[FamilyTruckster]

$1500 Car. I don't care what kind of engine is has. Expect problems. It's a no brainer.

As for the 3.4, it's a good engine. That's why it's been around for so long. Good power with great fuel economy. You might see more problems because there are so many out there. However, there are far more operating problem free.

 

[redlipp]

What I "know" about the 3.4L is what my mechanics told me about them....that is: "Stay away from them..."

That is ALL I need to know.

are you sure they weren't talking about 2.4 quad 4? i would agree with that one, but really the monte carlo motors other that the one that was in the ss model have all been pretty reliable in most cases.

 

[redlipp]

I’d say they key to it is find a car with a good engine, transmission and chassis and you won’t be paying more then $500 to get it on the road. A $1,500 car will have problems, but as long as you makes sure it doesn’t have any of the big ones you can still get a good deal.

if you can find a bunch of good used $1,500 cars you need to quit your present job and open up a used car dealership, you could make a fortune.

 

[ChevroletTough]

Had one of these new. Excellent machine for the first 10K miles, then the problems started. Thousand dollars here. $500 there. That alternator was a bear. And my cold start problem was a head gasket leaking coolant into a couple rear cylinders. Really a heart breaker for such a nice powerful good looking car to be so much trouble.

amen!!! except mine only lasted about 3kmiles. My alternator never died. But if you go back to the first page of this thread, you can find my tally up of parts. No engine should require that.

This thread seems to be getting out of hand. I said what i wanted to say, the fact is that the 3.4l DOHC while decently powerful (i prefer the 3.8L) lacks in the reliability column. I wish this engine upon noone unless you use it for racing purposes. I put many hours in tooling on this car, I learned alot, but most of the time I was frusterated. Not to say that any car does not have maintenence, becasue they do. But this was just not right.

 

[Elk]

if you can find a bunch of good used $1,500 cars you need to quit your present job and open up a used car dealership, you could make a fortune.

I could if this was a new concept, but it’s not. There are already lots of independent mechanics that run small used car dealerships as a side business to their repair shop.

 

[lmanthegreat]

I am a fleet technician for a local cab company her in NC. We solely operate Chevrolet Lumina's from 1996-2001. I have extensive experience working on both the 3.4L DOHC engine and the 3.1L OHV engine, as well as the Hydramatic 4T60E Transmission. Both engine's have the classic chevy V6 issues. Intake manifold gaskets, trans differentials, etc etc. But overall both engines are extremely solid. Its the peripherals that cause the problems. Granted the 3.4L is a nasty mother to work on. I will agree the the 4T60E 4speed tranny is weak especially for the 3.4L. But I have found that if you get a GM rebuilt 4T60E that they tend to last a lot longer than factory. I have a 1996 Lumina LS Interceptor with a 3.4L DOHC/4T60E and the Z34 suspension package. 170000 miles with a rebuilt GM tranny at 140000 miles and this car does not leak, runs quiet and smooth, and rides like a dream. The cab company Regularly runs the 3.1L lumina's and the 3.8L LTZ's well over 300000 miles without problem. That's my rant I just had to defend a car that I have seen time and time again go underappreciated. It all comes down to WAS THE CAR MAINTAINED!!

 

[Explorer4x4]

We have that engine in our '04 Venture minivan. Its been reliable, but its a piece of crap. Its ancient, its rough, its underpowered, its uneconomical, in every way it falls short of its competitors. So its no shock that all the cars GM put that engine into, have been behind the Ford, Dodge, Toyota and Honda competitors.

 

[Smaart Aas Saabr]

That's the OHV 3.4

It can't be that uneconomical... for many years those vans were the most fuel-efficient vans on the North American market. And compared to other vans when they came out (1997) they were pretty potent and the vans moved fairly rapidly (they are minivans they aren't fast). And the 3.4 OHV engine itself only was introduced on the 1993 F-bodies, and it dates sort of to the original 2.8 V6 of 1980.

