Ian Brydon wrote:Quote:
More than likely they are all misprints but if there was a difference of 10.5:1 and 10:1, there would be a big power loss in between the both.
Also everyone just to point out something...
The 2.4s listed in the pictures, they are mounted with a RWD transmission. You could take off the transmission and bellhousing and convert to a FWD setup but you would need the transmission and bellhousing that was made for the 2.4 ECOTEC. You would also need the transmission mounts because they are different as well.
And no...you can't use any other transmission from a J-body on the 2.4 ECOTEC.
Not that I like to argue or anything, but a quick goolge search turned up this:
http://www.bgsoflex.com/crchange.html
I punched in 10:1, 170hp, and turned the compression up to 10.5:1 and got 172hp, a 1% increase, so I wouldn't call that a big change in power at all.
2nd, why wouldn't any ecotec tranny bolt up to this engine? Are not all ecotecs the same bellhousing bolt pattern? Do you have any links to proof that they are different? I'm not trying to be difficult, I really do want to know the answers to these questions. Also, has anyone else heard that these 2.4's are forged bottom ends, or heard that they aren't?
If there was a difference of .5 in compression, it would be a difference of about 10-15 HP, not 2.
Comparing the 2.2 to the 2.4, the bellhousings are different. Not fully sure about the 2.0 though...
They are forged but of course when it comes to forged parts, it's how they are rated. Example: When people hear forged they assume parts like what Wiseco Pistons and Eagle Rods. Those are rated much higher and are stronger. The 2.4 and the 2.0 ECOTECs have powder forged internals just like the 2.2 ECOTEC but they are rated higher.
FYI: Powder forging is the process by which all stock pistons are made.
www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837
I used to have the online product info pages saved on my computer, then it crashed. It had all the info on all the ecotec engines, I had posted a link on here somewhere, maybe do a search? It should have the correct compresion info
Jonathan wrote:I used to have the online product info pages saved on my computer, then it crashed. It had all the info on all the ecotec engines, I had posted a link on here somewhere, maybe do a search? It should have the correct compresion info
Never seen it...
www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837
I think the biggest question before anyone is ready to buy a 2.4 ecotec is whether it is the same block as the 2.2, and if the mounts would be the same between the cav eco and the cobalt/solstice eco.
Eric Esler wrote:I think the biggest question before anyone is ready to buy a 2.4 ecotec is whether it is the same block as the 2.2, and if the mounts would be the same between the cav eco and the cobalt/solstice eco.
Not sure what the importance of the block has to do with anything...
Not 100% on the engine mounts but I believe they are the same as the 2.2
Now I will say this as a note before anyone spends any money on this, you need to really really ask yourself these questions:
Can I afford this motor?
Can I afford the 2.4 transmission from GM or even find a 2.4 transmission outside of GM?
Who will wire up the harness?
Who will switch out the transmissions for me?
How much money do I really have to invest in this project?
and the ultimate question...
Given the power gains, money spent and time invested...is this swap worth doing?
Those are the most important questions you can ask yourself.
www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837
damn don't you wish the swap was as easy as swapping a b18c5 in a civic dx ?
it would be great to see some of these in Js and I hope someone does it, but for me boosting my eco will be just a bit more expensive and much more powerful. It seems there is a lot more custom work to do than it is worth. I do want to thank the poster though as this is a great deal !
15.574 @ 89 mph stock
The Bell housing pattern on these engines is identical to all the other ecotecs. These engines where hardly changed at all for the RWD application. They didnt' even change the simple thingss like water neck location. These will bolt directly inplace of any one that has an eco tec already using some of your factory parts like TB and coil packs. the only problem your going to run into is tuning because of the V V T wich can be easily remidied by swapping the heads. if you dont' want do that or you want to run V V T you hae to get a V V T ecm (yard here in ohio already has 7 solstices on hand) and add 2 whires for the exhaust cam sensor 2 wires for the intake cam sensor and 2 wires for the V V T controller. I'm not 100% thet the head swap can be done but i'm going to grab a head gasket from work today and do a little reasearce. As far as having some one do the tuning and all the wiring your talking to him i have all the equipment avaliable to do the swap if it gets that intense. yes even if i need to reflash the computer. I was one of the first guys to swap an eco tech in a car i'm pretty sure i can handle replacing an eco tch with an eco tech.
