HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR 3.8 - Performance Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR 3.8
Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:46 PM
I BOUGHT A 1996 CAVALIER AND WANT TO FIX UP THE ENGINE BUT FIRST WHAT ENGINE DO I NEED? USE THE 2.2 OR GO OUT AND SWAP INTO A 2.4L IS IT WORTH THE HASSLE TO PUT THE 2.4L IN. I HAVE A FRIEND AND HE SAYS TO PUT A 3.8 SUPERCHARGER IN. I WAS LIKE. A LOT OF WORK. I THINK. ANY IDEA'S

Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:58 PM
Dyle, it's really up to you.

The amount of money your spending on swapping a motor into your car, you can boost your 2.2 OHV for more power than a stock 2.4 motor.

If you feel that a 2.4 motor platform is what you still want to do and you have the money for it, go for it. The hard part about these swaps is finding a 2.4 motor with low mileage (less likely to have any issues).

Swapping a 3800 S/C motor is alot of work and a good amount of fabricating...good luck to your friend.

Overall, it comes down to what you feel that you want to do but you can make power out of your OHV motor if you construct it correctly.



www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837

Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:18 PM
Thanks. It seems like there are alot of more parts for a 2.4 litter. seem like the parts are cheaper on Ebay as well.. Thanks for the tip.. I might get my hands on a 1996 cavalier that has a 2.4 litter in it with everything.. then what would I do with the car? it's a four door. mine is a 2 door..
Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:23 PM
one more thing.. can someone tell me what the horse power and difference between ectoc? and ect? Hope I got the letters right.. I do know that mine is 120 HP and the 2.4l is 150HP stock. does the new engines in 2000 have more HP?
Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Tuesday, August 23, 2005 11:04 PM
new engines in 2000?

third gen cavis came with these engines

95 z24 = 2.3l quad 4
96-mid02 z24 = 2.4l ld9
95-97 base = 2.2l ohv
98-02 base = 2200 ohv
late 02 z24/ls sport = 2.2l eco
03+ all = 2.2l eco

the 2.3l came with ?150hp?
the 2.4l came with 150hp
the 2.2l came with 115hp
the 2200 came with 120hp
the 2.2l eco came with 140hp




5 YEAR ANNIVERSARY FREEBIE GIVEAWAY - CLICK HERE TO ENTER
What you know about Street Racing anyways? Only what Fast & Furious taught us....
SO EVERYTHING!
Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:09 AM
3.8L

There is no replacement for displacement!


Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 4:25 AM
BoltZ22 wrote:new engines in 2000?

third gen cavis came with these engines

95 z24 = 2.3l quad 4
96-mid02 z24 = 2.4l ld9
95-97 base = 2.2l ohv
98-02 base = 2200 ohv
late 02 z24/ls sport = 2.2l eco
03+ all = 2.2l eco

the 2.2l came with 115hp
the 2200 came with 120hp


Wrong on the last 2.2s

the 95-97 2.2L OHV came with 120 Hp and 135 Ft LB Torque
the 98-02 2200 OHV came with 115 Hp and 140 Ft LB Torque.
Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:29 AM
Extream 4door wrote:3.8L

There is no replacement for displacement!


Usually this thought is correct but a mildly modified NA eco 2.2L will outperform the Aging and boosted 3800 sc.




“Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true."
Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:53 AM
Why not swap an HO quad 4 engine or a w41 engine?
Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:10 AM
...if you can get the 4 door z24, get the 4 door z24. ID LOVE A FOUR DOOR with a quicker engine. It'd be a nice sleeper effect as well...maybe a small, wings west body kit...quiet looking/sounding muffler...no tail..id go for that.







...don't hate!.. respect people that have talent, even if it is in something you don't like or understand.
Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:31 PM
LMR ( the uninsultable) wrote:
Extream 4door wrote:3.8L

There is no replacement for displacement!


Usually this thought is correct but a mildly modified NA eco 2.2L will outperform the Aging and boosted 3800 sc.



Come on...I don't post on here a lot but this is wrong!

2.2 l eco @ 140 hp stock vs. 3800 SC @ 260 hp stock

I think we have a winner and it is not the eco...you would have to do a lot of modding to get an 2.2 l eco to 260 hp.

