Intercooled GN's or EFI 5L 5 spd Notchback Mustang's, which were faster bone stock?

[LS6 Tommy]

Oh, Tommy... do I have bad news for you.

But, I don't have the capacity or interest to write a book on how incredibly convoluted and temperamental the Buick's SFI was compared to a batch fired TPI or Ford's EEC EFI.

Give me the Cliff's Notes. I worked on all the cars in that group almost daily from 84-86. I never had any real issues with the GN systems. That being said, I can appreciate it if you worked on them when they were "older" and had a different experience with them.👍

Tommy

 

[motorheadmike]

Give me the Cliff's Notes. I worked on all the cars in that group almost daily from 84-86. I never had any real issues with the GN systems. That being said, I can appreciate it if you worked on them when they were "older" and had a different experience with them.👍

Tommy

When you have to start inventing special tools so the layman can service their car... well...

http://installationinstructions.com/107112.pdf

Simply bumping the cam sensor out of phase makes for an ultra crappy running Buick. Out of spec TPS or setting up a crank sensor is also a fun one to diagnose. All three at once? Heh.

Broken vacuum lines (as previously stated), over boost/lean conditions, cracked/leaking, manifolds, bad O2s, dirty MAFs, and on and on.

Oof. That stuff benched a lot of engines pretty early on.

The cars were too complex for that average technician or consumer then or now. I was dedicated enough to specialize... until I realized how futile it was. I had more money wrapped up in numerous scantools (not one ScanBastard ever) over the years than most guys did in speed parts. But, my stuff never blew up.

I know how they work, and it is hell to get it right and keep it right. Analogue plus digital = nope.

 

[ck80]

When you have to start inventing special tools so the layman can service their car... well...

http://installationinstructions.com/107112.pdf

Simply bumping the cam sensor out of phase makes for an ultra crappy running Buick. Out of spec TPS or setting up a crank sensor is also a fun one to diagnose. All three at once? Heh.

Broken vacuum lines (as previously stated), over boost/lean conditions, cracked/leaking, manifolds, bad O2s, dirty MAFs, and on and on.

Oof. That stuff benched a lot of engines pretty early on.

The cars were too complex for that average technician or consumer then or now. I was dedicated enough to specialize... until I realized how futile it was. I had more money wrapped up in numerous scantools (not one ScanBastard ever) over the years than most guys did in speed parts. But, my stuff never blew up.

I know how they work, and it is hell to get it right and keep it right. Analogue plus digital = nope.

Correct me if I'm wrong Mike, but wouldn't you have been around 9 years old when the last GN was new?

Point being, I doubt you were doing too much work on them in 1984, 85, 86, 87, etc. Now, would there be issues with them at 8,10, 12 years out? Particularly as neglected cars lacked proper preventative maintenance and had owners not familiar with any of the things you speak of through the years and which were, at the time, largely new technologies going through trial and error?

I think the disconnect here is some guys are talking about working on the cars when they were brand new, and others are talking about the go fast scene when they were already 9 or 10 years old, or older. And those would be different conversations.

 

[motorheadmike]

Correct me if I'm wrong Mike, but wouldn't you have been around 9 years old when the last GN was new?

Point being, I doubt you were doing too much work on them in 1984, 85, 86, 87, etc. Now, would there be issues with them at 8,10, 12 years out? Particularly as neglected cars lacked proper preventative maintenance and had owners not familiar with any of the things you speak of through the years and which were, at the time, largely new technologies going through trial and error?

I think the disconnect here is some guys are talking about working on the cars when they were brand new, and others are talking about the go fast scene when they were already 9 or 10 years old, or older. And those would be different conversations.

Le sigh. I am just going to leave this here:

I will close by saying the factory service manuals were released when the cars were new. Not years later. Because sh*t happened. Often. In the 80s.

Peace. Have fun.

 

[olds307 and 403]

My Inlaws bought a really nice 86 Cutlass Cierra that was probably 5 years old. It had issues not long after buying it, by the time the 3.8 was 7 years old, it was a nightmare under the hood. My Grandfather bought the brand new, first year Taurus, it was so bad, he never bought another Ford till he passed in 93. I remember it broke down on the road at least once with me in it, talking brand new. The K cars were beyond awful as well a few years in, there were 7 of the 8 cars in the shop at the time, multiple cooked motors. Early EFI cars weren't great for any brand till the very late 80's or early 90's and hard to diagnose.

 

[64nailhead]

Correct me if I'm wrong Mike, but wouldn't you have been around 9 years old when the last GN was new?

