GM 3.8 V-6 claimed to be the BEST ENGINE EVER by some here

"krp" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> news:49edbe2b$1@kcnews01...
>
>>>>>>>>> Can we do a time warp back to the claims that the GM 3.8
>>>>>>>>> liter V-6 was the BEST engine in world history? The little
>>>>>>>>> alley fight we had on that as I suggested a rather LONG list
>>>>>>>>> of engines I felt were better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting news - SOON TO BE Bankrupt General Motors has
>>>>>>>>> had to RECALL over 1.5 MILLION of its cars with the 3.8
>>>>>>>>> liter engine because of ENGINE FIRES.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I await the apologies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not exactly correct to say they are being recalled for
>>>>>>>> engine fires, more an oil fire that spreads to the engine.
>>>>>>>> They are being recalled becasue: "Under hard braking, engine
>>>>>>>> oil could leak past a heat shield and drip on the exhaust
>>>>>>>> manifold. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
>>>>>>>> says that could start a small fire that could spread to a
>>>>>>>> plastic spark plug wire guide and beyond."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there an apology in there somewhere?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, none was intended or warranted. It is silly to imply that
>>>>>> the entire GM 3.8L engine family is bad becasue in three cases
>>>>>> oil leaking onto a manifold started a small fire. Using your
>>>>>> logic, no company builds good vehicles (or engines), since they
>>>>>> have all had recalls.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So we're back to the 3.8 being the BEST ENGINE ever built again?
>>>
>>>> Define best.....
>
>>> YOU made the laughable claim - YOU define it!
>
>> I never made such a claim.
>
> It was made never-the-less.

Well don't pin it on me. I would never agree that they were "the BEST
ENGINE ever built." And I don't see anyone else claiming that either.

>>> The engine starts on fire and you have a laundry list of excuses
>>> for it.
>
>> I just pointed out the actual reason for the recall.
>
> Excuses.

Facts. It was not so much an "engine" problem as an engine compartment
problem. And a realtively minor and obscure one at that. You used the
number of vehicles recalled to try and claim this proved the engines
were not good. This was not fair. Very few cars had a problem (fewer
than 5), but in order to make sure there were no more they had to
recall millions. And the recall does nothing but remove some flammible
material from the area of the exhaut manifold. The actual engine is
not changed at all.

>>> Reminds me of my days racing. At the start of the festivities
>>> Chevy owners were the LOUDEST BRAGGARTS on the track. The biggest
>>> honking super cars going. That is right up to the point you beat
>>> their ass, then the EXCUSES were louder that their origanl boatsm
>>> it was NEVER because the other guy's car was faster, NEVER. You
>>> know it gets OLD after a while. You know if you had just said it
>>> was a "good engine" I probably would have agreed with you.
>>> Claiming it was the BEST ever or in the top ten is just such a
>>> STUPID claim as to be insulting with all the really great power
>>> plants out there from so many brands of cars.
>>>
>>>> It is a very good engine for recent US automobiles ,
>>>> patrticualrly considering it is a very cheap engine to build. I
>>>> have never claimed it was the best engine ever built. I don't
>>>> think anyone else has made that claim either (and if they did,
>>>> they were not thinking). You might be able to say a particualr
>>>> engine is the best engine for a particualr application and time
>>>> period, but no way can you say it, or any other engine, is the
>>>> best engine ever built.
>>>
>>> It is not a "bad" engine. But I certainly wouldn't put it
>>> anywhere near the top 10 or even 30 engines in history. I listed
>>> them before, Duesenberg, Pierce Arrow, Studebaker, Hudson,
>>> Mercedes, Bugatti, Maseratti, Lamborghini, Packard, some Cadillac
>>> and Lincoln engines.
>
>> It would be interesting to understand your rating system that makes
>> those engine all time great engines. Any of them may have been
>> really great in their time, but compared to a modern engine? They
>> would all come off as unreliable, heavy, under-powered, and
>> hideously expensive.
>
> Oh golly - a consensus of automotive design engineers and
> mechanics who are experts with engines.