And they are available as a crate engine and in 2004 Pontiac.




Mr. Andresen AKA Erik
Representing 2nd Gens...'89 Cavalier Z24

Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:20 PM
Erik Andresen wrote:
LMR ( the uninsultable) wrote:
Extream 4door wrote:3.8L

There is no replacement for displacement!


Usually this thought is correct but a mildly modified NA eco 2.2L will outperform the Aging and boosted 3800 sc.



Come on...I don't post on here a lot but this is wrong!

2.2 l eco @ 140 hp stock vs. 3800 SC @ 260 hp stock

I think we have a winner and it is not the eco...you would have to do a lot of modding to get an 2.2 l eco to 260 hp.

And they are available as a crate engine and in 2004 Pontiac.


yeah, but for someone asking "what engine should i put in"

they prob dont have the knowledge to cram in a 3800SC....

as it stands only 3-4 people have done it so far....


and those were people who know what they are doing...


and considering all the parts out for the ecotec, you dont exactly need 260HP, especially if the car is lighter...

perhaps its you that was wrong since you didnt even factor in power to weight ratios?



Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:26 PM
LMR ( the uninsultable) wrote:
Extream 4door wrote:3.8L

There is no replacement for displacement!


Usually this thought is correct but a mildly modified NA eco 2.2L will outperform the Aging and boosted 3800 sc.


what did you smoke ? the 3.8sc in a cavi yields 12's in the 1/4. There is not a single HIGHLY MODIFIED n/a ecotec that runs that.



15.891 @ 88 mph stock, still getting @!#$ty launches...
Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:31 PM
Chris D wrote:
BoltZ22 wrote:new engines in 2000?

third gen cavis came with these engines

95 z24 = 2.3l quad 4
96-mid02 z24 = 2.4l ld9
95-97 base = 2.2l ohv
98-02 base = 2200 ohv
late 02 z24/ls sport = 2.2l eco
03+ all = 2.2l eco

the 2.2l came with 115hp
the 2200 came with 120hp


Wrong on the last 2.2s

the 95-97 2.2L OHV came with 120 Hp and 135 Ft LB Torque
the 98-02 2200 OHV came with 115 Hp and 140 Ft LB Torque.


actually YOU are wrong here..

the 98-2002 2200sfi is 115 hp and 135tq http://www.ny-jbodies.org/library/engine/2200/2200.htm

the 95-97 one is 120hp and 130 tq


the differences between the years stemmed from the cam, head, rocker arm changes which basically took away 5 hp, but added 5 tq.....


update your info buckaroo





Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:34 PM
DanteMustDie wrote:
LMR ( the uninsultable) wrote:
Extream 4door wrote:3.8L

There is no replacement for displacement!


Usually this thought is correct but a mildly modified NA eco 2.2L will outperform the Aging and boosted 3800 sc.


what did you smoke ? the 3.8sc in a cavi yields 12's in the 1/4. There is not a single HIGHLY MODIFIED n/a ecotec that runs that.


considering the parts out there for the ecotec, and directly from GM at that, if a n/a 2.2 ohv can do it, i really wouldnt put it past a ecotec doing it.



Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:36 PM
I didn't say it was impossible, but that no one had done it. Plus I was more referring to the fact that he said a "mildly" modified eco.



15.891 @ 88 mph stock, still getting @!#$ty launches...
Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 4:42 PM
DanteMustDie wrote:I didn't say it was impossible, but that no one had done it. Plus I was more referring to the fact that he said a "mildly" modified eco.


i know this.... none have done it yet, but not many ever will, cheap crowd on the whole.

and mildly modified.... questionable. but weight is a factor as well. thats free, costs nothing. dont need it, take it out. thats what i was more or less thinking of...

15 second car stock, 130 on avg to wheel HP... full interior avg driver.

the jbodyperformance cams claim 176 whp...think that was with a port and polish, which is mild. fuel mods and a reflash could put it in the low 200, high 100;s whp wise...

with traction, good driver, i;d say it can be done.

easily.

but i get what you are saying on it hasnt been done yet.





Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:46 PM
cams and port and polish isn't mild in my book, that race head costs 3500 $ CAD. I guess what is mild depends on point of view.



15.891 @ 88 mph stock, still getting @!#$ty launches...
Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:55 PM
anything that can be done in less than 5-6 hours i usually consider mild.... or more or less anything that can be done within a working afternoon really.

dont need a race head. jbodyperformance has a head, or you can DIY. its not really all that hard to do.

most would consider a mild build something thats an upgrade from stock, but not extreme to where you have to change octane, upgrade injectors, etc...



Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:27 PM
The jbp Claims their cams increase hp to 176? ( I assume with new lifter as well) and a P &P yield 176 with nothing else?

http://registry.gmenthusiast.com/images/importkilla32/Bullit.JPG
Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:55 PM
Dam-it Muffins (Event) wrote:anything that can be done in less than 5-6 hours i usually consider mild.... or more or less anything that can be done within a working afternoon really.

dont need a race head. jbodyperformance has a head, or you can DIY. its not really all that hard to do.

most would consider a mild build something thats an upgrade from stock, but not extreme to where you have to change octane, upgrade injectors, etc...


seriously, you're not getting 50 whp from a port & polish and cams. the head you were talking about from jbp gives 178 hp to the FLYWHEEL, which is what, 155 or so the the wheels ? Plus guess what, that head comes with just about EVERYTHING changed in the head, not just your reg p&p.

I wouldn't consider changing the brains of the engine plus altering or changing every component in the head mild, and I'm sure most people wouldn't.

Also, you'll never make proper power with cams and headwork without the proper breather mods and fuel mods plus tuning. After all this, I COULD see 200 whp. And you can't do all this in an afternoon.

So you've got cams, all the bells and whistles you can find for the head, intake, header, tb, exhaust, fuel mods and tuning to reach 200 whp on an eco while staying n/a, and you call that mild ? Give me a break, and put some thought in your next reply. I'd really like you to show me a dyno of an eco or even any proof that you can get 50 whp from cams and a regular DIY p&p.

See ? Not mild.



15.891 @ 88 mph stock, still getting @!#$ty launches...

Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:32 PM
are you sure you wont get 50 hp from cams and p&p with replacing valves... of course this includes tuning.

are you even factoring in the fact that anyone can get custom grinds not just the stereotypical ones off the shelf? you never know. over stock, since american standards of computers are def strict, theres quite a bit to gain. look at any european or asian car in its land of origin. more power cause of less emissions restrictions.





Quote:

Also, you'll never make proper power with cams and headwork without the proper breather mods and fuel mods plus tuning. After all this, I COULD see 200 whp. And you can't do all this in an afternoon.


people install turbo setups over a weekend. for those who know what they are doing, adding boltons and a head and cams can be an evening job. theres been plenty of posts of people doing the secret cam swaps, running into problems, posting, getting help and finishing in a single afternoon.


no one has said you can get 50 hp from P&P alone. if so quote me.

nor simply cams alone. anyone who is gonna add cams and such will OBVIOUSLY be adding boltons or prob already has em.... so saying without breather mods, fuel mods, etc.... most will already have that, check anyones registry.


it should go without me even having to say that the head if you take it off, get more stuff done to it while its off such as valves, seats etc... but you dont have to go too far...

however, if you ever read the ecotec import fighter ordeal article

Quote:

It turns out a well-tuned stock 10:1 2.2-liter Ecotec in the above configuration actually develops 168 crankshaft hp


basically at 170..... thats simply from tuning...and STOCK.

so you mean to say with cams, small headwork, 200+ cant be achieved..... ???? tuning doesnt take but a few hours of time for most cars. especially mild setups...

we;re not talking complete overhaul of block, piston, computer change, cams that lope hard, etc..... thats up there....

stuff a shade tree mechanic can accomplish is pretty much mild in my view.



put it this way, tuning alone can net you near 170...

their setup up at jbodyperformance netted em close to 40hp...thats what the post said when that happened.

you can quite easily get over 200-210 crank, which goes with what i said in my above post if you remember that part

Quote:

fuel mods and a reflash could put it in the low 200, high 100;s whp wise...


so if its in the high 100;s to the wheels, and you have a light car, you can prob accomplish the task at hand, or come damn close..... lest you forget, HP numbers arent everything in racing as alot of people DO forget, weight (POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO), traction, torque are a few other important things.



i;ll repeat myself since it bears repeating....

easy to do, but not many will man up and step up and do it. its as simple as that.



Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:54 AM
Dam-it Muffins (Event) wrote:"no one has said you can get 50 hp from P&P alone. if so quote me"

No but you did say cams and p&p net 176 whp

"the jbodyperformance cams claim 176 whp...think that was with a port and polish, which is mild."


here you go. stock ecos dyno somewhere around 125 whp to 130. I'll let you make the calculations.

I did read the import fighter article. Now how do you think they tuned that eco ? They can play in the computer, that's why ! Until the HPTuners software is out, this is not something we can do !

Sorry, your stuff doesn't add up. And get realistic a bit, easy stuff is what most people can do, and if was that easy, they'd do it. There are a lot of knoledgeable people here that own an eco and have tried an n/a setup. Since the stuff you speak of is so easy and mild, some of them ought to have tried it, no ? I know you're not used to not being right on this site, but man, what you're saying is less and less mild with each of the posts you make.

Please read above paragraph 5 times before making your next reply.



15.891 @ 88 mph stock, still getting @!#$ty launches...
Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:45 AM
DanteMustDie wrote:
Dam-it Muffins (Event) wrote:"no one has said you can get 50 hp from P&P alone. if so quote me"


No but you did say cams and p&p net 176 whp

"the jbodyperformance cams claim 176 whp...think that was with a port and polish, which is mild."


ok so who in their right mings couldnt realize thats one example given? if anyone who uses their mellon they should realize thats one example. you can change cam specs, you can get more agressive ports and polishes. or do you just think theres only ONE way and specs for cams and p&p's.

so like said above, quote me where i said it, or simply quit trying to make other statements squeeze into what you NEVER read from me.



Quote:

here you go. stock ecos dyno somewhere around 125 whp to 130. I'll let you make the calculations.


no sh-T.... did you miss where i ALREADY said that or as usual, were you not reading or convieniently skipped over it?

here another quote for the blind:

Dam-it Muffins (Event) wrote:
DanteMustDie wrote:I didn't say it was impossible, but that no one had done it. Plus I was more referring to the fact that he said a "mildly" modified eco.


i know this.... none have done it yet, but not many ever will, cheap crowd on the whole.

and mildly modified.... questionable. but weight is a factor as well. thats free, costs nothing. dont need it, take it out. thats what i was more or less thinking of...

15 second car stock, 130 on avg to wheel HP... full interior avg driver.

the jbodyperformance cams claim 176 whp...think that was with a port and polish, which is mild. fuel mods and a reflash could put it in the low 200, high 100;s whp wise...


follow me instead of repeating stuff i ALREADY said. if i was wrong on their wheel HP, thats fine, but i am still being realistic in saying high 100;s can be achieved overall. and yes i;ve done the calculations factoring in 15% drivetrain loss. if you would like me to factor in an auto, let me know.




I did read the import fighter article. Now how do you think they tuned that eco ? They can play in the computer, that's why ! Until the HPTuners software is out, this is not something we can do !

Jbodyperformance.com does obd2 reflashes....for a while now.

Quote:

3rd Gen. News
JBP OBDII PCM Reflash

Perhaps one of the most awaited products for the 3rd generation jbody line. We now will flash your PCM for aftermarket camshafts and other performance mods. We also have the ability to tune your N/A, Nitrous or Forced Induction engine. A great solution to add power to your existing vehicle or to fix timing/ignition issues as a result of a cam swap. The modifications are now endless. We also allow to additional reflashes to be performed at no additional cost. Call us for percise details about this new and exciting branch of JBP! **Fully operational and Tested!**


you dont NEED the software if a place already does it.... where the hell have you been? granted the software you can do anytime you please. if someone wanted it done, it can be done NOW. http://www.jbodyperformance.com/new/newIndex.php its on the left side mid page...



