 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / August 2007Lacrosse vs Impala
My father is debating between either a 2007 Buick Lacrosse with 3.8 engine or a 2007 Chevy Impala with the 3.5 or 3.9 engine. He keeps car for more than ten years. Which one of the two will likely have less maintanence problem ? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. > My father is debating between either a 2007 Buick Lacrosse with 3.8 > engine or a 2007 Chevy Impala with the 3.5 or 3.9 engine. He keeps car > for more than ten years. Which one of the two will likely have less > maintanence problem ? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. That 3.8 motor is pretty damn good. That's the route I'd pick if I had to buy one of those two cars. b > My father is debating between either a 2007 Buick Lacrosse with 3.8 > engine or a 2007 Chevy Impala with the 3.5 or 3.9 engine. He keeps car > for more than ten years. Which one of the two will likely have less > maintanence problem ? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I've had three Buicks with the 3.8 and I'd buy it again and again. Unless the Impala has some overwhelming feature I'd go with the Lacrosse. > My father is debating between either a 2007 Buick Lacrosse with 3.8 > engine or a 2007 Chevy Impala with the 3.5 or 3.9 engine. He keeps car > for more than ten years. Which one of the two will likely have less > maintanence problem ? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. It's hard to loose with the 3.8. A "tried-and-true workhorse." And it gets exceptional fuel economy for it's size (typically exceeding 30MPG highway for most people) Check on that 3800 in the Buick, I thought they were discontinued? > My father is debating between either a 2007 Buick Lacrosse with 3.8 > engine or a 2007 Chevy Impala with the 3.5 or 3.9 engine. He keeps car > for more than ten years. Which one of the two will likely have less > maintanence problem ? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. > Check on that 3800 in the Buick, I thought they were discontinued? >> My father is debating between either a 2007 Buick Lacrosse with 3.8 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- From LEASECOMPARE.COM: The 2007 Buick LaCrosse returns this year available in three models: CX, CXL, and CXS. These three models are equipped with a four-speed automatic transmission in a 3.6-liter V6 engine for the CXS, and a 3.8-liter V6 engine for the CX and CXL. HTH, s. BTW, I wanted to know also! The 3800 is over-rated. I had a 01 Impala with the 3.8L and it had a coolant leak at 10K miles. At full throttle the 3800 sounds rough and very little performance after 50mph. I would buy the Lacrosse with the 3.6L DOHC engine if he can spend the dough. > My father is debating between either a 2007 Buick Lacrosse with 3.8 > engine or a 2007 Chevy Impala with the 3.5 or 3.9 engine. He keeps car > for more than ten years. Which one of the two will likely have less > maintanence problem ? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. You must have had the worst 3800 ever built. They are one of the higest rated engines. I have owned 2 3800 Series I's, 1 Series II and now a Series II Supercharged, and all have been awesome engines. Plenty of power, and awesome on gas. > The 3800 is over-rated. I had a 01 Impala with the 3.8L and it had a > coolant leak at 10K miles. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> for more than ten years. Which one of the two will likely have less >> maintanence problem ? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. > You must have had the worst 3800 ever built. They are one of the higest > rated engines. I have owned 2 3800 Series I's, 1 Series II and now a > Series II Supercharged, and all have been awesome engines. Plenty of > power, and awesome on gas. I had one in my '91 Regal that was still going strong when I sold the car with 150k. I found it interesting that both my '97 and '01 LeSabre with the updated version got both better mileage and better performance in a heavier car. At 120k, I've never had to add oil between changes and I change at 7500 miles. I put new plugs in at 110k, but it was still starting and running as smooth as the day I bought it.  