Clarke33 Posted August 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Let me know how it turns out. I might be up for something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOHCRagtopguy Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 I would LOVE to have a 5 speed in my ragtop. But no, the factory didn't make any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke33 Posted August 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 I emailed the other guy with the vert for $700 and it sounds like a POS. It is in good shape except it needs an engine, radiator, windshield,and interior. It has new paint and he wanted to let me know that He didn't have to sell it. Sounds fair to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke33 Posted August 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 The woman from Tn with the 3.1 car emailed me today and said she is willing to take less than the $2500 she initially said was her bottom dollar. That being said, I really want a 3.4 but if I could get this one for a great deal I could drive it until spring, fix a few things that need to be fixed, then sell it a get another. Now the big question, what should I offer her without insulting her but be a very good deal for me. Bottom line is I really don't care one way or another if I get that car. Oh yeah, she looked under the hood and it had 3100 SFI. I don't know enough about the GM V-6's to know if that would have been the correct engine for this car or would it say 3.1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theghoul Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 The woman from Tn with the 3.1 car emailed me today and said she is willing to take less than the $2500 she initially said was her bottom dollar. That being said, I really want a 3.4 but if I could get this one for a great deal I could drive it until spring, fix a few things that need to be fixed, then sell it a get another. Now the big question, what should I offer her without insulting her but be a very good deal for me. Bottom line is I really don't care one way or another if I get that car. Oh yeah, she looked under the hood and it had 3100 SFI. I don't know enough about the GM V-6's to know if that would have been the correct engine for this car or would it say 3.1? I would look for a 3.4 because of the extra goodies like lip trunk and lights, the DOHC emblems and dual exhaust. Not to mention the bad-assity of them. I love these 3.4 verts. Thumbs up just about everywhere I go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManicMechanic Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 A 3100 car is still not a bad choice. Not the quickest but these behemoths weigh almost 2 tons as it is. My 1992 3.1 gets about 28-30 MPGs and the adopted '94 3.4 now gets 24-26 after a complete tune up, intake gaskets and all. The 3.4s need more maintenance than a 3.1 or 3100 but like I had implied, these cars are cruisers, not muscle cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke33 Posted August 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 Do you think offering $1750 would be a slap in the face? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManicMechanic Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Do it and see what happens, cash generally talks well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRONDOG442 Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Despite what all the other "know-it-alls" on this forum (which I dearly love) tell you the 3.4X or LQ-1 or 3.4 Twin Cam, DOHC, or whatever they call it is a total piece of shit... It is unreliable, its expensive to fix, and not worth the hassle let alone EXTRA money... The 3100 SFI in 1995 produced 165 hp the 3.4 produced a supposed 210 when they are actually timed and tuned right and since it is now 2007 and they were made in 1994 the odds arent in your favor that it is... I have owned about 10 of these rag tops one for virtually every year and engine offering... I will tell you this about the cars from experience (the only other people who hold a candle to my knowlege on these cars are KrazyK (Ken) and ManicMechanic (Jay)) I can tell you this much due to the extra amount of torque the 3.4 is capable of producing, the body roll on these unibody cars is extreme and quite frankly unacceptable!!! The 3.1 liter powered cars do not posses the same issues. Tee braking is sub par border line inadequate with the 3.4 as well because the more powerful engine... These cars werent originally designed to beconvertibles in the first place let alone designed to handle that torque... That is when the 3.4 is running right!! But the problem is when the car was new it did and believe me when people dropped 28k for these cars and their power they used it so it weakened the body... I am sure by now you know the 3.4's notorious timing belt problems, the pain in the ass alternator replacements, and are probably aware of the oil pump drive seal leaks. Anyone who has owned a lq1 knows about this, but what you may not be aware of is their troublesome fuel injectors (especially when they sit for a prolonged amount of time) their shitty valve bodies in the transmission that is prominent in 1995 ONLY 3.4 cars. The spark plug wires are obnoxiously priced and a tune up is also pricey. Bottom line the 3.1 cars are much more structurally rigid, reliable, fuel efficient, and