what can a 3.8 do?

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

There are not too many cars made in the last 30 years that are slower in stock form than a V6 2bbl G body. I can think of a few that could challenge it for the title of slowest car made in the western world. It could probably beat a Mercedes 240D, a Diesel V6 B body, a Diesel Chevette, Diesel Escort, early gas Escort, 4 cylinder Camaro/Fireturd, early VW bus, Honda Z600, or a V6 Cadillac Sedan De Ville from 1982. It sucks when you get your *ss handed to you by someone in a beat up Olds Cutlass Ciera 4 cyl, but that is the V6 G body's lot in life.

 

[455OLDSMAN]

I have actually raced and beaten a 3.8 Gbody using just the cruise accel button in my 95 K1500 with a 350TBI and 3.42 gearing. Thats pretty sad if you ask me.

 

[Peter]

I'd like to add that the slowest car is probably the straight 6 AMC cars

 

[Derision]

There are not too many cars made in the last 30 years that are slower in stock form than a V6 2bbl G body. I can think of a few that could challenge it for the title of slowest car made in the western world. It could probably beat a Mercedes 240D, a Diesel V6 B body, a Diesel Chevette, Diesel Escort, early gas Escort, 4 cylinder Camaro/Fireturd, early VW bus, Honda Z600, or a V6 Cadillac Sedan De Ville from 1982. It sucks when you get your *ss handed to you by someone in a beat up Olds Cutlass Ciera 4 cyl, but that is the V6 G body's lot in life.

Wow, no love at all for the little 231.

I've had a 231 twice. The first was in a 1978 Buick Skylark and, let me tell you, that thing was a dog. 0-60 in a fortnight, and anything above 65 was a serious hazard to one's further life.

Then I had the 3.8 in my '82 Grand Prix... and though I had had a lot of cars before (including a 403-powered Oldsmobile Delta-88 and a 350-powered Caprice Classic), this is the engine/car combination I fell in love with. Had I been able to fix the engine to pass emissions again, I'd still be running it rather than the L69.

Sure, it wasn't ridiculous on the horsepower. But I don't remember having any problems getting up to speed or maintaining that speed.

Actually, at the same time I had my 3.8-powered Pontiac, my brother had an '84 Cutlass powered by the same engine. I drove both and, seriously, the Cutlass had some decent pickup to it. As much as a V8? No, but definitely more than any of the other 3.8s I've tried.

Anyway. My two cents.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

I'd like to add that the slowest car is probably the straight 6 AMC cars

No, I have owned both and timed both-several times. The Cutlass took a full 7 seconds longer just to hit 60 than my 232 1 bbl automatic 1979 AMC Spirit did. The AMC took 14 seconds and the Cutlass took between 20 and 22 seconds to hit 60! The AMC was only 200lbs lighter and both had 3.8 liter engines. The AMC had a 2.56 gear and a Torqueflite 904 while the Cutlass had a 2.41 gear and TH200C. Oddly, the Olds was rated 20 hp more than the AMC but was by far much more of a turd to drive. Maybe it was the Computer? I eventually got the AMC six to do 0-60 in around 8.5 seconds but then swapped it for a V8. The Olds got the SBC swap and is the quickest thing I own right now.

 

[Peter]

I'd like to add that the slowest car is probably the straight 6 AMC cars

No, I have owned both and timed both-several times. The Cutlass took a full 7 seconds longer just to hit 60 than my 232 1 bbl automatic 1979 AMC Spirit did. The AMC took 14 seconds and the Cutlass took between 20 and 22 seconds to hit 60! The AMC was only 200lbs lighter and both had 3.8 liter engines. The AMC had a 2.56 gear and a Torqueflite 904 while the Cutlass had a 2.41 gear and TH200C. Oddly, the Olds was rated 20 hp more than the AMC but was by far much more of a turd to drive. Maybe it was the Computer? I eventually got the AMC six to do 0-60 in around 8.5 seconds but then swapped it for a V8. The Olds got the SBC swap and is the quickest thing I own right now.

my bro has a straight six 256 ci hornet, beleive me, its slower

 

[Derision]

No, I have owned both and timed both-several times. The Cutlass took between 20 and 22 seconds to hit 60!

Criminey! That's a pretty slow car.

My Grand Prix with the 231 did 0-60 in, if I remember correctly, 14 seconds. Not quick, no, but not too bad.

The slowest car I've ever had, ever, was a 1990 Lincoln Continental. I still have it, actually -- it's a very comfortable lawn ornament. It's essentially just a Ford Taurus with some leather seats. It had a 3.8L Essex V6 which is supposed to put out about 130 horsepower. But this was probably the most painful car I've ever had, in terms of acceleration.