SignatureEd http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/ A lot of 3800 fans on this forum. You can even ask the GM tech "ian" and he will tell you that the series I engine was better than the series II. He said that the small block V8's are GM's best and the 3.6L DOHC V6 to be the better engine because very little repair work is being done. Coolant leaks were actually very common from 2000-2003 for the 3.8. The walnut shells "fix" didn't work for me. The supercharged version is better because of the heavy duty tranny and the no plastic intake manifold but the newer 3800's have an aluminum intake manifold even in the NA version. For performance drivers the regular NA 3800 is a weak performer but for a senior it is adequate. You name me a V6 engine larger than 3.0L for the year 2007 that has less than 220 HP, 197HP for 231 ci is pathetic. > You must have had the worst 3800 ever built. They are one of the higest > rated engines. I have owned 2 3800 Series I's, 1 Series II and now a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> for more than ten years. Which one of the two will likely have less >>> maintanence problem ? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. >A lot of 3800 fans on this forum. You can even ask the GM tech "ian" and >he will tell you that the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You name me a V6 engine larger than 3.0L for the year 2007 that has less > than 220 HP, 197HP for 231 ci is pathetic. ...another 3800-lover, I admit (but do NOT like the coolant leak!). Doing a little math, the 3800(231cu. inch) yields considerably more power per cubic inch than the 3.0 at 220 hp you mentioned. At that rate, if the 3800 increased its size to 3.0-L, it would put out like 255 hp--hate to say, but probably still w/the leak!!! s Say what? If the 3800 increased its size to 3.0L??? You mean if the 3.8L (aka 3800) decreased its size to 3.0L its output would be 3.0/3.8=0.79 So, if you go 197HP x 0.79= 156HP. "> > ...another 3800-lover, I admit (but do NOT like the coolant leak!). > Doing a little math, the 3800(231cu. inch) yields considerably more power > per cubic inch than the 3.0 at 220 hp you mentioned. At that rate, if the > 3800 increased its size to 3.0-L, it would put out like 255 hp--hate to > say, but probably still w/the leak!!! s Power is not a calculable function of displacement. Too many variables, even if all else remained constant. > Say what? If the 3800 increased its size to 3.0L??? > You mean if the 3.8L (aka 3800) decreased its size to 3.0L its output [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> the 3800 increased its size to 3.0-L, it would put out like 255 hp--hate >> to say, but probably still w/the leak!!! s I was giving a generalization. If displacement is smaller HP and Torque go down. > Power is not a calculable function of displacement. Too many variables, > even if all else remained constant. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- Give you an example of the SOHC Chrysler 3.5L which has 250HP. In 2001-02 Chrysler sold both the 3.5L and 3.2L (225HP) SOHC in the LH cars. They are both identical engines except in displacement. Look it up. 3.2/3.5 = 0.914 x 250 HP= 228.5 HP which is very close to the 225HP rating. > Power is not a calculable function of displacement. Too many variables, > even if all else remained constant. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- Coincidance, bore stroke variations for the same displacement change output, cam timing, cylinder head design and so on come into play, too much of a generalization here. Look at all the cubic inch variations of the SBC and you will see the theory is flawed. 283 cubes 220 hp, go to 327, 340 hp., as a common example, do the math. I understand to the laymen this is a midline issue, but it can be misleading ( not meaning you are the laymen here) > Give you an example of the SOHC Chrysler 3.5L which has 250HP. > In 2001-02 Chrysler sold both the 3.5L and 3.2L (225HP) SOHC in the LH [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption >> =---- > Say what? If the 3800 increased its size to 3.0L??? > You mean if the 3.8L (aka 3800) decreased its size to 3.0L its output [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> the 3800 increased its size to 3.0-L, it would put out like 255 hp--hate >> to say, but probably still w/the leak!!! s Hey, Vaughn, even I had to laugh at that one. Bet you will catch me doing the likes again! sam This is true. I have a 2000 Impala with the 3.8 and it runs very well. I have more than adequate acceleration; and before ethanol blended gasolines took over the market, I could get 33 mpg on the highway. So far, I've had no coolant leaks, and the car has 75k on it. The Buick or Impala would be a tough choice, but my service writer bought an Impala just before the 3.9 came out to get the 3.8. So, I would go with the Buick also even though I am a Chevy fan. Roy > You must have had the worst 3800 ever built. They are one of the higest > rated engines. I have owned 2 3800 Series I's, 1 Series II and now a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> for more than ten years. Which one of the two will likely have less >>> maintanence problem ? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.