85 fiero GT 3800 sc swap in progress
98 Sunfire 4.9 and AWD swap in progress
85 S-10 turbocharged 3800
83 Citation x-11 turbocharged 3.1 with AWD 6000 running gear SOLD
94 Bonneville SLE daily driver
94 Bonneville SSEi wifes pearl pink daily driver
93 Bonneville SSEi I duno why
94 Bonneville SSEi parts for the rest of them
Quote:
If there was a difference of .5 in compression, it would be a difference of about 10-15 HP, not 2.
Comparing the 2.2 to the 2.4, the bellhousings are different. Not fully sure about the 2.0 though...
Compression ratio doesn't make a big difference in power output, I thought it was more than this calculator would indicate, but still not a 10-15hp difference for .5 points, especially on a 4 cylinder making under 200hp.
As for the 2.4 bellhousing, I'd be VERY surprised if GM used a different bellhousing for the 2.4's, when they used the same as the 2.2 for the 2.0SC which uses a different tranny, why change now for a NA motor? There's a good chance they use a different tranny than the 2.2, but until I see proof the bellhousing is different I believe they are the same.
I also have a theory, I've seen compression ratios of 10:1, 10.4:1, and 10.6:1, as well as GM advertised HP outputs of 170, 174, and 177 hp for the 2.4 eco, there's a good chance they make it in 3 different comp. ratios? Just a thought. The only hard part of this swap would be the wiring and ecu, as you should be able to use stock 2.2 eco mounts, and tranny.
As far as why this would be worth it, I'm starting with a 2.4TC, changing to the eco would open up alot of aftermarket support, and a beefier bottom end. My engine has 115,000kms on it already, if I want to boost I'm looking at a rebuild with forged internals if I want it to be worthwhile, or a swap of this nature, each has it's merits.
15.3 @ 89.97mph, 14's on the way?
Quote:
Compression ratio doesn't make a big difference in power output, I thought it was more than this calculator would indicate, but still not a 10-15hp difference for .5 points, especially on a 4 cylinder making under 200hp.
First of all...that made me speechless for a second...
If compression ratio didn't make much of a difference or like you said, 2 HP, than why do car manufacturers have motors that come in different compression ratios? Why didn't GM leave the ECOTECs all in 10:1 compression? There is more to rating compression and power output than putting numbers into a calculator.
Since the blocks are about the same, what made the power jump from 140 HP to 170+ HP? Displacement only does so much and I bet because of the VVT, they had lost low end power so increasing the displacement brought some back. The VVT is mainly there for gas mileage more so than power. If compression does make a difference...it didn't every car would have the same compression.
Quote:
As far as why this would be worth it, I'm starting with a 2.4TC, changing to the eco would open up alot of aftermarket support, and a beefier bottom end. My engine has 115,000kms on it already, if I want to boost I'm looking at a rebuild with forged internals if I want it to be worthwhile, or a swap of this nature, each has it's merits.
VVT is only as good as you can manipulate it. Currently, there is barely any 2.4 ECOTEC specific parts and I'm betting it will be a while before you see anything as far as computer programs to manipulate the VVT. If you were looking for a good boost motor, you should have gone with the 2.0 ECOTEC...9:1 compression and has the ability to handle revs like nothing. That's my opinion though.
www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837
ehh, so much misinformation on this thread.
static compression ratio doesn't mean everything when it comes to performance. You have to look at cam profile.
and vvt is to optimize low end power and high end horsepower. giving the best of both worlds.
I don't think they would change the trans bolt pattern between the ecotec motors. It's probably the same block with a stroked out crank to reach 2.4L. That is how they got the 2.0l, by destroking.
and I believe the 2.4 eco uses coil on plug. Really you would need the ecm for the engine.
eh, Sunfires... (Tom) wrote:ehh, so much misinformation on this thread.
static compression ratio doesn't mean everything when it comes to performance. You have to look at cam profile.
and vvt is to optimize low end power and high end horsepower. giving the best of both worlds.
I don't think they would change the trans bolt pattern between the ecotec motors. It's probably the same block with a stroked out crank to reach 2.4L. That is how they got the 2.0l, by destroking.
and I believe the 2.4 eco uses coil on plug. Really you would need the ecm for the engine.
If you're refering to my post, I wasn't stating that compression was EVERYTHING...but a part of the process of how a motor works and makes power.