The Continental was the kind of car that you're embarrassed to merge into traffic with, because it's practically impossible to get up to highway speed in the time you have. I remember trying to get on the highway... people are swerving around me, honking their horns... I've got the pedal to the floor, and I'm watching the digital speedometer crawl up. 15... 16... 17... 18... 19... ugh!

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

The funny thing about the Cutlass is that by unplugging the computer and throwing it in the back seat, it actually improved by 7 seconds to 60--it did it in a lightning fast 15 seconds!!!

This was my first pizza delivery car and I worked at a store off a major road with cars doing 60+mph. Merging was not pretty! I developed a technique though: Hold the trans in first and floor it until the car stopped accelerating, then shift. I broke more driver's side motor mounts than I can count. The really bad thing was that when they broke, the engine would shift over so far that it would pull the trans into neutral, not fun while merging with traffic. I wound up having to hold the trans in gear with one hand while trying to merge whenever this happened. Eventually, I got sick enough of this wretched drivetrain that I swapped it for a 355/TH200 4R. I picked parts for reliability and fuel economy and not maximum performance because of this. Unfortunately, I also had more than my share of problems because I could never have the car down long enough to properly troubleshoot my swap and tuning problems. Within 2 weeks of getting my first Sentra, I had it running perfectly and getting much better mileage. That was in 98 and I traded that car in for my current Frontier when it was 3 mos old because it too was an embarrassment to drive. Wish I had it now though. It got 32 mpg with the A/C on delivering pizza. I had figured the gas savings from the 12 mpg I got in the Olds would pay for the Sentra, and it pretty much did--40k - 50k miles a year adds up to lots of money at 12 mpg.

 

[Derision]

I had figured the gas savings from the 12 mpg I got in the Olds would pay for the Sentra, and it pretty much did--40k - 50k miles a year adds up to lots of money at 12 mpg.

You got 12mpg out of a 3.8 V6...?

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

Well, I will clarify my MPG issues with the long-suffering Cutlass. With the V6, driven worse than if I had stolen it, it got 14mpg in the city, and 29 mpg on the highway. The 355 swap decreased my mileage to 12 mpg city. I had issues with the computer ( I ran a chipped L69 ECU) since the AIR system was leaking excessive air into the exhaust system, thus making the ECU think it was dead lean via the O2 sensor. It was so rich that it stank and puked black smoke at anything but idle. So, the ECU made it dead rich in an errant attempt to compensate. (I did not find this issue until after I stopped driving the car for delivery since I could abandon it when I got stuck or aggrivated--something you can't do when the car is necessary to make money) It also still had the 2.41 gears which are good only for highway mileage or land speed racing. They tax the engine too much in city stop and go driving thus killing fuel mileage due to excessive throttle opening required to get moving. The car now has had all of these issues fixed, and got 16 mpg city with an Edelbrock 600 on it and a change to 3.23 gears. Yes, you heard right. I tripled the horsepower to use less fuel! (This is why I preach a well planned combination when building a car.) I did not have a workable non computer Quadrajet at the time and the Edelbrock worked well so I used it out of necessity (plus, I found it with the tuning book, etc on a Performer intake for $25 for the carb and $15 for the intake at the U Pull It-score!). I now have a Quadrajet on it which has even better throttle response and requires pretty much no throttle to get it moving or keep it moving. I expect to get 17-18 mpg in the city with the Quadrajet and hooking up the lock up clutch in the torque converter or switching to a 5 speed. That has to wait until after paint as the car is completely gutted and part of the floor is cut out as part of the cosmetic restoration I am in the middle of. The Quadrajet was installed in the middle of body work as I could not wait to try it out!

In closing, I know what I know with these cars because I have made all of the mistakes you can make--but I learned a lot because of them. This was one of my more aggravating ones that took a lot of time to find. I drove the car like that for a year, backfiring through the carb because the leaking AIR system would let the exhaust valves suck fresh air into the intake and cause a lean pop through the carb. It also never got the A/C hooked up (Ever deliver pizza in a car with no A/C in FL when it is 95 out all day long?) and the vacuum system for the vents was never connected either (was in the default defrost position all the time) which made the car even more miserable to drive. To say the car was "butch" back then would be an understatement. Calling it an uncomfortable, gas guzzling, ugly, rusty, slow POS would be more accurate. I have since, of course, fixed most of the car's issues since after having a new car I can't stand cars with that much "character". I have the A/C stuff and it will be put right when the car has been painted. Anyhow, after that embarrassing revelation, I think I'll stop.