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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.