U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 05-22-2009, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Just East of the Southern Portion of the Western Part of PA
1,225 posts, read 3,123,626 times
Reputation: 1435

Advertisements

The post 1986 2.8's are solid. Avoid earlier editions.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2009, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Floribama
13,483 posts, read 29,425,055 times
Reputation: 11884
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean sean sean sean View Post

BTW - Nice pic, I liked the looks of the late GenI EFI "criss-cross" intake plenum....can't locate an image of one, though
You must be thinking of the ones in the F-body cars? Those continued until '92 (even after upgrading to 3.1L). I think FWD only used that style in '85 and '86.
Attached Thumbnails
How good were the GM 2.8 Liter V6 motors?-3.1.jpg  
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 11:03 PM
 
Location: Northeast Tennessee
7,303 posts, read 22,732,022 times
Reputation: 5463
Our '81 Oldsmobile Omega Brougham had the optional 2.8L V6 (2-barrel carburator). It had carburator issues when we bought it in 1988, with 60K miles.

I later had a '85 Chevrolet Camaro with the 2.8L V6, but it was MPFI (fuel injected), so not problems there, but it had a bad knock.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2009, 12:57 AM
 
890 posts, read 3,141,208 times
Reputation: 533
Like the other poster said, it's much better in FWD applications.

I ordered the 2.8L MPFI on my 1989 Celebrity because it was the largest engine available. It flied! I drove it into the ground nine years later with 255k without doing anything other than putting in gas and oil.

Also had a 1986 Olds Cutlass Ciera station wagon with the 2.8L, but carburetored. That thing dragged on its face! I couldn't go past 55 on hilly terrains, even with the pedal to the floor! But it didn't conk out on once, though...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2009, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Floribama
13,483 posts, read 29,425,055 times
Reputation: 11884
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmsniffer View Post
Like the other poster said, it's much better in FWD applications.

I ordered the 2.8L MPFI on my 1989 Celebrity because it was the largest engine available. It flied! I drove it into the ground nine years later with 255k without doing anything other than putting in gas and oil.

Also had a 1986 Olds Cutlass Ciera station wagon with the 2.8L, but carburetored. That thing dragged on its face! I couldn't go past 55 on hilly terrains, even with the pedal to the floor! But it didn't conk out on once, though...

I remember similar experiences. My grandmother had a '85 Pontiac 6000 with the carbed 2.8, we took it on a trip to north Alabama in the hilly areas and I remember it struggling to get up the hills.

However, my Dad had a '87 6000 STE with the MPFI version and it had a LOT more pep.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 03:19 AM
 
Location: USA
2,580 posts, read 3,433,349 times
Reputation: 2220
I had the 2.8 mpfi in an '89 Cavalier Z-24. It was a very good motor overall, but I did have some problems with motor mounts breaking.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 03:22 AM
 
Location: San Diego
32,798 posts, read 30,025,534 times
Reputation: 17682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Not very. If I recall correctly, they had issues with bad head gaskets.
On the engine, the cars usually had even more issues.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 03:23 AM
 
Location: San Diego
32,798 posts, read 30,025,534 times
Reputation: 17682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennesseestorm View Post
Our '81 Oldsmobile Omega Brougham had the optional 2.8L V6 (2-barrel carburator). It had carburator issues when we bought it in 1988, with 60K miles.

I later had a '85 Chevrolet Camaro with the 2.8L V6, but it was MPFI (fuel injected), so not problems there, but it had a bad knock.
A Camaro with a six, shudder
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Earth
4,227 posts, read 20,280,133 times
Reputation: 2209
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNative34 View Post
I know the oil filter was hard to remove due to the horizontal location way up under the bottom

Deez Nuttz probably agrees.
Yes I do concur, it's a bit of a challenge with the cross over pipe in the way to get the filter out of my truck.

If any of you stop and think about it, the 2.8 was not designed to be used on an S-10 or a Camaro.....it was designed to work in a FWD car. They got their start with the 1980 Citation.

Then in 1982 they decided to use it in the Camaro. Big mistake IMO, and not because it's a V6, but because it's really too small for the car IMO. Heck the 1980 and 1981 Camaros used a 3.8 liter V6 which was a 90 degree engine and probably better to boot. Before that Camaros used the 230 and 250 cube inline sixes.

Now on the S-10, if any of you have ever noticed, some of the suspension pieces are the same as used on the Monte Carlo/Regal/Cutlass/Grand Prix/G body car line. I believe when the S-10 was designed, GM decided to rummage thru the parts bins to make it work. So you have a G body front suspention and a Citation engine. Was probably cheaper doing this as oppsed to redesigning a new engine/suspension for the truck.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Floribama
13,483 posts, read 29,425,055 times
Reputation: 11884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deez Nuttz View Post

Then in 1982 they decided to use it in the Camaro. Big mistake IMO, and not because it's a V6, but because it's really too small for the car IMO. Heck the 1980 and 1981 Camaros used a 3.8 liter V6 which was a 90 degree engine and probably better to boot. Before that Camaros used the 230 and 250 cube inline sixes.
I never understood why GM didn't use the 3800 in the Camaro/Firebird throughout the 80's. It wasn't about fuel economy because the 3.8 got just as many mpg's as the 2.8, they could have took that same engine from the Eighty Eight/LeSabre and tweaked it for the F-body and got much better performance, they FINALLY did this in the late 90's.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top