Im just curious which one you guys think Is a better motor, for example If you had an HO and a 2.4 with 086 head, HO cams, comparable compression, same intake and tb, oil pump conversion. longer stroke=more tourqe, less stroke larger bore=higher rpms and HP. So which is better? How much difference does .1 L make?

Syntar wrote:So which is better? How much difference does .1 L make?

I can't imagine much, but like you said, it is a trade off...Low end vs. Top end.

However, My Hybrid, with only secret cams and the 4 speed auto, pulls really hard from 3500 straight through redline... most likely a result of the 3K stall Torque converter.


-

"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.

decisions decisions......wonder which is more cost effective as far as the build goes. I've heard about HOs having cooling issues any input there?

depends on which type of 2.3...

A W-41 or a HO 2.3 from seeing a few people on this site, can't be touched by the 2.4 LD9. I'm thinking of a certain person right now...he'll be in here shortly he can explain better than I can.

Quote:

A W-41 or a HO 2.3 from seeing a few people on this site, can't be touched by the 2.4 LD9. I'm thinking of a certain person right now...he'll be in here shortly he can explain better than I can.

well...hes not really asking which engine is better( at least that isnt what the question looks like)
it looks like hes comparing a stock quad to a hybrid twin cam...in which case your talking about a 500-100$ stock junk yard engine to 500-5,000$ build on a twin cam...is it better reliability? better performance potential? cheaper to rebuild? if your gonna take a twin cam and do all that to it i say simply pull the whole motor out and put the 2.3 in there..easier and cheaper

The LD9's got the displacement, throw the best parts of the Q4HO(086 & cams) on the LD9 and you got a winner. Best from both put together is better than either one by themselves. By themselves the 2.3 is better for a performance build and reliability IMO, no balance shafts or @!#$ty oil pump. Depending on how it goes, another way to go is put the 2.4 crank in the 2.3 and get a 2.6l, but that build is still up in the air.

wat about a 95 2.3 LO and 98 LD9.....which would see better numbers built?...im asking cause i have an LO motor in my basement and am debating pulling it apart and building it up....once built it would see 8 psi on a 60 trim....or i can build my current motor (98 LD9)


you scratch my ride IMA EAT YO CHILDREN

Quote:

wat about a 95 2.3 LO and 98 LD9

theres not much difference between the two...both have balance shafts..both make comparable power in stock form...if you rebuild the 95 id suggest even changing all the internals including crank.....so id almost say go with the ld9...but the 2.3 will rev higher so might be better for your boost application....imo

BOO2point4STED wrote:wat about a 95 2.3 LO and 98 LD9.....which would see better numbers built?...im asking cause i have an LO motor in my basement and am debating pulling it apart and building it up....once built it would see 8 psi on a 60 trim....or i can build my current motor (98 LD9)

No offense, but building the 95' motor is the most worthless endeavor. It would cost the same and take just as much work to build it up as it would the 2.4L. Sell it and get a 90-94 LO short block or a 90-92 HO/ w-41 long block.

Miles Prower (Formerly Nari) wrote:depends on which type of 2.3...

A W-41 or a HO 2.3 from seeing a few people on this site, can't be touched by the 2.4 LD9. I'm thinking of a certain person right now...he'll be in here shortly he can explain better than I can.

Gilles doesn't have anywhere near a stock w-41. To my understanding, Karo is using an LD9 block, and he is almost a full second ahead of everyone else NA in the 1/4 mile.

With the exception of the intake cam issues and reprogramming the ECU, the 2.3L HO and w-41 are essentially a drop in 180+ HP, for relatively cheap.
.
.
.
.
I have said this before, but I guess I'll say it again...If I were to do it all over again, I probably would have gone the 2.6L stroker route, regardless of the problems Scott has faced so far. It would probably be cheaper and require less work


-

"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.

well i was just gonna see if it was worth it...since the motor is just sitting in my basement right now with a spun bearing....but thnx...i think ill stick to the LD9


you scratch my ride IMA EAT YO CHILDREN

and if i were to rebuild it it would have been all new internals....with 8.5:1 rods and 1mm oversized pistons with a 5 angle port and a honed and sleevd block.....would this be better on the LO or LD9 in your guys opinion?


you scratch my ride IMA EAT YO CHILDREN

with 8.5:1PISTONS and 1mm oversized RODS lmao


you scratch my ride IMA EAT YO CHILDREN

The 95 2.3 and the Ld9 are the same engine in a way. They have both the same parts but .1L difference. If I had to build one, I'd build the Ld9.

