What did GM do wrong with our cars?

[ZR1Vette09]

would someone just race an eclipse and get this overwith???

[DnaProdigy]

Ill show you what GM did right (although it has nothing to do with our cars.)



~530 WHP (average dyno of 3 different cars)
0-60 in 3.3 Sec
11.2 Sec 1/4 mile @130.5 MPH

[ZR1Vette09]

^ I believe you mean 630 WHP

[01gtspecial]

The series 2 3.8L from 10 years ago still makes 20 ft. lbs. of torque more than the 3.8L 2009 eclipse motor... These cars aren't dyno queens, I've seen gtp's/regals pull on cars that have a 100whp advantage over them.

true that.

[Poil336]

i believe the L67 came later than the L36. the L36 was made to be bulletproof, hence the amount of cars it was used in. not to mention the tech advances in the last 10 years that allow cars with smaller displacements to make more horsepower. anybody know the link on here to the youtube video where the guy runs over a buick with a bulldozer? i feel that's appropriate here. and more horsepower doesn't necessarily mean less gas milage, more cylinders does. it's what you do with more horsepower that affects gas milage. intake and exhaust mods can lead to better gas milage, they just happen to add horsepower too.

[DnaProdigy]

^ I believe you mean 630 WHP

That's crank HP as far as I'm aware.

I investigated three different sources who purchased and then dynoed a new stock ZR1's (three different vehicles).

The dyno numbers ranged from 500WHP - 560WHP so i averaged the numbers to be 530 WHP

Don't worry that's still plenty fast.

[Iron Indian]

Nope not joking, thats one of the reasons im on here is to learn more. So go ahead and laugh and watch how much i dont give a ****.

I was just shocked thats all. I would of figured you'd at least googled it before asking. Its like comparing a Chevy Truck to a VW Bug, ya know? But hey, you didn't know you didn't know. Props for asking and not assuming.

Seriously, hope you are understanding the differences. A 3.8 from Mitsu, Ford, or GM has many many difference and can't really be out into the same catagories. There not interchangable be no means...

[JoRoW99]

a 2009 eclipse with the 3.8l v6. Bone stock it put 250horses and 250torque to the wheels

the new v6 camaro makes 304 hp with a 3.6L IIRC
but thats not wheel hp so its probably a little less.

[JbrownGTP]

I was just shocked thats all. I would of figured you'd at least googled it before asking. Its like comparing a Chevy Truck to a VW Bug, ya know? But hey, you didn't know you didn't know. Props for asking and not assuming.

Seriously, hope you are understanding the differences. A 3.8 from Mitsu, Ford, or GM has many many difference and can't really be out into the same catagories. There not interchangable be no means...

Right on dude, honestly i never took the time to sit back and take all that into consideration. I just seen the the numbers and got frustrated thats all my bad guys

[1998xGTP]

A 3.8 from Mitsu, Ford, or GM has many many difference and can't really be out into the same catagories. There not interchangable be no means...

Actually the ford 3.8 design relied HEAVILY on the Buick 3.8

[Planeboy18]

anybody know the link on here to the youtube video where the guy runs over a buick with a bulldozer? i feel that's appropriate here.

Davidsfarm!!!!! Awesome videos if you're really bored.

This is the actual bulldoozer running over it.
YouTube - buick crushed twice by 20 ton dozer, still drives

And this one is when he finally kills the engine after running over it twice and beating it to hell. Enjoy.
YouTube - motor blow and fire, buick 3.8

[99prixgt]

^I posted it in the lounge a while back, those crazy Canadian farmers.

[1998xGTP]

^I posted it in the lounge a while back, those crazy Canadian farmers.

Yeah he's a goof though

[Iron Indian]

Actually the ford 3.8 design relied HEAVILY on the Buick 3.8

Still not interchangeable. My Wifes parents still have her old 1996 3.8 V6short block out of her Mustang. There quite a bit different to the GM version (which is a way better motor to begin with than what Ford had).

[04GTP956]

fu** the eclipse. Enough said.

X2

[00gpgtp]

you are aware that 3800's are capable of going >300,000 miles right?

i kinda disagree with everyone saying its old technology. they used these engines through 2008... using that reasoning, LSx's are old technology too since they were developed in 1997, yet they are still going strong and still make gobs of power, can handle tons of boost in stock form, all while retaining reliability.

so get off it with old technology, it works, so dont fix it. sure 240 hp from a supercharged v6 is not very impressive. but keep in mind that gm is VERY conservative with their tunes, in just about every vehicle. you can easily pick up 30whp from an ls car just from a tune.

that being said, leaving out an intercooler is the only thing gm did wrong, imo.

for christ's sake, they held a damn ceremony on the last production day of these engines in flint. hahaha. wouldnt have done that if it was a poor engine.


oh, x3. f*ck that ugly pos eclipse. my gf has an 04 gts, i think its the only decent lookin eclipse made.

[Sabrewings]

you are aware that 3800's are capable of going >300,000 miles right?

So are many other engines.

i kinda disagree with everyone saying its old technology. they used these engines through 2008... using that reasoning, LSx's are old technology too since they were developed in 1997, yet they are still going strong and still make gobs of power, can handle tons of boost in stock form, all while retaining reliability.

The LS4, LS6, LS9, LS7, LS3, etc have so little in common with the LS1, they're practically new engines. Sure, they're in the same V8 family, but that doesn't mean they are largely unchanged. The 3800 II/III were largely unchanged from 1996.

but keep in mind that gm is VERY conservative with their tunes, in just about every vehicle. you can easily pick up 30whp from an ls car just from a tune.

And I can get 40WHP from a Stage 1 tune on my 4-banger. All manufacturers are conservative with their tunes. It promotes reliability.

The 3800 was great back when it was the "new" hotness. It was on the top ten engines of the 20th century list, and in the top ten engines for three years in a row in the 90s. It's known as being a trusty workhorse, but not as being a power house. It's been a decade. Things change, and they're changing faster every year. GM is getting over 300 horses from a 3.6L N/A DI V6. That is the new par for the course, so to speak. The 3800 can't keep up with that, and it is indeed old technology.

[00gpgtp]

never said 3800's were the ONLY engines that lasted so long, just making it known to the op that they do have decent power for how long they last.

those engines are still based off 1997 technology. theres not many differences in them either.

why do people come on a gp forum to bash the engines? retarded

[Sabrewings]

No one is bashing the 3800. It was explained to the OP that GM didn't really do anything wrong with the 3800, just that the 3800 is old. Back in its day it was great, but times change. You can't expect it to be great forever. There's a reason we don't use carburetors anymore... We shouldn't hold on to things for sentimentality.

[Gregorius]

those engines are still based off 1997 technology.

Think again... 1962.