Last post on May 27, 2011 at 5:22 PM
You are in the Buick LaCrosse
What is this discussion about?
Buick LaCrosse, Sedan
#125 of 134 Re: Reply: CVT?-Engine Rough [gberpa]
Apr 19, 2011 (6:00 am)
Comment referred to torgue curve on older 3.8L as being flat not the newer higher revving DOHC/VVT/DDI engines that require more RPM's to produce same torgue or HP. Need to keep the revs up like a motorcycle or small engine sports car. Older large blocks were so oversized vs. the car weight you could hardly lug it down - not so with smaller higher revving engines.
#126 of 134 Re: Reply: CVT?-Engine Rough [gberpa]
Apr 19, 2011 (6:37 am)
Are you saying that you got lights for traction?
If not, then the Michelins were doing the job.
#127 of 134 Re: Reply: CVT?-Engine Rough [crankeee]
Apr 19, 2011 (6:53 am)
Not sure what version of a 3.8 these charts are for such as newest called 3.9 or much older that I think began as TBI, throttle body injection.
It is impossible to guess whether the latest additions to engines is for pollution or mileage or some combination of.
Comparing those two charts, compare torque or HP for an equal RPM of both engines. It looks like the 3.6L is higher in all cases.
Traveling a steady speed, Lacrosse with 6 speed & smaller body for wind resistance compared to Lucernne with 4 speed, it would seem that there would be more than just 1 MPG difference for highway. That is what I remember window stickers to show anyway.
Overlay curves of fuel consumption for those graphs might reveal something, but not hopeful at this point.
#128 of 134 Re: Reply: CVT?-Engine Rough [e_net_rider]
Apr 19, 2011 (10:32 pm)
You know, I'm not sure about the TC/Trak lights coming on but I don't think so. I was focused on paying attention to the road and avoiding oncoming glare. I heard the tire/water/road sound you often do before a possible hydroplaning episode (if you're at high enough speed which I wasn't) but the car held the steering line very well so I guess it was mostly the tires.
#129 of 134 Re: Reply: Engine Rough [crankeee]
Apr 20, 2011 (6:11 am)
>The flatter curve for the older 3.8L
The graph I showed was not for the 3.8L. It is the 3800 which is vastly changed from the 3.8s of the 80s.
The particular graph is of the later version that was in the Lucerne. I believe the earlier version had slightly better horsepower and/or torque rating.
#130 of 134 Re: Reply: CVT?-Engine Rough [e_net_rider]
Apr 20, 2011 (6:13 am)
>Not sure what version of a 3.8 these charts are for such as newest called 3.9 or much older that I think began as TBI, throttle body injection.
I am nnot clear on what you mean here. The 3800s were not related to the 3.9L.
The chart was for the 3800 in the Lucerne, the last iteration of the engine. It had sequential port fuel injection, AIUI.
#131 of 134 Re: Reply: CVT?-Engine Rough [imidazol97]
Apr 21, 2011 (4:53 am)
My bad. I did not realize these were totally different engines. If I understand you correctly, you are saying this is like the old days of Ford where they had three versions of the 351?
I do know that whatever Buick was putting in those older vehicles, 90's, must be one tough engine. There are a lot of them on the road yet.
May 22, 2011 (6:15 am)
I mentioned a few time the factory PF48 that is missing the anti-drainback valve. I told a few at the dealership. I remembered to take it with me when I picked up my car yesterday. The service bay manager was the first to query what I had. I told him and then led him to the parts counter where we asked to see a new PF48. I showed the difference to him and the parts guy at which time the manager of service walked up and he looked to. All three were jaw dropped shaking heads in disbelief. Of course they could not comment on GM since that would be like talking bad about your boss. Now close to 3000 miles since I changed it and oil, and I have not heard that horribly loud hammer on anvil sound from the very front, at start, even once. I do occasionally get the exhaust pipe sound. And wonder what damage was done to the VVT system.
BTW, the battery that went dead in less than three months and was replaced. It has been replaced again. It was leaking acid and developed a corrosion spot where it was dripping.
Every day I am more and less impressed.
#133 of 134 Re: Bad oil filter [e_net_rider]
May 24, 2011 (5:51 am)
rider: I bought PF48 at Auto parts store and the drain anti drain valve is in the bottom per prior internet posts.
Also found out tha it takes these cars a VERY long time to drain down for a good oil level check, which I guess is the idea. I have read no posts of oil consumption on the 3.0/3.6L family in current posts. Once the consumer stopped relying totally on the oil life monitor and started to check the dipstick. DUH! Ours has the 3.0 that is in Cadillac SRX models and good motor so far.
#134 of 134 Re: Bad oil filter [crankeee]
May 27, 2011 (5:22 pm)
If you are checking for the valve, look into the bottom holes, except the big threaded one in the center. You will see black rubber and that is the seal. On my bad one, no seal, just metal from likely the end of the filter cartridge.
Mine certainly did not take much time to drain down during the time that filter was on. I'd check very frequently, even after just filling gas the stick would be up.