As I said, maybe for their time they were great. And I'd love to have
the cars they were in. But, compared to almost any modern engine they
were pathetic. You are confusing art and mystique with results. A mid
thirties Dusenberg with a 400+ cubic inch supercharged engine could
do zero to sixty in around eight seconds. A Camry or Fusion can beat
that.

>>> No - SORRY your 3.8 hardly makes it to the middle of the pack must
>>> less WORLD'S BEST! Not even close. You staked your claim on that
>>> because of the number of them built. There are nearly 10 times as
>>> many Ladas and they are nothing but ****. Large volume engines?
>>> The Ford 4 Cylinder engine for the 20's and early 30's, the VW bug
>>> engine. A buttload of both and FAR more reliable.
>
>> I doubt this is true. The old flat four VW engines were simple, but
>> relaible? I think not, at least not by modern standards.
>
> Sorry that flat 4 was considered one of the most reliable ever
> built.

BS. VW flat fours were mediocre engines. They were simple, unstressed
but hardly relaible.You are confusing popular, cheap, and easy to
repair with reliable.

Ed

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:49ee00b6$1@kcnews01...

>>>>>>>>>> Can we do a time warp back to the claims that the GM 3.8 liter
>>>>>>>>>> V-6 was the BEST engine in world history? The little alley fight
>>>>>>>>>> we had on that as I suggested a rather LONG list of engines I
>>>>>>>>>> felt were better.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting news - SOON TO BE Bankrupt General Motors has had to
>>>>>>>>>> RECALL over 1.5 MILLION of its cars with the 3.8 liter engine
>>>>>>>>>> because of ENGINE FIRES.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I await the apologies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not exactly correct to say they are being recalled for
>>>>>>>>> engine fires, more an oil fire that spreads to the engine. They
>>>>>>>>> are being recalled becasue: "Under hard braking, engine oil could
>>>>>>>>> leak past a heat shield and drip on the exhaust manifold. The
>>>>>>>>> National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that could
>>>>>>>>> start a small fire that could spread to a plastic spark plug wire
>>>>>>>>> guide and beyond."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there an apology in there somewhere?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, none was intended or warranted. It is silly to imply that the
>>>>>>> entire GM 3.8L engine family is bad becasue in three cases oil
>>>>>>> leaking onto a manifold started a small fire. Using your logic, no
>>>>>>> company builds good vehicles (or engines), since they have all had
>>>>>>> recalls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we're back to the 3.8 being the BEST ENGINE ever built again?
>>>>
>>>>> Define best.....
>>
>>>> YOU made the laughable claim - YOU define it!
>>
>>> I never made such a claim.
>>
>> It was made never-the-less.
>
> Well don't pin it on me. I would never agree that they were "the BEST
> ENGINE ever built." And I don't see anyone else claiming that either.
>
>>>> The engine starts on fire and you have a laundry list of excuses for
>>>> it.
>>
>>> I just pointed out the actual reason for the recall.
>>
>> Excuses.

> Facts. It was not so much an "engine" problem as an engine compartment
> problem.

The point is that other engines didn't have the same or similar problem.

>>> It would be interesting to understand your rating system that makes
>>> those engine all time great engines. Any of them may have been really
>>> great in their time, but compared to a modern engine? They would all
>>> come off as unreliable, heavy, under-powered, and hideously expensive.

>> Oh golly - a consensus of automotive design engineers and mechanics
>> who are experts with engines.

> As I said, maybe for their time they were great. And I'd love to have the
> cars they were in. But, compared to almost any modern engine they were
> pathetic. You are confusing art and mystique with results. A mid thirties
> Dusenberg with a 400+ cubic inch supercharged engine could do zero to
> sixty in around eight seconds. A Camry or Fusion can beat that.

Speed isn't the standard. Have you ever seen a Dusenberg engine running?
Not to mention the comfort of the car. There is also several thousand pounds
difference between a Deusy and a Camry.