3.0 vs 2800 engines

lloyd

Well-Known Member
Messages
444
Reaction score
94
I recently witnessed a "friendly" argument regarding the relative merits of the 3 litre and 2.8 litre engines found in coupes and e3s. These three know-it-alls (you know who you are) insist the 2800 is far more "tractable" or drivable than the 3 litre engine - and this includes the later fuel injected versions. THis is not first time I have heard this notion. How one quantifies driveabilty is less than clear to me and rather than embarrass anyone, I remained mum.

I have driven several coupes and sedans, both new and rebuilt and none of them impressed me more than the others regarding driveabilty or smoothness. (I do recall driving a non-stock 3.0s automatic that seemed blisteringly fast but that is another story) I suspect however, the same engine with a lighter flywheel or lower final drive ration would seem more "tractable" than (later) vehicles equipped with higher ratios e.g., 3.25:1 rear ends. By the sane token, a larger engine that presumably produced more torque or the same torque at a lower speed would be more apt to provide more driveability.


Again, all things considered (excepting perhaps, fuel economy) wouldnt the larger engine be more desirable than its little brother?

Is there an answer to this question?

Thank you in advance.
 

MichaelP

Well-Known Member
Messages
267
Reaction score
0
Location
Virginia USA
As the 2.8L is less 'oversquare' (same stroke, narrower bore), it tends to rev more freely and enjoys living at the upper end of the power band. The 3.0L produces more torque, particularly at lower rpms. It all depends on your preference.
 
Top