GM 2.8 V6 vs 2.0 4 banger,witch one is more reliable ??

[TBK]

-----Original Message-----
From: Alain Toussaint <alaint at boisfrancs.qc.ca>
To: TBK <terryk at foothill.net>
Cc: diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu <diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 23, 1998 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: GM 2.8 V6 vs 2.0 4 banger,witch one is more reliable ??


>> The Iron Duke (called a Tech 4 after awhile) had it's moments just like
the
>> 2.8L V6 (which wasn't available in the Ciera in 1983. Not until 1985. The
>> Olds V6 is the Buick V6 3.0L.)
>
>i remind that whe (mom's and dad) got a ciera 85 a while ago (thinks it's
>2 or 3 years ago),and whe got a lot of milleage out of it (not MPG,i dont
>care much for it as long as it's not less than 15 MPG),the car died at
>about 215 000 KM ( eh......13X 000 milles...it's a guess only,i dont have
>my calculator near me),the car died because of a melted catalytic
>converter and part of the unburned exhaust made it way into the intake
>manifold plugging thing there (and talk about no power then,my mother had
>to do WOT on the highway for maintaining the pace and not be too far
>behind trafic flow,it's just whe where having no clue at what's going on
>then)
>
Cat's can be like that!


>> I've seen more Iron Dukes with rods out the side of the block than dead
>> 2.8L. By 1983, both had received some changes that made them both
>> "reasonable". However, I have put 280,000 miles+ on two 2.8L V6's. I let
one
>> break the timing chain intentionally. It basically stopped and bent two
>> valves. The other got rebuilt because I wanted to do it.
>
>not bad,280 000 milles !!!!! (i'm stunned)
>
I've had others say that, but synth oil and regular changes. And yes, they
were abused (X-11)


>> Now if you've confused the 3.0L Buick that came with the Ciera with the
2.8L
>> Chevy, the 3.0L had it's problems. Probably the biggest is cracked blocks
>> (in the valley) if they were overheated. They were EXTREMELY unforgiving
to
>> this problem. Second, any loss of oil pressure destroyed the main
bearings.
>> 30PSI at idle one moment, 5PSI the next. But other than that, they were
and
>> still are pretty tough motors.
>
>does these motor share part with the 3.8 motor ??
>
yep, same block in that era. Different crank and pistons though. PFI on the
3.8L. 130HP vs 110HP for the 3.0L.

>> All three, if not abused, not overheated (the 2.8L can handle some pretty
>> brutal overheating), the oil changed, and maintained were reasonably good
by
>> 1983.
>>
>> Regarding gas mileage, the 2.5L in a Ciera could hit about 28MPG. The
3.0L
>> about 26MPH, and the 2.8L about 25-27 MPG.
>
>nice milleage,do you think i'll be able to do at least 20 when doing about
>75 to 80 MPH on the highway ??
>
Yes. If the engine is running good. 80 MPH is pushing it, probably.

>> I've owned both V6's and have rebuild several.
>>
>> With that many miles, hope for the best, but expect the worst.
>
>i'll be able to see that tomorow,also,thanks for the web site.
>
>p.s.is the stock suspension be able to cope with 80 MPH on the highway
>(read,if the suspension is in relatively good shape).
>
Sure, just don't turn.

>thanks a lot.
>Alain
>
>
>

I had a 1984 Olds Ciera ES with a 3.0L V6 and 2.53 gears. 105MPH wide open
at 3500 RPM. Got about 22 MPG at that speed. F41 suspension. Handled pretty
dang good for the most part. Could easily out run a Festiva. Not much else.