougher than the public would accept. I suppose to some, it sounded like a constant miss.

A friend of mine had a V6 powered '61 Special. I don't recall it being too rough, but I was young and anything that moved under its own power was acceptable to me. Of course, it was slightly possible someone swapped in an even-fire late model V6, but I really would doubt it.

What balthazar said. The 90-degree V6 was a real shaker until they adopted the split crankpin design. I do remember the steering wheel in that '76 LeSabre vibrating in frequency with the engine as it accelerated.

I'd love to know if the fuel economy with the V6 in that big tub was any better than the 350 V8 in real world driving...

Especially with what was likely a 3-speed?

^ Has to be.

Edited December 26, 201114 yr by balthazar

I remember they had loose converters to rev higher on takeoff

Yeah, it was some sort of THM tranny...not sure if it was a full-scale THM 350 or not behind a 231 V6.

It wasn't a complete slug though--I was kind of surprised that it had as much spunk as it did. And it rode like a big Buick should, so there ya go.

Probably a THM200

FWIR, Buick had the only 6 cyl full size model in '76..Ford and Chevy had dropped their full size 6 cyl models a few years before...with the '77 downsizing, several of the B-bodies had standard 6 cyl versions.

Edited December 28, 201114 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

I had the downsized '83 Caprice with a 3.8..... I got out run by a VW Rabbit diesel of similar vintage. However, it got extremely good fuel economy on the highway for a full size car of that era, and with the size fuel tank it had, that gave it an excellent cruising range. Considering who originally bought it, my Great-Grandfather, it was perfect for him. Not in any hurry to get anywhere and wanting the best fuel economy he could get in a full size car.

FWIR, Buick had the only 6 cyl full size model in '76..Ford and Chevy had dropped their full size 6 cyl models a few years before...with the '77 downsizing, several of the B-bodies had standard 6 cyl versions.

Checked this WRT to Chevy and its correct. Partial reasoning, perhaps, is that by '75, only the Impala & Caprice lines were left, the last Bel Air is '74. Even then the brochure says the 350 was standard in the '74 Bel Air. Frankly I'm surprised to learn this, as I never put it past Chevy to stuff a 6 in cars way to large for one (then).

Checked this WRT to Chevy and its correct. Partial reasoning, perhaps, is that by '75, only the Impala & Caprice lines were left, the last Bel Air is '74. Even then the brochure says the 350 was standard in the '74 Bel Air. Frankly I'm surprised to learn this, as I never put it past Chevy to stuff a 6 in cars way to large for one (then).

I guess the sales were so low they phased them out after '73...also, apparently, a manual transmission (3 on the tree) was standard on many B-bodies in '71, but very few were ordered as such..a '71 Biscayne or Bel Air w/ 6cyl and 3 on the tree would be a fascinating find. I've also read the manual was standard in '71 in the Catalina and 88 (with 350s?).

Edited December 28, 201114 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

For Pontiac at least, the THM became standard in March of '71, IIRC.

In '71, 174 Catalinas had the manual, 30 of those being Cat Safaris.

There were 116 manual GPs, 4 manual Bonnevilles, and 2 manual Grand Villes (!!).

IMO, column-shift manuals in these cars would be a major detriment. Interesting historically, yes; but a downer to drive.

I always thought it would be kinda funky to have a '77-'78 Impala sports coupe with the 250 inline six. And the F41 suspension option!

By that time(actually just later) they started to use 200cid then 229 90* small block V6's.

You could buy a same sized 77 Chevelle w/250cid I6. Lowest priced car made in America. I know I almost did with my Dads class A discount it would've run about $2800 new with F41 package, 3 on the tree and radio&hubcap delete the dealer didn't want it on the lot w/o

hubcaps and was gonna throw in some nice wheel covers.

Edited January 1, 201214 yr by 67impss

Wheee! Three on the tree!

I could shift my '55 Chevy (six + 3 speed) without using the clutch--just ease up on the accelerator when taking it out of gear, and speed the engine a little when shifting into the next. I got good enough that I could do it up and down. Probably more of a testament to decent synchros in the tranny than to any skill on my part...

Nope in fact when done wrong you burn the synchros friction surface out quicker that is all skill Sir

When I get my next car, I will miss the 3800 (Series II supercharged) in my 99 Park Avenue Ultra..... except the premium unleaded requirement. The 231 v6 is easily the best GM pushrod v6 they have ever made. (The pushrod V8s were never bad, excluding the V8-6-4 in '81-'82). The biggest reason is simple: torque. In newer cars with the modern DOHC v6s, which engine is closest to that venerable 231? The new 3.6 perhaps?

The list left off te Series III SC engine the 260 HP version.

Today the 3.6 would be the direct 90 degree replacment but it is hard to compare the two engines.

The 3.8/3800 engine was like the LS v8. It went farther and did more than was ever expected by everyone including GM. But Time did finally catch up to it.