I should have clarified in a previous post...there should be a difference in bellhousing compared to the transmission for a RWD and FWD 2.4 ECOTEC.
You are correct about VVT comment.
www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837
the actual belhousing is different , because the fwd is part of the trans , and other isnt because of the rwd trans
but the bolt pattern is the same on the block , so you can swap 1 motor to the other
also you can use the vvt head with out doing anything for the vvt , the cams will just stay in 1 position , and not move
as far as the 2.2 idi set up it should work on the 2.4 , just not sure on how to bolt it down
NJHK (The JBO Negro) wrote:Quote:
Compression ratio doesn't make a big difference in power output, I thought it was more than this calculator would indicate, but still not a 10-15hp difference for .5 points, especially on a 4 cylinder making under 200hp.
First of all...that made me speechless for a second...
If compression ratio didn't make much of a difference or like you said, 2 HP, than why do car manufacturers have motors that come in different compression ratios? Why didn't GM leave the ECOTECs all in 10:1 compression? There is more to rating compression and power output than putting numbers into a calculator.
Since the blocks are about the same, what made the power jump from 140 HP to 170+ HP? Displacement only does so much and I bet because of the VVT, they had lost low end power so increasing the displacement brought some back. The VVT is mainly there for gas mileage more so than power. If compression does make a difference...it didn't every car would have the same compression.
I'm not so sure what's so hard to comprehend here, I provided a calculator that lets you see the effect compression ratio has on power output for an otherwise unchanged engine, it shows the effects are the next best thing to negligible. If you disagree with this, please post examples of how changes in compression ratio on an otherwise identical engine does make a big change in power output. I'm sure I can dig up some examples of how a change in displacement makes a big difference, take a look at the 60 degree V6 family (2.8, 3.1, 3.4, etc).
Quote:
As far as why this would be worth it, I'm starting with a 2.4TC, changing to the eco would open up alot of aftermarket support, and a beefier bottom end. My engine has 115,000kms on it already, if I want to boost I'm looking at a rebuild with forged internals if I want it to be worthwhile, or a swap of this nature, each has it's merits.
VVT is only as good as you can manipulate it. Currently, there is barely any 2.4 ECOTEC specific parts and I'm betting it will be a while before you see anything as far as computer programs to manipulate the VVT. If you were looking for a good boost motor, you should have gone with the 2.0 ECOTEC...9:1 compression and has the ability to handle revs like nothing. That's my opinion though.
Vvt-i is designed to enchance both low and high end power, with no sacrifice on either end, so you're off there. You may be right about the 2.0 or 2.2 ecotecs being better for boost, but find me a new one at this price.
15.3 @ 89.97mph, 14's on the way?
[quote=97cavie24ls(JDM&00s/c sedans™)]the actual belhousing is different , because the fwd is part of the trans , and other isnt because of the rwd trans
but the bolt pattern is the same on the block , so you can swap 1 motor to the other
also you can use the vvt head with out doing anything for the vvt , the cams will just stay in 1 position , and not move
as far as the 2.2 idi set up it should work on the 2.4 , just not sure on how to bolt it down
Thanks for clearing up the tranny issue. As for the cams, it would be a shame to have the vvti and not use it, but whatever gets the job done.
15.3 @ 89.97mph, 14's on the way?
Quote:
I'm not so sure what's so hard to comprehend here, I provided a calculator that lets you see the effect compression ratio has on power output for an otherwise unchanged engine, it shows the effects are the next best thing to negligible. If you disagree with this, please post examples of how changes in compression ratio on an otherwise identical engine does make a big change in power output. I'm sure I can dig up some examples of how a change in displacement makes a big difference, take a look at the 60 degree V6 family (2.8, 3.1, 3.4, etc).
Quote:
Also note that there is no guarantee that this formulism works for all (or even most) cases
from your happy little calculator
all it asks for is compression ratio and horsepower
it doesnt ask for bore, stroke, cam profile, etc.
its like bench racing
"oh this intake will add 14 horsepower and ill lose .2 seconds in the quarter!"
Quote:
Also note that there is no guarantee that this formulism works for all (or even most) cases
from your happy little calculator
all it asks for is compression ratio and horsepower
it doesnt ask for bore, stroke, cam profile, etc.
its like bench racing
"oh this intake will add 14 horsepower and ill lose .2 seconds in the quarter!"