1mm oversized rods??????

Scott's porblem with the stroker are most likely because of poor service and knowledge from the company who build it.

A 2.4 built with the 2.3 parts and a good builder will get you awsome result. Karo was using everything from a 2.4 except the cams. If you have the money to do the same thing as Karo's engine, you have the money to get a 2.3 running the same Hp. The 2.3 has ALOT of parts available but you need to know where. Mantapart has all the parts you want but I would go down there to get them. The 2.3 has Titanium rods available (at 1200$ a set IIRC) witch are light weight and strong. Light flywheel and crank. Forged crank, ..........

I own both engines, I have a built 2.3 and it's mostly a personnal choice. Both engines are good. The 2.3 is cheaper to build since you don't need to change the oil pump, crank, ..........

Once the stroker is put on the dyno and get better result than the ones I saw before than it will be worth it. The dyno number *** gave me were not impressive for a 2.6. An increase of 30hp for 3k was ridiculous.

For the record, my 2.3 is a W41 but with Oldsmobile rocket parts. .430" 224* cams, 12:1 compression, Rocket part Ecm, ........


Gilles
2.3 Ho

*** = RSM?

lol let me try again 8.5:1PISTONS and 1mm oversized Valves lol


you scratch my ride IMA EAT YO CHILDREN

Quote:

*** = RSM?

if you dont know who *** is then you havnt been keeping up with the stroker build...if thats the case..then your gonna have to guess because i refuse to mention that name anymore just to keep people from seeking them out for anything

^haha I understand many peoples frustration with them which is why I've never and will never deal with them. But you'll never stop ignorance, theres a reason why $20.00 coils for cavs still sell on ebay!

Thanks for the input, I've been pondering the idea of a 2.3 HO or a hybrid ld9 for a while now and havn't been able to decide which I wanted to do. But the more and more i read the responces that are given the more and more Im leaning towards the 2.3 simply due to the fact it will probably be cheaper. And if i should come into more money and could do the hybrid I think Im convinced 2.6 would be a better plan. If im not mistaken you get the 2.3 block machined for the 2.4 crank and relocate the CPS, where as with the 2.3 oil pump conversion for the ld9 you sould need to get machining done also. The rest of the motor is basically the same, custom pistons, better rods, head etc. so price wise they are probably similar I would think.

As for the 95 2.3 vs. the ld9 I say scrap it, ld9 all the way, It has every thing the people going to the 2.3 want to escape.

Either hybrid will end up costing about the same, both need machining. Yes, straight motor the 2.3 would be a better build is you live close to mantapart to go and pick up your parts :-)
If not, the 2.4 might be a better idea, but its actually really hard to get cheap cams and things without using 2.3 parts which then makes it a hybrid build and if its not a hybrid build then you got a crappy oil pump. 2.3 ftw if you dont mind wondering if you've been ripped off everytime you order parts. I know there are other sources other than mantapart for rods, pistons, ect. but for some serious applications there isn't. IMHO a 2.4 hybrid right now is the way to go, 2.6 hybrid will be under close eye very soon.

Dont mean to thread jack but has anyone got a 2.4 hybrid to run w/ that 11.?:1 compression ratio. Well I know a guy who got one to run but he couldnt drive it b/c of detonation. So I guess my question is has anyone got 1 to reliably?

^ he must have sucked at tuning or didn't tune it at all. It can easily be done.

IMO the 2.3 HO is better in almost every feasible way.. BUT it depends what you wanna get out of your engine. with low expectations (a boosted 200 or so), a swap is useless. once you plan higher than 300 HP, I'd say swapping to a quad4 base would be a better idea. GTU block and forged crank.. your seeing where this is going. the 2.3 STILL has better aftermarket support out of the box. it takes LOTS of money to get out of a 2.4 what can be had for a couple hundred in a junk yard motor.



Sven you totally quarterloafed your computer..

and yes, the 95 2.3 is the worst of both worlds..



Sven you totally quarterloafed your computer..

I hear that...I live near a pull it yourself junk yard. Any engine is $150 less accessories but they are cheap too. There is a large abundance of 2.3s there just gotta wait for a HO to come around which shouldnt take too long.

another question.....i kno the HO jumps up the compression of the motor....now what if i built the 2.3 LO head and just used the head...would my compression jump up like the HO?....im thinking bout doing a full 5 angle port....all new valves and internals then getting the pistons and rods......so then i can still drive my car and ill just get it all installed at once....




you scratch my ride IMA EAT YO CHILDREN