Ways You'd Improve the 1st Gen W

[Euro]

I think GM should have had the 3100 in the early models and not even made the 3.1, it was too underpowered.

 

No way, the 3100 is such a crappy motor because of those gaskets. The 3.1 MPFI was actually not that slow back then, and DEFINITELY more reliable than the 3100.

[Addicted To Boost]

I think GM should have had the 3100 in the early models and not even made the 3.1, it was too underpowered.

3.1s are awesome what are you talking about? Gotta be one of the most reliable engines ever made- they're like friggen tanks!

[GP1138]

The 3100 was a good motor, the gaskets were the problem. They should have used better quality gaskets.

[Rdrckt_92]

[

I think GM should have had the 3100 in the early models and not even made the 3.1, it was too underpowered.

3.1s are awesome what are you talking about? Gotta be one of the most reliable engines ever made- they're like friggen tanks!

 

x2, I love my 3.1

[Brian P]

It's just the gaskets that go bad (and this effected other motors too, just not as pronounced because the early 3100 was put in EVERYTHING)

 

Really though, these cars should have had higher displacement motors from the beginning, given their size. A 2.8 or 3.1 is just fine for a J, L body or (later on) N-body, but W's should have had nothing less than 3.5 liters. At the time, GM could have easily used a 3300, 3800 off the shelf. Or increase the displacement of the 60 degree, get the torque needed to get the beast moving.

[Euro]

It's just the gaskets that go bad (and this effected other motors too, just not as pronounced because the early 3100 was put in EVERYTHING)

 

Really though, these cars should have had higher displacement motors from the beginning, given their size. A 2.8 or 3.1 is just fine for a J, L body or (later on) N-body, but W's should have had nothing less than 3.5 liters. At the time, GM could have easily used a 3300, 3800 off the shelf. Or increase the displacement of the 60 degree, get the torque needed to get the beast moving.

 

I agree, however all of the other comparable cars at that time were putting down the same amount of power. Low 17's wasn't very slow back then

[Nick1234]

bigger brakes, little wider, better tranny gearing, stronger tranny, different turn signal switch, better attention to quality in assembling the car.

[mra32]

quit raggin on GM's engine choice. the 3.1 is more than powerful for these cars. These are mostly FAMILY SEDANS. If you were getting the 3.1, you obviously didnt get this car for the MAD POWARXXX yo! Instead, you got what was typical of american cars at the time. a fwd v6 that you drove to work and took the family on vacations and such. But still, the 3.1 has plenty of torque. I've driven more cars that were slower than my 3.1/3spd than were faster. I'd say they are above average.

[Nick1234]

quit raggin on GM's engine choice. the 3.1 is more than powerful for these cars. These are mostly FAMILY SEDANS. If you were getting the 3.1, you obviously didnt get this car for the MAD POWARXXX yo! Instead, you got what was typical of american cars at the time. a fwd v6 that you drove to work and took the family on vacations and such. But still, the 3.1 has plenty of torque. I've driven more cars that were slower than my 3.1/3spd than were faster. I'd say they are above average.

 

the reason it need more power is because when you put 3-4 people in it and drive it down the road, it works its ass off and sucks gas. then you get onto the freeway which in wisconsin has many hills, and throw some wind at it and now you are only getting 23 mpg.

[Brian P]

I'm not "raggin" on the 3.1 like you so put it, but I'll continue to rag on the fact that they were undersized, given the size and weight of the car. And this is coming from someone who LIKES the 3.1 and has had MANY of them.

 

There's like a 100 lb difference between the W-bodies and H-bodies, yet the H's were running with the bigger more powerful engine for quite a while. I'm no 3.8 fan, but they could have made it an OPTION for the w's from the start. Plenty feasible considering they had them in production for a long time. Then at least you could get something well above average if you wanted to.

 

[GP1138]

Obviously it was a problem, because they started making the newer cars (and the older Regals) with the 3800... that was always odd to me that only the Regal got the 3.8.. I guess it's just because it was a Buick engine, but they could easily have put it into the other cars.

