the little buick 3800 gen ii engine, basically, is the result of lopping two cylinders off a buick v8 motor, and doing some other "stuff."
over the years the deck heights have been shaved, the connecting rods shortened, and numerous mods to the intake and exhaust systems to produce a pretty trick motor, widely respected for its power and durability. (the biggest improvements had to do with modifying its firing sequences, and mods to the push rod journals on the crank to make it nearly even fire motor.)
but, my question/observation is pretty basic.--
if you took the original "mother" v-8 engine, and did all the things to it that have been done to the little v-6 to make it a 3800 (3.8 liter) v-6, especially the reduction of the deck height, and the bore size and length of stroke, mods to the connecting rods, .... , yada, yada, yada, .... , would not the "original" buick v-8 be a pretty trick and smooth running little engine. lots of torque at the bottom end, lots of revs at the upper end. that sort of thing.
update, 09.18.2021. and even better idea.-- why not a 72-degree v-10 arrangement of the 3800 series motors, with four additional cylinders of the same bore and stroke as the current 3800 gen ii v6, and the block to have the lowered deck, etc., etc., and all the features of the 3800 gen ii. that would result in an engine of about 6.3 liters, more or less. make it all aluminum. block and heads. steel liners. nothing exotic, just a power output of about 325 horsepower or so ... it would be a very tractable, very nice engine for excellent performance and road manners. end update. hint: the 72-degree v-10 arrangement makes it an even fired engine, no need for split journals on the crank throws. a very smmooooooth motor. end update.
why has gm/buick/olds/pontiac not done this? seems to me such a motor would give the chevy/corporate small block motor (in all its iterations) a pretty good go for the money. (you wouldn't have to do anything to the crank throws, now, would you?)
comments and observations welcome.
john jay @ 09.17.2021
p.s. years ago, my brother had a z28 camaro with a 302 c.i. engine. just recently, i acquired a "new" 1999 camaro with the 3800 gen ii engine in it, when my "old" 2001 s-10 blazer started squirting things out from underneath a head.
the seat of my pants tell me that the little 3.8 liter v6 motor & car are just about as quick as my brothers 5.0 liter motor and car. a little boggy on the start, but get them rolling just a bit, and they are genuinely spunky. not like these cars sporting 650 to 700 horsepower, but responsive and agile.
fun cars. and, my little camaro would be even more fun with a 300 c.i. v-8 in it, and with an aluminum block, pretty much as agile.
just curious, is all. just curious.
In lighter cars with the right gearing you'd never notice the bog.
My mom's cars have had mid size v6 engines for 4 decades. Her 1980 Malibu, 2bbl 3.8, 115hp, iron block. Her 1998 Pontiac Bonneville 3.8, 205hp, aluminum block. Her 2017 Chevy Impala 3.6, 300hp, aluminum block. This is the de-tuned Camaro 325hp engine. This engine weighs about 60lbs less than the iron 3.8 of 1980 with almost 3x the power. Even in a 2 ton car, with the 8 speed auto trans it is no slouch. Imaging dropping that engine into a 2300lb '72 Vega.
Posted by: Drew458 | September 18, 2021 at 09:53 AM
drew:
the 3.8 engine is a very peppy little car. the 3.6 & 3.9l v6's are also very very peppy.
take any of them, add 4 cylinders in a v-10 72-degree format, and you would have some very powerful engines, very tractable, and quite smooth in operation.
zip zip zoom zoowie, to say the least. and, like all the v6's w/ the current arrangements, very good fuel economy.
i would favor the old push rod arrangement. i like the simplicity of the old fashioned way of doing it, and they still give great performance w/ the electronic ignition.
i don't think the electric car is an entire solution to the issue .... imagine a winter freeway with full traffic lanes, electric cars frozen in place by ice and snow. atsa lotta extension cords, ain't it. laughing. great for supplemental short hauls, not so great for extended travel.
but, maybe that is the lefty goal, eh?
john
p.s. thanks for the read, drew and thanks for the comments.
Posted by: john jay | September 18, 2021 at 01:52 PM