are not a dog when accelerating at WOT, and they stop better, don't let Kelleys Blue Book or the 3.4 liter fan boys on this forum fool you, you are much better off buying a 3.1 liter powered 1995 Cutty Rag top... If you want to know about any of the 'vert only idiosyncracies just ask me Ken or Jay about them, like the tops always leaking, the bad side window seals, the steering wheel controls malfunctioning, the CD player skipping like crazy, the back window seams ripping, the convertible top motors leaking fluid, etc...etc... Write this down, you'll never hear this from another Oldsmobile person again and it hurts me to say this, because it was an Oldsmobile designed engine...Oldsmobile and Pontiac were at least smart enough to drop it in 1995, Buick was smarter to never haved used the damned thing in the first place, and dumb ass Chevy used it until 1997!!!! Good luck and if you want a condensed version of this post buy the 3100 !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManicMechanic Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 I only charged the neighbor lady $60 for a tune up and intake gaskets on the '94...She gave me $200 but that's beside the point. The more I worked on it, the less I disliked it. BUT, I am going to have to agree with this man...The 3.4 just isn't worth the minimal extra hp and torque. Unfortunately, these cars are too new for repop parts and too old for dealer stock that is dwindling. ANd like the TGPs, they will likely never get the recognition they deserve. Hell, a friend of mine that's a COP saw his first CS 'vert the other day, many people don't even realize that Olds made convertibles in the '90s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwmin Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 if the vert body cant handle the "massive torque" of a 3.4 then its definitely an engineering fuck up. the 3.4 is weak as gm produced it. THE 3.4 IS NOT A PIECE OF SHIT! i dont wanna get into an argument about it and clutter up your thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theghoul Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 ... That is when the 3.4 is running right!! But the problem is when the car was new it did and believe me when people dropped 28k for these cars and their power they used it so it weakened the body... Damn.. the verts were 28 grand when they came out? Holy shit..didnt know that. Thats more than a loaded charger would cost you today not counting inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRONDOG442 Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Yeah the 1995 drop top that I used to own and kept for 4.5 years still had the original window sticker and it was over $28,000 after final destination charge. I loved the car and miss it and truthfully it was one of my favorites and it was in show room condition because I cared for it so well, but I sold it because I didnt want to deal with a ticking time bomb that was which the 3.4... If the car was equipped with the 3100 it would in the garage sitting next to my 4-4-2 and the SC-3!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke33 Posted August 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 Dang guys, I think I may re-think the 3.1. I offered the $1750 and she said no way. Her absolute lowest dollar is $2300. She is in a very small town in the middle of nowhere and it sounds as if she hasn't had very many people to even respond to the ad. I guess I'll try to drive up there in the next couple of days with cash in hand and see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke33 Posted August 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 I only charged the neighbor lady $60 for a tune up and intake gaskets on the '94...She gave me $200 but that's beside the point. The more I worked on it, the less I disliked it. BUT, I am going to have to agree with this man...The 3.4 just isn't worth the minimal extra hp and torque. Unfortunately, these cars are too new for repop parts and too old for dealer stock that is dwindling. ANd like the TGPs, they will likely never get the recognition they deserve. Hell, a friend of mine that's a COP saw his first CS 'vert the other day, many people don't even realize that Olds made convertibles in the '90s. Wow, I hate to admit it, but I didn't know about these Verts until a few weeks ago . I had been looking for a Cavalier or Sunfire Vert when I saw a white on white vert pass me in traffic . After I saw it, I knew that was what I had been looking for(after I had pulled up by it at a light to see what it was). The rest is history and the search is on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOHCRagtopguy Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 Despite what all the other "know-it-alls" on this forum (which I dearly love) tell you the 3.4X or LQ-1 or 3.4 Twin Cam, DOHC, or whatever they call it is a total piece of shit... It is unreliable, its expensive to fix, and not worth the hassle let alone EXTRA money... The 3100 SFI in 1995 produced 165 hp the 3.4 produced a supposed 210 when they are actually timed and tuned right and since it is now 2007 and they were made in 1994 the odds arent in your favor that it is... I have owned about 10 of these rag tops one for virtually every year and engine offering... I will tell you this about the cars from experience (the only other people who hold