Buick 4.1L vs Oldsmobile 4.3L

Status
Not open for further replies.

78Kevin

Not-quite-so-new-guy
Jan 7, 2013
10
0
0
When I was a small lad of 16 in 1991, my Grandfather had a 1984 Buick Le Sabre with the 4.1L V-6. It produced 125 Horsepower with 205 lbs of torque. It also had a 4bbl. The following year, I purchased my 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, which I still own. It has a 260 V-8 with 105-115 HP, depending on who you ask, with the same 205 lbs of torque.

The Buick was able to perform brake stands and leave a huge patch down the street. You could also be at a dead stop with the steering wheel turned all the way to the right, floor it, and squeal the tires.

My Oldsmobile won't so much as chirp at all unless a passenger disembarks the car with a bottle of dish soap. When at a dead stop with the wheel turned to the right in the Olds, you merely get the pleasure of a few hundred rpm increase. oooohh

A man could have fun with the Buick, even though it weighed more than the Olds.

It's pathetic that Oldsmobile allowed a V-8 engine this underpowered to be used, a damn shame. It's also a shame the aftermarket companies never made a proper aluminum intake manifold for use on this engine without monkeying with 5A 307 heads. Just a 20hp increase would make a tremendous difference for people not looking for speed or power, but simply desire an engine to perform an occasional burnout. Short of dish soap, there is no way the 260 will so much as chirp. PATHETIC!
 

anthonychacon80

Master Mechanic
May 4, 2010
303
1
18
Haha. Yah. True. But once upon a time the point of those engines was...

1. Get you from point A to Point B.
2. Get good gas mileage.
3. Abide by smog laws.
4. Idle smooth and not make any noise.
5. Not to spin the tires anymore than to simply gain traction and move the car.

Both those engines do exactly what they are supposed to do. In fact, both are the UPGRADE to the "standard" engine that was in those cars which I believe was the 3.8 231. So anyone who had either one of those engines would have been happy to have two extra cylinders or an extra .3 displacement. Even though the 280 was basically slower than a Buick 4.1 the "point" of the 280 was for someone to say "I have a v8!" and for GM to charge more, but not to spend more on gas.
 

YGspider

G-Body Guru
May 13, 2012
679
1
18
Ontario Canada Eh
anthonychacon80 said:
Haha. Yah. True. But once upon a time the point of those engines was...

1. Get you from point A to Point B.
2. Get good gas mileage.
3. Abide by smog laws.
4. Idle smooth and not make any noise.
5. Not to spin the tires anymore than to simply gain traction and move the car.

Both those engines do exactly what they are supposed to do. In fact, both are the UPGRADE to the "standard" engine that was in those cars which I believe was the 3.8 231. So anyone who had either one of those engines would have been happy to have two extra cylinders or an extra .3 displacement. Even though the 280 was basically slower than a Buick 4.1 the "point" of the 280 was for someone to say "I have a v8!" and for GM to charge more, but not to spend more on gas.

I dont think the 260 was a upgrade from the 3.8 lol both of the engines are pathetic. This is my face when you launch a 3.8 Gbody :|
 

DoubleV

Royal Smart Person
Feb 25, 2011
2,156
406
83
Medina Ohio
Yeah, those Olds 260's were/are pathetic. Can't speak much for the Buick 4.1 as I've never driven in one. Keep in mind of course the gearing would have a profound effect on whether or not you could spin the tires or not. A 260 with stock garbage gearing ( some as pathetic as 2.14 ) is a recipie for a real snooze-fest in the performance department.

