BUICK - The "Grand National" & "GNX" Story Part 2 of 3

[@1967PmdGto]

So right. They could not "claim" enviormental/mpg reasons for not having this engine today (& IMPROVED). Back in the day GNs knocked off high 20s, maybe even 30mpg. I was a Texas smog inspector/tester. These often blew 25 HCs at idle. A new less powerful Chevy 350 at the time would blow about 215--close to failing, the state law/limit was 225. Honda 4 cyls blew about 15 HCs. Our Pontiac 4cyls were almost 200 HCs, not too clean considering it's a 4 banger & a Buick V6 is over twice the size!

[@heartboy86]

low 14s in the early 80s,that is amazing

[@unknownuser1987]

The best Buick v6 is the 3800 Series II or III. The cylinder heads, with basic porting, will flow the same, if not more, air than maxed-out 3.8 or 3800 Series I heads. The blocks are smaller , have a high nickel content, have cross-bolts, and come with steel main caps. The Supercharged Series III even comes with forged rods that will handle pretty much anything you throw at them. People even swap these in GN's now due to their potential over the old 3.8. The electronics are WAY less finicky too!

[@1967PmdGto]

In GM school they told me the brass told them to tune this car down because they can't have a luxury Buick beating a Vette. They tuned it down and it still beat a Vette then! They are so detuned, that's why many of the regular GNs will run high 12s low 13s just by changing the chip!

[@1967PmdGto]

@ad356 I have a 225k 3800 (a 3.8 with a quick start crank sensor, and counterbalance shaft for perfect idle starting in 1988) in a 96 Bonneville, they ARE great engines. I could not believe the power and mpg when I first started working on/driving these at the Buick dealer in 1991 as a rookie mechanic, turbo or not. Yours has the same LOW compresion as a turbo. The cam & computer chip is slightly hotter, heads slightly better , BUT the main power difference is the turbo ....continued------->

[@1967PmdGto]

Never say NEVER. Remember how gutless V6 carbureted engines were in the 80s? A few years earlier these engines were so doggy, I said they could NEVER have power. But they turned into a beast with a turbo & SFI injection. And they are still miled/detuned, you'll see some on YT running 9s with AC & streetable when souped up.

[@ad356]

i have a 3.8 in my 87 bonneville. what is the difference between this engines? are they just about the same except the turbo? they were a good engine in just about every form. 3.8's are awesome

[@jeremythompson9122]

I'm surprised GM brass allowed these to be produced seeing how they would easily outperform an 80's Corvette. Seemed like they always favored Chevrolet and gave the other GM brands a hard time about their high performance cars...particularly Pontiac. GM forcing Pontiac to shelf the Banshee concept car in the late 60's because it was likely to outperform a Corvette is one example of that bias. Wonder why they relented by allowing these to be built. I'm surprised the 73-74 455SD Trans Am ever made it into production because they would blow the doors off a 73-74 Vette...no matter what drivetrain the Corvette had

[@raymondhaley248]

Buick made history in 84, too bad the general didn't have since enough to at least hold on 02 the engine if not the car.

[@tta299]

the lc2 3.8 is diffrent than the non turbo engine better stuff on the inside

[@Motorfordtoyota]

@cobraopts7 nah, it needs to stay true to its game. Just take the Camaro 3.6 and twin turbo it. Hell, then it would have more HP then the Camaro SS.