Quote:

Sorry, your stuff doesn't add up. And get realistic a bit, easy stuff is what most people can do, and if was that easy, they'd do it. There are a lot of knoledgeable people here that own an eco and have tried an n/a setup. Since the stuff you speak of is so easy and mild, some of them ought to have tried it, no ? I know you're not used to not being right on this site, but man, what you're saying is less and less mild with each of the posts you make.

Please read above paragraph 5 times before making your next reply.


theres alot of people who have done N/A setups....are they running 13;s like bryon clements?

theres alot of people doing 2.4 n/a builds...are they running 13;s like karo, and 12;s on nitrous.

hell theres alot of people boosting ecotecs, are they running 12;s like suncavi did? on a stock engine? some of these people have built engines and are still in the 14;s....


just because there are alot of knowledgeable people doesnt mean everyone will get the same exact results.

theres a great bunch of athletes in the NFL, MLB, and NBA, but are there really a whole load of walter paytons, nolan ryans, and micheal jordans?

how about you be realistic for once. especially since above you said:

Quote:

Now how do you think they tuned that eco ? They can play in the computer, that's why ! Until the HPTuners software is out, this is not something we can do !
which is like saying we cant tune a car... even people using the Safc are getting some gains... but since you can get a reflash done......

it adds up...you just sit there and act like NO ONE can reflash a computer yet....update your info for once... it can be done. do your research. in your last post you were claiming you werent all that into performance as of this time cause you were concentrating elsewhere. that might be the reason you didnt know about the reflash, i dunno....

theres alot of knowledgeable people, but really, who here has done alot of weight reduction in addition to a mild n/a build. adding go parts doesnt directly relate to going fast. if you dont have the supporting combos, you can throw 300 hp in a car, but if its heavy like an f150, you;re gonna be far behind the crowd. speakers, subs, bodykits, wings, neons, interior extras.... unecessary.

who here has set out to make a purpose built track car... besides the last buildup we saw through karo? or something even close?

NOT MANY PEOPLE.... most people building these cars, have NOT done alot of weight reduction. as it stands most people are adding weight via body kits, interior pieces, wings etc.... look around the proof is in front of your eyes if you actually take the time to read it.


point being, i am saying it can be done. your sitting here saying it hasnt been done yet.


and use your brain...

Quote:

And get realistic a bit, easy stuff is what most people can do, and if was that easy, they'd do it. Since the stuff you speak of is so easy and mild, some of them ought to have tried it, no ?


that was just a really remedial statement.... theres alot of easy and mild things to do to any of these cars, but do many people do it...?????

hell as it stands we have people here who cant figure out how to install an intake, how to remove a TB, intake resonator etc....even with directions. but might work on cars for a living.


are those really hard to do NO... tedious yes, but not hard. but for many it is.

if you have the right tools and a decent manual you can do cams. its not hard. from someone who has helped another do it before and learned... its not really hard at all. have you done em? or are just just guessing because you cant see your cams, that it must be extremely difficult?


if you havent been paying attention to anything on here in the last 2 years. cams for a twin cam dual overhead engine, are relatively easier to change than going into the block of an OHV.... but only a few have even done cams.... out of all the people that post on here, and you can use the search button if you dont have a clue, are mostly new guys asking about intakes, exhaust, throttle body, and products that dont work.

one of the main thing about cams is simply alignment on reinstall. small mistakes can be costly. or frustrating.

and if you check the list.... im saying less and less is mild? i;m saying the same things are mild. ask any machine shop, until you get into some decent machine work of the block and changing the blocks internals to something radical, its pretty much mild. any engine shop will tell you the same. the valve train is still considered pretty much a mild endeavor.


lets see if you can read this time without repeating alot of the stuff i have ALREADY said...




Re: HAVE A2.2L CAVALIER. SHOULD I GO TO A 2.4L? OR
Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:54 AM
Quote:

but only a few have even done cams....


and before you yet again try and twist something.... only a few, relative to the many people here, overall.

many have done the secret cam swap, hence theres atleast 3-4 write ups alone, and plenty who have succeded in doing so.

and now theres a decent handful of ecos with crane, jbp, and custom ground cams, some from the gm blanks...



Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search