> GM 2.8 V6 engines of that time on 4 barrel carbs got a terrible
> reputation for bad rods and cranks(knocking)because of a flaw in the
> carburator computer enrichment scheme.default was overrich.and it
> thinout the oil and ruined the cranks on many a car.as soon as they
> went to multiport injection the engines proved to be real winners.i
> still prefer the ford 3.0 though.
Not really, with the FI they often had the O2 sensor go out which told
the comp to lean it, lean it, and they often punched holes in the pistons
still leaving the rep that they were a sucky motor. KB

Signature
ThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice
460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup
and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on
Backyard Mechanic - 29 Oct 2005 17:14 GMT
>> GM 2.8 V6 engines of that time on 4 barrel carbs got a terrible
>> reputation for bad rods and cranks(knocking)because of a flaw in the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> told the comp to lean it, lean it, and they often punched holes in the
> pistons still leaving the rep that they were a sucky motor. KB
That's not a bad motor.. that's poor system design.
Kevin Bottorff - 31 Oct 2005 22:59 GMT
>>> GM 2.8 V6 engines of that time on 4 barrel carbs got a terrible
>>> reputation for bad rods and cranks(knocking)because of a flaw in the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> That's not a bad motor.. that's poor system design.
I didn`t say it was a bad design, just had the rep from the problems as a
poor eng. KB

Signature
ThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice
460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup
and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on