Is the ecotec a step up in performance from the quads?
stock, no, but you can make anything fast
2001 Olds Alero (LD9)
650 whp / 543 ft-lb
@turboalero
search, this has been gone over time and time again and there is no definitive answer, its all person preference. Personally I would much rather go with an Eco
I think you know the answer. Eco people are going to say Eco. Quad people are going to say......you guessed it.
I'm a Quad guy (well, LD9... but w/e), and I would say that the ecos are definitely not a step up, but they do have more aftermarket support, and I think they're lighter (being aluminum block vs. iron), but an Iron block is usually stronger, so it can take more sh*t (like boost and n2o) it depends on what you want out of the engine, what you plan to do with it.
LD9 F23 FTW!!
I love my eco, but I definately have to give the quad 4's a hand, them suckers push out 180+ stock on the HO models if you can find them... pretty impressive =D
http://www.motortopia.com/cavyfreak442/cars
Best ET to Date: 14.251 @ 98.51 mph. 13's or Bust Baby!
Vitamin E (AKA Eddie) wrote:I think you know the answer. Eco people are going to say Eco. Quad people are going to say......you guessed it.
not me..04 cav ls sport here, and overall i think id rather have a LD-9. my car is basically just a daily driver/commuter with mild mods, and i know id be making better power, and be faster overall with the LD-9.
however my eco does pretty good all things considered, and has held its own well with vehicles i thought would eat me, and has had 0 reliablilty issues over its 95,000 mile (and countiing) life, so i wont complain.
_________________________________________________________________
Looking for something new? How about an off topic forum where you can truly express your opinions without interference of mods or admins?
Join verbalwarfare.com
http://www.verbalwarfare.com/forum.php?referrerid=86
I would have agreed with the iron vs aluminum statement until I read how much hp a 2.2 Ecotec with 80% original parts can dish out.
The Ecotecs are pretty bulletproof motors. GM torture tested many 2.2 Ecotecs by having flushed running motors with cold water over 1000 times and the block did not break.
The wife's 2.2 Ecotec has 80k miles and never has has a repair needed, and I hear they can get import like longevity in stock form.
Supposedly the new 07s are made even more durable.
I bet many pre-Ecotec motor Cavs and Sunfires have many more miles and have had nothing but reliability too, but since I do not own one, I can't comment.
I hear the 190 hp quads rule the freeway, but the low end was pretty miserable. I absolutely loved the fact that a 4 banger naturally aspirated could have an output of 190 hp and really loved seeing Fieros with Quad 4 swaps. But the new Ecotecs seem to have the same good up and go at any gear and they really seem to love bolt-ons!
I am very happy with the Ecotecs, and is why I bought an 07 Cobalt LS 2 door in Rally Yellow because I was so impressed by the wife's 03 Sunfire and how it gets an average of 30mpg and a max of 37mpg plus the up and go it has with just a drop in K&N, 2 1/4 full exhaust with a 2 1/4 cat and a 2 1/2 resonator.
Once they figure out the GM Supercharger reflash, I am in for one on the Sunfire.
The Cobalt LS will get one way in the future, I am keeping it stock for now.
ibtl
eco vs 2.4 is never ending.
(eco ftmfw btw
)
go into any local garage or repair shop and ask those guys what they think about older quad 4 motors and the ld9, i bet they all have some "choice" things to say about them.
i put an eco in a 2ndgen, nuff said right there.
watch for flying sparks!!!
it doesnt really matter how much power a quad makes because you can never keep them running something is always breaking
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
Liquidplamsa wrote:go into any local garage or repair shop and ask those guys what they think about older quad 4 motors and the ld9, i bet they all have some "choice" things to say about them.
im sure that has as much to do with the way they are built as the reliability. the cam housing set-up is particularly dumb IMO.
and as far as eco reliability..now over 95,000 miles without a single breakdown or failure. and i dodnt baby it either, just keep it well maintained.
_________________________________________________________________
Looking for something new? How about an off topic forum where you can truly express your opinions without interference of mods or admins?
Join verbalwarfare.com
http://www.verbalwarfare.com/forum.php?referrerid=86
^^^lol. but for those of us with tighter budgets...
Quote:
I would have agreed with the iron vs aluminum statement until I read how much hp a 2.2 Ecotec with 80% original parts can dish out.
The Ecotecs are pretty bulletproof motors.
I've heard this too, but most of the real powerhouse engines have iron blocks: the Mitsu. 4G63t, Toyota 2JZ-GTE, Nissan RB26-DETT, ect. there are plenty of powerhouse aluminum-block engines as well, but most of them have much more displacement than the ones I just listed, or have ductile-iron sleeves pressed into the cylinders, which has its own risks. I'd rather go with iron.
Quote:
go into any local garage or repair shop and ask those guys what they think about older quad 4 motors and the ld9, i bet they all have some "choice" things to say about them.
I've also talked to former GM techs at work (now Toyota techs...) they say that the quads had "ISSUES", like a water pump weep-hole that drains into the oil pan and destroys the bearings (or something like that, it's getting late and I don't remember exactly)
Quote:
the cam housing set-up is particularly dumb IMO.
I agree.
LD9 F23 FTW!!
