Interesting Article about the 3.8

Some clever engineer at Ford figured out that the quickest way to solve the problem was to copy an existing design that worked, so that’s just what they did. They picked the Buick V6
Click to expand...

Strange how the Ford 3.8 was always just a "meh" engine. The Buick 3800 ended up becoming a legend and is regarded as a GOAT.
 
Kenz said:
Strange how the Ford 3.8 was always just a "meh" engine. The Buick 3800 ended up becoming a legend and is regarded as a GOAT.
Click to expand...

Ford’s biggest mistake was trying to outdo GM using aluminum heads on it when up to that point Ford engineering had little experience in it and it showed. If they were iron there’d have been no headgasket issues the Ford 3.8 has its reputation for and it would probably be held in similar regard to the Buick V6.

Also the 3800 series II with its 200 horsepower is the true star. It was a generational leap above the original split pin Buick 3.8 it replaced (that the Ford 3.8 most closely mirrored). Ford didn’t match it until the splitport but by then they were only putting 3.8s in Mustangs and Windstars with glass transmissions, in mainstream sedans the 3.0 DOHC Duratec took over its role
 
Kenz said:
Strange how the Ford 3.8 was always just a "meh" engine. The Buick 3800 ended up becoming a legend and is regarded as a GOAT.
Click to expand...
GM kept developing the 3800 and improving it making it more and more refined. The original Buick 3.8 was not great when it first came out. Ford just kind of regarded the 3.8 as a basic entry engine and other than throwing better fuel injection systems on it through the years they never really did much with it (other than the SC engine). The head gasket issue didn't help. I think the Ford 3.8 is a great durable engine once the head gaskets are addressed.
 
KevinVarnes said:
GM kept developing the 3800 and improving it making it more and more refined. The original Buick 3.8 was not great when it first came out. Ford just kind of regarded the 3.8 as a basic entry engine and other than throwing better fuel injection systems on it through the years they never really did much with it (other than the SC engine). The head gasket issue didn't help. I think the Ford 3.8 is a great durable engine once the head gaskets are addressed.
Click to expand...

In fairness the version of the Buick 3.8 Ford copied was a huge improvement over what it was originally, which used shared crank pins like a V8 and shook enough to mix paint with. GM even sold all of the tooling to Kaiser for use in late 60s Jeeps because it was so unbecoming for a Buick to be so rough running. GM bought it all back from AMC after the fuel crisis, where they then refined the worse bugs out of it, enough so for Ford to take notice.

I strongly disagree Ford viewed the 3.8 as an entry engine, V8s were to be phased out of passenger cars by the end of the 80s, and what you said about Ford not doing much with it equally applies, the 5.0 H.O. was cobbled together with a mix existing hardware largely plundered from the marine department. The 3.8 by contrast was the optional top engine in the Taurus and Sable (excluding SHO), standard and actually the only other engine available in the 83 Thunderbird/Cougars besides the Turbo 4 until midway through 1983, the standard engine in the 88 Continental in actually a high output form with better cylinder heads(also used in police package Tauruses, and of course the lone engine intended to be installed in the MN12 platform,(these were never destined for V8s during development).

By the mid 90s priorities flipped and the 3.8 then became more of a placeholder engine, Ford jumped in on the bandwagon of imports and went all in in overhead cams and just as the modular replaced the Windsor the Duratec replaced the 3.8. GM soldiered on with the “outdated” OHV V6 but for them it literally wasn’t broke so why fix it? They ended up creating the series II 3800 and ended up with one of the best engines of the 90s-2000s, maybe ever(in mostly awful GM cars, but… 😆). The Ford 3.8s reputation for eating headgaskets was well known by this point so even if they did make it better(which they actually did) that stigma still plagued it.
 
I understand. Maybe entry engine was a poor choice of words. The carbureted and CFI 3.8 engines are/were not great. They are fairly rough and don't make much power. When they finally went to MPFI in '87 or '88 it was a big improvement.

I feel like they put the 3.8 in the Taurus/Sable as the optional engine so on paper they could say they had a "big" torquey engine for the cars. I always felt like the 3.0 V6 was the better of the V6's in those cars having driven both. The 3.8 might have made more torque, but I wasn't overly impressed with it in those cars.

Don't get me wrong. I love the 3.8. I think it's great. Heck, I own three Ford 3.8 cars, but it never reached the same level of refinement as the GM 3800. Ford could have done a lot more with the 3.8 and had their own world beater, but when the time came around that they could have done something more they were all about OHC engines and apparently OHV engines were for chumps.
 
KevinVarnes said:
I understand. Maybe entry engine was a poor choice of words. The carbureted and CFI 3.8 engines are/were not great. They are fairly rough and don't make much power. When they finally went to MPFI in '87 or '88 it was a big improvement.

I feel like they put the 3.8 in the Taurus/Sable as the optional engine so on paper they could say they had a "big" torquey engine for the cars. I always felt like the 3.0 V6 was the better of the V6's in those cars having driven both. The 3.8 might have made more torque, but I wasn't overly impressed with it in those cars.

Don't get me wrong. I love the 3.8. I think it's great. Heck, I own three Ford 3.8 cars, but it never reached the same level of refinement as the GM 3800. Ford could have done a lot more with the 3.8 and had their own world beater, but when the time came around that they could have done something more they were all about OHC engines and apparently OHV engines were for chumps.
Click to expand...

Which era of GM3800s are you comparing it to though? The series II in mid 90s and later cars like the Grand Prix are apples and oranges to both the Ford 3.8 and the earlier 3800s which having a friend in high school with an H body Lesabre it wasn’t really anything special beyond reliable, similar power to the Taurus 3.8 I felt. I never had any seat time with the earlier carb/CFI ones to comment on those though, but that was still a dismal time for most all engines. Engineering in the late 70s seemed to shoot for just “adequate” and these 90° V6s were all compromises in the post-V8 future they presumed.


I agree I’d rather have the Vulcan in the Taurus, but mainly because the AXOD was not durable behind a 3.8. The 4T60 was a big part of what made the 3800 great
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Back
Top