[digitaloutsider]

The Regal never got the LQ1, so I guess it was the tradeoff.

[pwmin]

i'd much rather have an LQ1 than any NA 3800 GM has made.

 

Obviously it was a problem, because they started making the newer cars (and the older Regals) with the 3800...

the 2nd gens are heavier, plus 3800s had their share of intake gasket problems, too

[joey b]

This thread is senselessly going in circles. However I would like to add that

 

1. The LQ1 was originally supposed to go in the fiero, in which an alternator change is a 20 minute job.

 

2. The 275 HP LQ1 is a MYTH!!! there was never anything released by GM saying that and there is no concreteness behind that claim. The 275HP is a number that someone pulled from their ass because the LQ1 is 1.5 times the size of the quad 4 so they took the quad 4 HP and multiplied it by 1.5 and made a huge page of fictional material.

 

3. Also, considering the few 3.4's that were ordered the people buying a W probably weren't going to be any more likely to order the 3.8.

 

4. The underpowered 3.1 put out just as much HP as the Taurus of the era.

[jeremy]

I didn't read the other 5 pages, but the easy answers are a much higher quality interior and more HP

[93CutlassSupreme]

1. Erase the W, update the G-car

 

 

[Euro]

1. Erase the W, update the G-car

 

 

 

And outta nowhere, Kevin returns!!!!

[ns87]

5 speeeeeeeeeeeeeed. I think I already added to this thread, whoops

[pwmin]

the thing ive hated most about both of my gp's was the fact that if you dont roll the windows up when you wash the windshield, youll get water dripping or pouring onto the door panels. the riv and cobalt arent like that.

[Rdrckt_92]

the thing ive hated most about both of my gp's was the fact that if you dont roll the windows up when you wash the windshield, youll get water dripping or pouring onto the door panels. the riv and cobalt arent like that.

 

I hate that, 2nd gens do it too...

[digitaloutsider]

1. Erase the W, update the G-car

 

 

 

And outta nowhere, Kevin returns!!!!

 

With nothing pertinent to add to the thread!

 

Stop bringing up the G-body, the thread is about how to improve W-bodies, not "what I, armchair sales department manager, thinks GM should have done back in 1986".

[89SupremeCutty]

quit raggin on GM's engine choice. the 3.1 is more than powerful for these cars. These are mostly FAMILY SEDANS. If you were getting the 3.1, you obviously didnt get this car for the MAD POWARXXX yo! Instead, you got what was typical of american cars at the time. a fwd v6 that you drove to work and took the family on vacations and such. But still, the 3.1 has plenty of torque. I've driven more cars that were slower than my 3.1/3spd than were faster. I'd say they are above average.

 

the reason it need more power is because when you put 3-4 people in it and drive it down the road, it works its ass off and sucks gas. then you get onto the freeway which in wisconsin has many hills, and throw some wind at it and now you are only getting 23 mpg.

 

i gotta say it too, more cupholders and door handles located in a normal spot like every other car gm has ever made. with any car, if you shove 3 or 4 people in it, it's gonna suck gas especially going uphill with wind. and in my opinion 23 mpg is ok mileage. not great like a prius, but ok. you're not gonna get excellent gas mileage with any car going uphills facing the wind with many people in the car anyways.

[synistershadows]

i already said this but i think its something that they should have done greatly

 

RWD!!!!!!!!

[93CutlassSupreme]

1. Erase the W, update the G-car

 

 

 

And outta nowhere, Kevin returns!!!!

 

With nothing pertinent to add to the thread!

 

Stop bringing up the G-body, the thread is about how to improve W-bodies, not "what I, armchair sales department manager, thinks GM should have done back in 1986".

 

this thread is called "How you'd improve the w-body", and I said just how i'd do that

 

my reply did pertain to the w-cars

[93cutty]

One thing I really wish they had improved on was sun glare off dash onto the windshield in my cutlass. Do the other W's have that problem.