 

[Explorer4x4]

That's the OHV 3.4

It can't be that uneconomical... for many years those vans were the most fuel-efficient vans on the North American market. And compared to other vans when they came out (1997) they were pretty potent and the vans moved fairly rapidly (they are minivans they aren't fast). And the 3.4 OHV engine itself only was introduced on the 1993 F-bodies, and it dates sort of to the original 2.8 V6 of 1980.

Ah. But it says it was economical, but it definitely does not feel lik eit. I am sure the old 2.4L I4 in the Caravan got more miles-per-gallon.

 

[Squachy]

Since this thread has revived itself somehow, just like to let people know, dont get the 3.4DOHC confused with the 3.4 OHV.

The 3.4 DOHC was the unreliable, nasty mother to work on motor. The 3.4 OHV (known as the 3400) was just derived from the 3.1 (3100) which was derived from the 3.1 MPFI (OHV) which was an enlarged 2.8 MPFI which came out sometimes in the 80's.

 

[prowlerjc]

Ah. But it says it was economical, but it definitely does not feel lik eit. I am sure the old 2.4L I4 in the Caravan got more miles-per-gallon.

The Mitsu Hemi? It didn't and was a much weaker engine. That motor had serious issues of its own.

The 3.4 isn't exciting to all the enthusiasts, but for 95-98% of the population, its a dang good package.

 

[spaz]

the 2.4 was not the mitsu hemi. its a neon 4. the mitsu hemi was the 2.6 balance shafted 4 sometimes with 3 valves per cyl

 

[prowlerjc]

^You're right. I was thinking early Caravan it threw me.

 

[sonjaab]

Well...........BOO HOO...........Its my turn to cry............I bought a old Ford Escort for $300 bucks and ran the piss out of it for 2 years (as a winter rat).
I did nothing to it aside from adding gas and oil !

Well I sure am pissed that the timing belt snapped and I smoked the motor!

Can I cry here?

 

[Elk]

Ah. But it says it was economical, but it definitely does not feel like it.

How do you feel fuel economy?

The 3.4 isn't exciting to all the enthusiasts, but for 95-98% of the population, its a dang good package.

I don’t think you could be more wrong. An engine that eats gaskets/has crappy gaskets isn’t good for anybody. The most important thing to 95-98% population is reliability. That OHV 3.4L is the main reason people stopped buying GM minivan and mid-size cars.

 

[FieroGT]

Yes, DO NOT confuse the 3.4 OHV with the 3.4 DOHC. I have the 3.4 OHV in my Grand Am GT, and while it is not the best engine in the world, it is not that bad either. I've got 192,000mi on my '99, and my engine has gone through: 1 faulty fuel injector, a lower intake manifold gasket, 3! sets of spark plug wires, and an alternator. It returns 28 mpg on the freeway, and about 24 mpg combined, pulls hard like it did when it was new, and coupled with my borla exhaust and non-cat straight pipe, it's got a nice growl to it. It isn't as bullet-proof as my old 3800 Regal, but it certainly far from a piece of crap.

 

[prowlerjc]

I don’t think you could be more wrong. An engine that eats gaskets/has crappy gaskets isn’t good for anybody. The most important thing to 95-98% population is reliability. That OHV 3.4L is the main reason people stopped buying GM minivan and mid-size cars.

Everyone that I know with one, and I know quite a few, are happy with them. I've heard of the gasket failures, and advised some of them about it, but none so far.

 

[Smaart Aas Saabr]

Everyone that I know with one, and I know quite a few, are happy with them. I've heard of the gasket failures, and advised some of them about it, but none so far.

I've heard a lot of gasket failures locally, it is the only real problem with this engine, but it is a very big problem. Especially because mechanics seem to enjoy saying "it's the head gasket!" and charging thousands to repair.

 

[New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66]

Sounds like he just got a rough car.

I had a '97 Intrigue with the 3.4L and had no problems the 3 years I owned it.

I have owned mainly GM products since, uhh, going back to the mid-1980's. And each has treated me well, with limited problems.

 

[Subtle_Cynicism]

My friend has replaced his LIM about five times in his 3.4L Grand Am engine.

We've done it twice. I'm still beefed this was never a recall.