The worst thing about the Olds 260 was the fact it had the size and weight of a 'real' V8 but with the performance of a V6. That's just not good math.
 

gearhedjon

Apprentice
Dec 5, 2012
70
25
18
oak forest IL
I know this the Olds section but I had a 4.3 86 Monte Carlo. That engine would do exactly what your asking for. LOTS of burnouts, brake stands were easy. I often wondered why GM didn't make this engine more available? It was also fuel injected so no messing around with the electronic carburetor. A good engine in my opinion even if the fuel injected engine was only offered for two years.
 

jetsetw31

G-Body Guru
Sep 9, 2010
678
67
28
Petersburg, VA
In 1990 I had a 3.8 that could do all that. But it was a conversion. It was a brown 81 Cutlass 3.8V6 and 350 trans the rear was 3.08 gear. I salvaged a FWD '85 Olds 88 that had F/I and a distributor. I got the car from a neighbor who wrecked it for 50 bucks. Intake, injectors, computer, the heads and cam. The only other 3.8 that had that intake was the Grand National. 85 was the last year that intake was on a FWD car. 86 and up went coil pack. the intake was FWD only. Believe me I tried, the HEI won't fit and the pluming is wrong. Took me 2 weeks to integrate it all. Under hood looked like a GN without the turbo stuff. GM should have done this!!! That thing could do power slides. Yet it was using the stock 14 inch wheels and tires to be fair. But it was still a fun ride with better mileage than the carb.
Til my wife hydroplaned and hit a fire hydrant pole in the rain. I had my 83 4 speed cutlass so i let the 81 get junked. Wish i kept it now. But if i get the chance it can be duplicated.
 

DRIVEN

Geezer
Apr 25, 2009
8,062
14,479
113
*CENSORED*
Agreed, GM should have made a combo like that available. But in '78 GM wasn't building a lot of fuel injected vehicles. While Gbodys make good muscle car platforms now, back then almost all of them were just bland pedestrian movers. As mentioned earlier, they were designed to...
"1. Get you from point A to Point B.
2. Get good gas mileage.
3. Abide by smog laws.
4. Idle smooth and not make any noise.
5. Not to spin the tires anymore than to simply gain traction and move the car."
That's pretty much all they did. When you think about what the other American manufacturer's were building at the time (Volare, Diplomat, Granada, Fairmont) they weren't really any worse. Most American cars were pretty lame in the late '70s.
 

King_V

Master Mechanic
Jul 17, 2013
307
5
18
Sicklerville, NJ
Dredging up a topic back from the dead, but, to be fair, the 260 came into existence in 1975, whereas the 4.1 was computer controlled (most years in its existence I think), had a 4-bbl rather than a 2-bbl, and if I'm not mistaken had to resort to siamesed bores - but don't hold me to that last tidbit. I imagine the larger bore of the 4.1 (3.965 inches) versus the 260's 3.5 inch bores allowed for better breathing.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, most years the 4.1 had the benefit of being in a car with the 2004R trans, and I would almost guarantee that any 4.1 car had better gearing than the 260. Not sure if any 260 car came with anything better than 2.29 gears from the factory..... though again, don't hold me to that last bit.


So, it's really an apples-vs-oranges thing. Don't get me wrong, they both have their strengths and weaknesses, and one in favor of the 260 is that it will last FOREVER, but I can see some instances where a 260 might make sense, and some where the 4.1 would be desirable.

I suspect the mid-70s was GM's rush to de-bore everything as their quickie solution, whereas the 4.1 had the benefit of extra time and design considerations.
 

Fox80

G-Body Guru
Jun 27, 2013
563
4
16
Jamestown NY
Hahaha the poor ol 260 getting beat up again, I won't bother defending it or any Olds motor for that fact, but I will say GM did make some impressive V6's, they still do. Like the above post said the 260 was created out of need for emissions and such of the era, Olds engineers dropped the ball for decades on motor design, states to the case why they were swallowed up by the Chevy platform not long after these cars were in production. I like the 260 in my car and with the technology out today you can fix most all the mistakes Olds engineers made, but I have considered a carbureted 4.3l V6 install once I run the course of the 260
 
Oct 14, 2008
8,806
7,746
113
Melville,Saskatchewan
The only other engine that is just as pathetic for Olds V8's, the swirl port 307. Just because at the time everything went up in power, good way to kill off an engine design, make it pathetic and drop compression and port size. The rest of the Olds V8 line up were great engines and ran circles around the sbc in the reliability department till the early 80's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GBodyForum is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.

Please support GBodyForum Sponsors

Classic Truck Consoles Dixie Restoration Depot UMI Performance

Contact [email protected] for info on becoming a sponsor