The whole point of this calculator is to see what effect a change in compression ratio has on power output, ALL OTHER FACTORS REMAINING CONSTANT! Geez! My happy little calculator was the result of 5 seconds worth of searching on google and was never meant to provide anything more than an idea of what kind of effect compression ratio has on power output, all other things remaining constant. I know I'm repeating my self here, but the point seems ot have been lost of some people. If you don't agree with it, please provide proof to counter it to go along with your serving of BS.
15.3 @ 89.97mph, 14's on the way?
Quote:
I'm not so sure what's so hard to comprehend here, I provided a calculator that lets you see the effect compression ratio has on power output for an otherwise unchanged engine, it shows the effects are the next best thing to negligible. If you disagree with this, please post examples of how changes in compression ratio on an otherwise identical engine does make a big change in power output. I'm sure I can dig up some examples of how a change in displacement makes a big difference, take a look at the 60 degree V6 family (2.8, 3.1, 3.4, etc).
Honestly, I don't even care that much to even attempt to try and prove you wrong.
Quote:
Vvt-i is designed to enchance both low and high end power, with no sacrifice on either end, so you're off there. You may be right about the 2.0 or 2.2 ecotecs being better for boost, but find me a new one at this price.
15.3 @ 89.97mph, 14's on the way?
Where did I state in that quote that it would only suite one end of a powerband?
Overall, if you want to do this swap because it's cheaper than buying a 2.0 motor which you know would be better for your boost project, than go ahead...it's your money and your car.
www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837
You guys should really clarify what your talking about. Static or dynamic compression ratio?
Like someone said before, static means almost nothing. I could have a 13:1 static compression ratio and still run pump gas if my cam duration was giant. Sure it would run like ass but thats not the point.
If the motor stays the same in all respects, then yes changing the static compression ratio will not have a huge effect on power. But only dummies change compression ratio and don't mess with the cam's at least somewhat. I am sure GM messed with cam issues if they uped the static comp. ratio a little. Maybe the VVT fixed it for them.
The only reason VVT is used in engines is to flatten the torque curve. A certain cam is only effectively making the best power in a narrow power band. Allowing the cam's to take on more than one profile, the engine can effectively make good torque through a larger rpm ranger, thus increasing the hp in more than on spot.
I love VVT if it is done well and the only car I have driven that has a smooth VVT system is in the Porsche engines. Honda's VTEC is nice, but it is like getting smacked in the back of the head with a bowling ball when the cam profiles change. It is rough and violent. They got better at smoothing it out in the later model' but damn, I remember when the NSX first came out wiht the VTEC, once you hit 4k, watch out cause the motor gets angry and tries to kick its way outta the rear.
I think the ECOtec VVT is way premature...and I wasn't impressed by it to say the least. It didn't really change the powerband all that much. But I guess its one of GM's first attempts at trying it so it can only get better.
If I were going to swap a VVT ECOtec into my car, I would wait for at least two or three years when they start to do both the intake and exhaust. Just my opinion.
1988 Pontiac Fiero, engine transplant underway.
2004 ECOtec, built and boosted
Hunter wrote:If I were going to swap a VVT ECOtec into my car, I would wait for at least two or three years when they start to do both the intake and exhaust. Just my opinion.
Defenitley agree. I think people are getting happy walletts cause they see that there is Variable Valve Timing available to them but I bet most of them haven't even driven a vehicle with the 2.4 VVT in it.
www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837
Go test drive the Solstice, dealers are happy to try and sell them. You will notice its not much different or exciting than a normal ecotec, except it does have a nice power increase that you can get from bolt ons prolly.
1988 Pontiac Fiero, engine transplant underway.
2004 ECOtec, built and boosted
hunter , your info is way , i mean WAY over the heads of 90% of the guy here , LOL
but your info is why my 68 elco runs on 87 , and has 10.5 to 1 , gotta love a lopey idle
TJ, I hate to be a bother, but can you tell for sure that the 2.4 and 2.2 ecotecs are the same block? If they are then they will share the same bolt patterns and mount points. The reason I ask is they make a v6 ecotec that obviously does not share the same block, and many people here have said the 2.4 was a different block.
enough bitching.....
I only want one because its a 2.4.........
SPD RCR Z -
'02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT -
'04 GTO 305whp
W41 BOI -
'78 Buick Opel Isuzu W41 Swap