a candle to my knowlege on these cars are KrazyK (Ken) and ManicMechanic (Jay)) I can tell you this much due to the extra amount of torque the 3.4 is capable of producing, the body roll on these unibody cars is extreme and quite frankly unacceptable!!! The 3.1 liter powered cars do not posses the same issues. Tee braking is sub par border line inadequate with the 3.4 as well because the more powerful engine... These cars werent originally designed to beconvertibles in the first place let alone designed to handle that torque... That is when the 3.4 is running right!! But the problem is when the car was new it did and believe me when people dropped 28k for these cars and their power they used it so it weakened the body... I am sure by now you know the 3.4's notorious timing belt problems, the pain in the ass alternator replacements, and are probably aware of the oil pump drive seal leaks. Anyone who has owned a lq1 knows about this, but what you may not be aware of is their troublesome fuel injectors (especially when they sit for a prolonged amount of time) their shitty valve bodies in the transmission that is prominent in 1995 ONLY 3.4 cars. The spark plug wires are obnoxiously priced and a tune up is also pricey. Bottom line the 3.1 cars are much more structurally rigid, reliable, fuel efficient, and are not a dog when accelerating at WOT, and they stop better, don't let Kelleys Blue Book or the 3.4 liter fan boys on this forum fool you, you are much better off buying a 3.1 liter powered 1995 Cutty Rag top... If you want to know about any of the 'vert only idiosyncracies just ask me Ken or Jay about them, like the tops always leaking, the bad side window seals, the steering wheel controls malfunctioning, the CD player skipping like crazy, the back window seams ripping, the convertible top motors leaking fluid, etc...etc... Write this down, you'll never hear this from another Oldsmobile person again and it hurts me to say this, because it was an Oldsmobile designed engine...Oldsmobile and Pontiac were at least smart enough to drop it in 1995, Buick was smarter to never haved used the damned thing in the first place, and dumb ass Chevy used it until 1997!!!! Good luck and if you want a condensed version of this post buy the 3100 !!! As much as you blast the 3.4, I will defend it. Mine has close to 159K on it now and has been 100% reliable with no problems other that timing belt replacement and I don't think that's too much to ask. I'd hop into my Olds right now and drive it to Florida with no trepidations! I have performed maintenance on it at regular intervals and it's as reliable to me as any old smallblock Chevy I ever owned. Maybe you had experience with a poorly maintained one, guess what, any engine not taken care of is a piece of shit. I love and respect my 3.4. When I jump on it she shits and gits! 3.1 engine is also reliable, I'll agree with that since my last ragtop (92 Cavalier Z-24) had 190K miles on it when I sold it and ran like a champ. Also meticulously maintained, I might add. But why settle for a lower horse engine when you can get the top of the line? Stick to your guns Clarkie, go for the 3.4, don't let this guy scare or intimidate you about the big bad DOHC motor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManicMechanic Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 Here's a decent looking '94 3.4 with 96,000 in Savannah, GA for $2000... http://autos.yahoo.com/usedcars/detail/index.html?cid=automobiles-228259108&dst=1,038.44&rsr=Yj0mbWFrZT1PTERTJm1vZGVsPUNTVVBSJmNsX3k9JmNoX3k9JmNsX3ByaWNlPSZjaF9wcmljZT0mY2xfbWk9JmNoX21pPSZjaz0mZHVyPTI0Jmd1cj1hbnkmY3N6PTc4NzU5JnZ0eXBlPWF1dG9zJm1rPU9sZHNtb2JpbGUmbW89Q3V0bGFzcytTdXByZW1l Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRONDOG442 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 As much as you blast the 3.4, I will defend it. Mine has close to 159K on it now and has been 100% reliable with no problems other that timing belt replacement and I don't think that's too much to ask. A timing belt job at most shops is over $1,000 if done properly and my father's 3100 SFI equipped 1994 Cutlass has over 200,000 miles and he has never had a repair of that magnitude done on the engine... I'd hop into my Olds right now and drive it to Florida with no trepidations! I have performed maintenance on it at regular intervals and it's as reliable to me as any old smallblock Chevy I ever owned. Older small block Chevies don't hold a candle in regards to reliablity to any fuel injected modern vehicle...Speaking of the Florida trip, have you replaced the oil pump drive seal if not you better bring a few quarts of oil... Maybe you had experience with a poorly maintained one, guess what, any engine not taken care of is a piece of shit. I love and respect my 3.4. When I jump on it she shits and gits! As stated before I have owned MORE than one of these cars I bought the first 1995 with 13,000 miles, I maintained it meticulously, EVERY ONE of the at least 5 3.4X engines had the same problems... Neither engine is very fast to begin with... 3.1 engine is also reliable, I'll agree with that since my last ragtop (92 Cavalier Z-24) had 190K miles on it when I sold it and ran like a champ. Also meticulously maintained, I might add. The 1992 3.1mfi is a different animal than the 3100 SFI engine but the same lower end... But why settle for a lower horse engine when you can get the top of the line? Simple to avoid costly repairs and excessive use of gasoline... Stick to your guns Clarkie, go for the 3.4, don't let this guy scare or intimidate you about the big bad DOHC motor. Do you what you wish, ask Slick about my advice in purchasing his Acura and I was the only person on this entire forum who said it was a bad idea, then ask him what the outcome was.