Dome years they were great and some versions from some years are better left forgotten.

Back in the 70's the 3.8 was like a Vega. It did do a lot of things wrong but it kept on running most of the time. I remember a guy in School that has an Omega with one. It had a bad timing chain that he refused to fix. It sounded like a Diesel but the damn thing never broke. Others like to spin bearings from some years. But over all it had a good run.

I think the hallmark of this engine was not that it was a perfect engine but the fact it was very adaptable to so many versions and vehicles over the years. Turbo's, Supercharged, Compact cars, Cadillac used em you name it they were used in ways most V6 engines never would have been used.

Even Honda had one in the SUV they got from Isuzu.

I look forward to seeing GM put this kind of effort into new engines that will advance things even farther now. Just seeing what they have done with the Eco makes me wonder what all we will see in the new V6 engines.

On 10/13/2009 at 12:16 AM, regfootball said:

my 77 buick century coupe (regal body) had the 3.8. and the whopping 105hp or whatever.

i ran pretty well actually. it was indeed slow, but it not in an attention grabbing slow sort of way.

and it got good mpg.

there was a ton of unused room under the hood. so much so that kitty used to sleep up in the engine compartment on hot days. one day i took off and kitty came out on the pavement bouncing a few hundred yards from home.

the lack of power was great from a winter driving standpoint. you never put yourself in a dangerous position. and compared to our 77 electra with the nose heavy v8, my century had very neutral handling. i bet it was 50/50 or close to it. i actually used to go out driving during snow storms because it was so controllable in the white stuff.

never had another rwd car that was tame like that in snow.

the 3800 was a good match in that car.

I remember you once posted a photo of this car.  In the snow.  Light metallic blue + white top, IIRC.  It had the sloped front end instead of the formal Regal vertical front end.  You should post it again.

I'm sure the narrow tires that it would have been running at the time also helped in the snow too. One of the downsides of the "performance" all-seasons we run on all cars these days is the relatively terrible snow performance. 

10 hours ago, trinacriabob said:

I remember you once posted a photo of this car.  In the snow.  Light metallic blue + white top, IIRC.  It had the sloped front end instead of the formal Regal vertical front end.  You should post it again.

whoa, now i must see where i have that.  it was pale minty green..... it had the slotted century grille.

 

ok, this was the body style and the grille design...

 

 

this was the color?

 

Edited September 11, 20187 yr by regfootball

20 hours ago, regfootball said:

whoa, now i must see where i have that.  it was pale minty green..... it had the slotted century grille.

 

ok, this was the body style and the grille design...

 

 

this was the color?

 

Wow, the top one was a '77 color? I remember that, in '75, Olds carried it as Persimmon Metallic and it looked fantastic on the Cutlass Supreme/Salon coupes with opera windows, landau vinyl tops, and color keyed rally wheels.  My dad bought one the next year, though.

What a hoot as to photo 2.  Love that inconspicuous V6 badge.  Just think how nifty these '75 to '77 coupes would have been if the base V6 engine had already been converted over to an "even firing" offset crankshaft configuration.  The niftiest of these were a few levels up, in the upmarket cloth 60-40 seat in the Regal and in the bucket seat S/R Regal (very rare) with the trestle shifter.  I only wish that these cars offered the Olds 260 V8.  Olds shared it with Pontiac in the (Grand)LeMans, but not with Buick for their mid-sizes.

Thank you, reg.

Edited September 11, 20187 yr by trinacriabob

I remember visits to the wrecker in the mid 80's to find replacements for our rusted out 77 Cutlass Supreme coupe doors.. at least one of them was replaced with a Regal door IIRC.

 

 

mine was the green color in the bottom photo.  wish i would have had those wheels!

Edited September 11, 20187 yr by regfootball

That is a really good looking green Regal.  Tin top, sport mirrors, the colour combo, plus one of the best looking OEM wheels ever, the Buick Road Wheel.  Where did we go wrong?  The '76-'77 GM A and A-Special cars were like the summit and it was downhill from there.

Edited September 13, 20187 yr by ocnblu

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

That is a really good looking Regal.  Tin top, sport mirrors, the colour combo, plus one of the best looking OEM wheels ever, the Buick Road Wheel.  Where did we go wrong?  The '76-'77 GM A and A-Special cars were like the summit and it was downhill from there.

The numbers speak for themselves.  The overwhelming sales figures for those cars spoke to what Americans liked ... at that point in time.

GM's mess ups in the '80s (think V-8-6-4, CCC that wasn't totally debugged, and general sloppiness) didn't help them even though their cars got much better by the next decade.  On top of that, throw in that it then became cool to drive European and Asian cars (reinforced by both media and peer pressure) and the pendulum swung further away from cars like GM coupes.  Since I've never been disappointed by any of the domestic (GM) cars I've bought, I will keep driving them and lament the slow disappearance of the memorable ones I teethed on.

Edited September 12, 20187 yr by trinacriabob