- #43 of 92
-
Re: . [sls002]
by 62vetteefp
-
Mar 26, 2006 (12:41 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Mar 26, 2006 9:46 am)
The 6 speed would have minimal performance improvements with the old high torqing 3800 . The high revin DOHC's work much better with more speeds. That is one reason why GM got behind. they kept seeing no reason with the non DOHC engines to have 5 or 6 speeds. But with more DOHC's coming on line at GM and public perception they really missd the mark.
Not sure how a 6 speed helps the newer "cam in block"  V-6's GM has developed lately. We will soon find out though!
|
- #44 of 92
-
Re: . [ab348]
by 62vetteefp
-
Mar 26, 2006 (12:44 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: ab348 (Mar 26, 2006 10:02 am)
The new 3.5/3.9 engine families have little to do with the old 2.8/3.4 except they are also non DOHC V-6's. Much higher technology with cam phasing, etc.
I love the 3800 III but it has fallen behind in technology and it is time to go.
|
- #45 of 92
-
Re: . [splatsterhound]
by 62vetteefp
-
Mar 26, 2006 (12:47 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: splatsterhound (Mar 26, 2006 11:21 am)
Yes, compared to the Japanese 4's the GM "cam in block" V6's are a bargain. May not be as smooth but much better "performance" characteristics at the same price to customer. Not sure why the 4 vibrates so bad. Normally they are pretty smooth.
|
- #46 of 92
-
Re: . [62vetteefp]
by sls002
-
Mar 26, 2006 (4:18 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Mar 26, 2006 12:41 pm)
I think that the 3800 would have been helped to some extent. A big part of the Lucerne's 3800 performance is due to the 2.85:1 economy axle gearing. With higher performance gearing the 3800 is better. But the 3.6 V6 and the northstar would do much better with a 6 speed. I doubt that the V8 will get a FWD 6 speed though. I have some doubts that the Lucerne will get a six speed. A lot depends on how long the Lucerne remains in production, which depends on how long Cadillac keeps the DTS. I think both cars will be replaced as soon as a suitable RWD platform is developed.
|
- #47 of 92
-
Re: . [62vetteefp]
by splatsterhound
-
Mar 26, 2006 (5:07 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Mar 26, 2006 12:47 pm)
Agree that normally honda fours are very smooth. This particular one was ragged, but it's got higher miles and it's been ignored for a long time and needs a little tlc. That said, it IS showing its age -- and there's no way it'll see 200k at the rate its going. Simple point is, my 3.8 has never had any internals replaced. Still runs great, better than the honda, which has fewer miles. I've talked to plenty of mechanics who say the 3.8 is basically unbreakable.
|
- #48 of 92
-
Re: . [sls002]
by rake2
-
Mar 26, 2006 (6:11 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Mar 26, 2006 4:18 pm)
I don't get this push that some people have to replace front wheel drive cars w/ rear wheel drive. For everyday driving, including snow, I much prefer the front wheel drive to the real wheel drive. I don't I'm the only one. For those of us who prefer front wheel drive, there aren't really many options for it. To eliminate them would be silly, in my opinion.
|
- #49 of 92
-
Re: . [rake2]
by m1miata
-
Mar 26, 2006 (6:54 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: rake2 (Mar 26, 2006 6:11 pm)
Yeah, the Lucerne as a Buick or as a Cadillac, after GM re-organization, would make sense for those in need of FWD. Seems like some people need, or prefer FWD. The FWD is less expensive to build, so the profit is there. Maybe AWD is the way to go though. As for available cars, my o' my, most are FWD, so you should not have trouble picking up one.
|
- #50 of 92
-
Re: . [rake2]
by 62vetteefp
-
Mar 27, 2006 (4:29 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: rake2 (Mar 26, 2006 6:11 pm)
There are very few who even know what FWD or RWD means or care. There is a market for RWD but it is small. Look at what is being built today in the non performance market. The only RWD cars under 30K (where the huge volume of cars are sold) are the new chryslers and they are not sold in that high of volume compared to all the rest. Their wagon is already crested and is going down in volume. And I surmise that most of those buying the Chryslers are buying because of the "look at me" styling and/or the V8. They would have bought if FWD/AWD/RWD or hook a horse up to it just to be seen!!
Of course nothing wrong with that but a smaller niche market.
FWD is not going away. That being said full size vehicles like the Lucerne and DTS keep losing sales. Mostly old folks who want a car that large. Most younger (under 60) know that a SUV is a much better vehicle for their needs if they need the carrying capacity for family and stuff. Remember our government killed the large car with MPG requirements on the cars and then NOT applying to trucks.
All that said above, with the large car going RWD they can turn up the advetisements and convince the buying public that RWD is upscale and all should buy! It is in performance cars!
|
- #51 of 92
-
Re: . [ab348]
by poncho167
-
Mar 27, 2006 (6:53 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: ab348 (Mar 26, 2006 10:02 am)
I don't believe the 3.4 is the same engine block as the 2.8, 3.1, 3.5, 3.9. The 3.4 cubic inch engine was an Oldsmobile engine. The 3.4 from what I have seen and heard has been pretty good.
|
- #52 of 92
-
Re: . [poncho167]
by sls002
-
Mar 27, 2006 (7:32 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: poncho167 (Mar 27, 2006 6:53 am)
The 3.4 is the same engine family as the 3.1, which was re-engineered at some point allowing the first generation 2.8 to be as large as 3.4 liters. The new 3.5 and 3.9 engines are newly re-engineered to, allowing them to become as large as 3.9 liters. I should point out that there are two versions of the 3.5 liter engine, one without VVT (variable valve timing), which has the same stroke as the 3.9 but a smaller bore; and one with the same bore as the 3.9, but with a shorter stroke. Both of the larger bore engines have VVT.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