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 Rob now... What did I talk to you about on the phone the other day. I think I gave you some info that you didn't know about the 3.4. Now, coming from my point of view: The 3.4 wasn't a well thought out engine. Taking a modified pushrod block and adding DOHC heads to it wasn't the greatest idea. At the time, using a timing belt was common practice, and later engines (not only throughout GM but everywhere) switched to a chain for greater reliability. The 3.4 was greatly detuned, due to the supplier not coming forward with a tranny that could handle it, among other things. Doing this isn't necessarily good for the engine itself. As for the 3.4's blowing trannies, thats gonna happen when you mate a high revving engine thats pretty much matched right to the max power that a low rpm transmission can handle. I haven't seen too many blown up 284's myself. Speaking of the 284, that transmission had to be sent back to the supplier to be rebuilt. Not necessarily GM's fault either. Personally, I like the 3.4. Yes, it did have it's downfall's and definately was not well thought out. But... you also have to remember, the 3.4 did lead to the 3.5 and the 4.0, both of which had taken desing que's from the 2.3 Quad 4 and the 3.4 DOHC. They greatly improved upon these designs, but still faulted with a non-rebuildable 3.5 lower end that does happen to eat 1 quart of oil, (this info is from Rob) design tolerances of the piston rings and not accounting for them to settle after break-in. Not a perfect engine, but definately improved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRONDOG442 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 I still love it not all of the 3.5s chew up the oil it seems, just ones that get flogged every day like all of the ones I drive daily LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 I'm not saying the 3.5 is a bad engine either, but it does have a few flaws as well. Oh, I can do a 3.4 alternator in 45 minutes, beat that GM(book calls for 4 hours). Anyways, back onto topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManicMechanic Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 Here's a decent looking '94 3.4 with 96,000 in Savannah, GA for $2000... http://autos.yahoo.com/usedcars/detail/index.html?cid=automobiles-228259108&dst=1,038.44&rsr=Yj0mbWFrZT1PTERTJm1vZGVsPUNTVVBSJmNsX3k9JmNoX3k9JmNsX3ByaWNlPSZjaF9wcmljZT0mY2xfbWk9JmNoX21pPSZjaz0mZHVyPTI0Jmd1cj1hbnkmY3N6PTc4NzU5JnZ0eXBlPWF1dG9zJm1rPU9sZHNtb2JpbGUmbW89Q3V0bGFzcytTdXByZW1l Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwmin Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 seems like not too bad of a deal i loved both of my 3.4s and would take an LQ1 over an L36 any day, but you do have to beware of possible problems, especially if it hasnt been maintained. both of them, i had to do the oil pump drive seal and timing belt on, too as well as 2 alternators. badass made some good points about 3.4's especially with the trannies and putting them in verts. however, theyre not scary at all. even though what slick said is true about the design, its actually very simple and, dare i say, easy to work on although most techs wont touch it. imo, its way easier to take the heads off a 3.4 than a pushrod motor. timing the engine is unbelievably easy. it may seem hard at first, but once you figure it out, its easy. the alt can be intimidating, but isnt that bad. make sure you get a good alternator if it goes bad or it will go bad again good luck in your search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOHCRagtopguy Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 Hey, to each their own opinions and ideas. I will agree to disagree with Capt. Badass. Oh, I forgot, I did have to put one alternator in my Olds, I pulled the axle shaft and did it in a couple of hours. And I was just using a smallblock Chevy as point of reference for reliability. Those old carbed motors couldn't shake a stick with these current injected systems. Happy hunting Clarkie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke33 Posted August 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 Here's a decent looking '94 3.4 with 96,000 in Savannah, GA for $2000... http://autos.yahoo.com/usedcars/detail/index.html?cid=automobiles-228259108&dst=1,038.44&rsr=Yj0mbWFrZT1PTERTJm1vZGVsPUNTVVBSJmNsX3k9JmNoX3k9JmNsX3ByaWNlPSZjaF9wcmljZT0mY2xfbWk9JmNoX21pPSZjaz0mZHVyPTI0Jmd1cj1hbnkmY3N6PTc4NzU5JnZ0eXBlPWF1dG9zJm1rPU9sZHNtb2JpbGUmbW89Q3V0bGFzcytTdXByZW1l Thanks, I had not been checking Yahoo. I called and left a message for the owner to give me a call. I didn't mean to spark a debate on 3.1 vs. 3.4 but it's entertaining anyway. I'm not really worried about extra maintenance because I have a nice workshop and plenty of tools. The car I buy will really be just a toy, to be used in the Spring and Fall. Most likely it will see less than 3 or 4 thousand miles per. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.