Point being, I doubt you were doing too much work on them in 1984, 85, 86, 87, etc. Now, would there be issues with them at 8,10, 12 years out? Particularly as neglected cars lacked proper preventative maintenance and had owners not familiar with any of the things you speak of through the years and which were, at the time, largely new technologies going through trial and error?

I think the disconnect here is some guys are talking about working on the cars when they were brand new, and others are talking about the go fast scene when they were already 9 or 10 years old, or older. And those would be different conversations.

When a GN was in warranty they were just about the most advanced engine bay and electronic system on the continent. 20 years later it becomes easy and 30+ years later we are looking at aftermarket systems to run the motor and systems cheaper and easier. I remember vividly when the first couple of generations of trucks that run with electronically controlled fuel injection pumps/ 'oh my Christ are these complicated'. And now, oh my god are they simple to diag and repair - but not in 1998.

Mike's age is mostly irrelevant 35 years after they were produced - 30, 40, 50 or 70 years old doesn't matter when trying to keep one of these archaic turds in original form.

 

[ck80]

Mike's age is mostly irrelevant 35 years after they were produced - 30, 40, 50 or 70 years old doesn't matter when trying to keep one of these archaic turds in original form.

Only reason it's relevant is there were members talking about working on the cars when they were new, and, talking about reliability of cars when NEW (or nearly so.)

Mike spoke, and quote:

Broken vacuum lines (as previously stated), over boost/lean conditions, cracked/leaking, manifolds, bad O2s, dirty MAFs, and on and on.

Oof. That stuff benched a lot of engines pretty early on.

The cars were too complex for that average technician or consumer then or now. I was dedicated enough to specialize... until I realized how futile it was.

Note he's talking about "pretty early on."

That, to me, doesn't mean he is talking from experience with the cars 10 years from New, or 15 years, pretty early on would mean, to myself and likely most people, when the cas were nearly new.

So, I'm merely calling him out that he has no experience with these cars "pretty early on" and the issues he raises were old used car problems, not frequently issues when you drove your car off the lot.. (Although, like any car, there were the one in several thousand cars that did have an issue)

Again... the whole focus on this thread was WHEN NEW, and the claims that were being discussed when Mike interjected his experience was that these cars were out of tune WHEN NEW. I doubt an 8 or 9 year old was working on them or had firsthand knowledge of what was going on in 1984, 1985, 1986, or 1987 repairing these.

Nothing personal about it.

 

[Northernregal]

My Inlaws bought a really nice 86 Cutlass Cierra that was probably 5 years old. It had issues not long after buying it, by the time the 3.8 was 7 years old, it was a nightmare under the hood. My Grandfather bought the brand new, first year Taurus, it was so bad, he never bought another Ford till he passed in 93. I remember it broke down on the road at least once with me in it, talking brand new. The K cars were beyond awful as well a few years in, there were 7 of the 8 cars in the shop at the time, multiple cooked motors. Early EFI cars weren't great for any brand till the very late 80's or early 90's and hard to diagnose.

Don't be dissin K cars. They might have had terrible engine knock and were barely able to achieve 62mph on the highway, but the bench front seat was more than adequate for extra curricular activity.

 

[motorheadmike]

I'd have been pissed if I'd bought an '84-86 Turbo Buick.

COMPANY NEWS; G.M. Announces Improved Warranty (Published 1987)

www.nytimes.com

Nice to see the ignore function still functions. Back on mute, ya go. Fa la la la la... la la la...

 

[ck80]

I'd have been pissed if I'd bought an '84-86 Turbo Buick.

COMPANY NEWS; G.M. Announces Improved Warranty (Published 1987)

www.nytimes.com

Nice to see the ignore function still functions. Back on mute, ya go. Fa la la la la... la la la...

Don't subscribe to the NY times, too liberal a hit piece for my tastes as a publication, so the paywall keeps me out.

However, a free contemporary piece without paywall:

GM to Offer 6-Year Warranty on Cars, Industry's Longest

General Motors, in an apparent attempt to improve the public's perception of the quality of its cars, said Thursday that it will effectively double the length of its repair warranties and offer the longest available in the auto industry.

www.google.com

Notes in important part that gm shifting to a 6 year warranty, at least as lip service, was related to Japanese competition and the reliability of models over the previous couple years... not in response to poor or problematic quality in the newer technology such as the FI/TBI cars if that is where the implication was headed?

So, they're saying studies done in 1981 ( studies, which take time, done 5 years before a January 1987 announcement means it couldn't have looked at cars newer than 1981 or maybe the first couple months of 1982 production, all pre sfi GN) said quality was too low for such a program.

Again, nothing here to support poor initial quality on GNs, and if anything, says gm considered them to be a vast step up