Repair-It

Not the most current topic, nor the most interesting, but Bill is under the impression that these were "garbage". Or more generally, almost any American powertrain in the 80s was garbage. My stance is that powertrains were some of the only things in the 80s that WEREN'T guaranteed garbage coming from Detroit, and still, they did make a lot of garbage. That included:
- Almost any Cadillac engine design (the best Cadillac engines in the 80s were from other GM divisions)
- The last of the first generation Olds 350 diesels were not good but the later ones were
- Ford Essex 3.8L (the Vulcan 3.0L was good)
- Some cam issues with the small block (most of which were 305s but 350s had the same design) - cam lobes often got wiped at lower miles than you'd expect - I think this was a cam hardening/metallurgy issue, but maybe Adam knows. I don't think this afflicted all of them.

By the way, many import 4 cylinders were beyond notorious for blowing head gaskets at the time (under 100k).

There were probably other examples, but the main "issues" with 80s Detroit powertrains was probably more a general shortcoming in power and efficiency, NOT reliability. An Olds 307, for example, had 140hp in the 80s. But they were reliable. And actually got reasonable fuel economy.

I did find this thread of Camaro owners discussing their 2.8s.

http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/f-body- ... v6-552183/

Almost 50% of the poll respondents said it could go to 200k or better without major issues. Sure we'd rather see 100% say that, but I think Bill was painting a much more pessimistic picture. A couple responded with specific issues (including one that had the block crack), but most seemed to agree that the later fuel injected 2.8s were pretty solid.

I think this sums up my perception of these engines (I have no hard data obviously, but my personal experience with a friend's 2.8 is positive. The application being a 1987 Pontiac 6000 wagon):

Properly taken care of, I've seen all kinds of GM's with 2.8's running well past the 200k mile mark. One happened to be a Celeb 2.8 wagon.

Contrast that to "hardly any make it past 200k" and I think my stance is well supported.

The second page has lots of anecdotes about lasting well beyond 200k, even with abuse.

Another anecdotal source:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 307AAsblRs

Not that it was an exciting engine, but it produced decent power, torque, response, fuel economy and sound in all of the 80s FWD applications I can think of. They were not bad engines.

That 60° V6 architecture, by the way, started with the first 2.8 in the early 80s and went through the last high feature 3.5L V6 that they put in the 2011 Impala (which were good engines).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mo ... _V6_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High_Value_engine

A diverse line of engines, including a dual overhead cam variant.

The high water mark was the 240hp 3900. Variable intake and variable valve timing.

Somewhere in the middle (mid-90s, Gen III), however, GM developed a nasty intake gasket issue, particularly with the 3.1L and 3.4L. But those aren't 80s engines.

Overall, this was a very successful line of engines.

And I still maintain that many issues with American cars in the 80s were more overall quality. The Asians demonstrated that you could achieve better quality (like fit finish and materials) even when the car is small and affordable. That was an impossibility for Detroit in the 80s. But this is unrelated to how likely a car is to run beyond 200k without major failure. As is things like switchgear, power window motors or whatever other issues some American cars may have had in the 80s.

My Caprice basically has an 80s engine. It was available since 1989 and it is totally characteristic to achieve the amount of miles that mine has.

As I was reading this post, it occurred to me that I once owned a vehicle with the GM 2.8L: the 1989 Chevy Corsica I bought for $1. It had over 200k on it when I bought it and seemed to run well. It was a bit unrefined, but seemed to be reliable, at least for the short time I owned the car.

And when I saw your name associated with a reply to this thread, I knew that would be mentioned.

No doubt some readers remember that particularly in the ‘70s Ford’s nickname was “Fix or Repair Daily,” and just the same, GM and Chrysler were similarly known (the latter bailed out in the late ‘70s) for their low quality output. It was owned by the British government in the ‘70s, but so bad was Jaguar that some leasing companies wouldn’t even offer the product line stateside.

Of course, what the above signaled was that there were still profits to be had in the automobile sector. If so many big names were so incapable of manufacturing cars that started each day, then it was certainly true that there was a market for carmakers capable of producing that which was stylish, and that would start. The Japanese proved particularly adept at the latter by virtue of manufacturing reliable, high gas mileage cars, and the Europeans proved skilled at the former while also producing very reliable autos for the upper end of the market.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2 ... -cars-did/

http://www.businessinsider.com/cars-mos ... es-2014-10

I don't see GM on there anywhere...They are on the truck list though. So I wouldn't call this biased.

With the exception of the Taurus, most or all of those cars enjoy high resale value. I'd argue that % over 200k isn't an automatic indicator of reliability so much as a willingness by the owner to maintain and/or repair the car.

I still say something as unpleasant as the J-body was not unreliable (on average) but in later years, suffered indifference from their many owners for a variety of reasons (one of which is, if you don't have a lot of money because you bought an inexpensive car to begin with, especially second hand, how careful would you be with maintenance?). I think it has been proven that owners of cars like an Accord are much more likely to be maintained properly, even at 200k, than owners of cheaper American sedans.

Simply put, people judge specific cars as worth repairing or not worth repairing. It would be interesting to see some kind of comparison where all factors are held equal.

In the case of the Taurus, I'm not entirely sure what makes it go on that list. The Vulcan was a good engine but the transmissions were typical Ford. The cars also had low resale value. The rest I think fit the mold of what I am saying though.

The truck list reveals some things that make me suspicious of these kinds of statistics. There is a lot more going on than basic reliability here.

Compare the 2500HD Silverado to the GMC. Or the Suburban to the Yukon XL. Or the Expedition to the Navigator. These are the same vehicles.

Here are GM's American sales by year. Around 2002/3 is when I gave up on American cars for a while. It only got worse until 2010. Funny, around 2010 with the Camaro, I am looking at American made again, and the sales track my opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors

Year - U.S. sales (vehicles) - Chg/yr.

1998[35] 4,603,991
1999 5,017,150 Increase9.0%
2000[36] 4,953,163 Decrease1.3%
2001 4,904,015 Decrease1.0%
2002 4,858,705 Decrease0.9%
2003 4,756,403 Decrease2.1%
2004[37] 4,707,416 Decrease1.0%
2005 4,517,730 Decrease4.0%
2006[38] 4,124,645 Decrease8.7%
2007[39] 3,866,620 Decrease6.3%
2008[40] 2,980,688 Decrease22.9%
2009[41] 2,084,492 Decrease30.1%
2010[42] 2,215,227 Increase6.3%
2011[43] 2,503,820 Increase13.7%
2012 2,595,717 Increase3.7%
2013[44] 2,786,078 Increase7.3%
2014[45] 2,935,008 Increase5.3%

They are the same vehicles, but the sales are not the same so small things can impact the percent more. Also, the percentages are extremely close at that. 1.5 percent.