Im trying to replace the motor in my 98 cavalier z24 with the ld9 2.4. I have come across one for $400 bucks that the guy will guarantee for me,But im not entirelly sure it will work. He says its out of a 9 buick skyhawk or skylark and claims its the high output model. Ive looked at the motor and all seems the same except where my power steering pump mounts on the cam tower there is just a pulley on the ho motor,is this ok? Also when he first pulled the tarp back off the motor I thought the thing had a big ass header on it,turns out it was actually the intake manifold,this is way diffrent then mine as my throttle body mounts on top of my intake,and this motor has the throttle body on the very end of the manifold(it really looks like the collector on the end of the header)Can I still use this motor?which manifold should I use,if I can use the motor?Which throttle body? Please Help im supposed to buy this motor tonight THANKS
that sounds like a 2.3 Quad 4....NOT a 2.4 Twin Cam....so no you cant use it unless you plan to swap over the computer and other essentials. What does the IDI cover say? Does it say Quad 4 High Output or just Quad 4?
GMR has got nothing on this
you can and you cant...like tuner said your pcm wont really run it..UNLESS you got a 95 Z pcm...if you got the pcm,and bought the engine, itll bolt right up in your Z..and IF that IS a real HO quad it makes 180hp stock..so im sure youd like it more than your old twin cam....problem is the old skylark never came with an HO quad...they all came with the low output version..theres a couple ways to tell since reading the idi cover can be decieving...1 the crank pulley will be smaller(i forget the diameter) 2 the collector on the exhaust manifold should measure 2" inner diameter and you can also tell by looking at the intake manifold..the thing you thought was a header...if it looks pretty level accross the bottom its an HO..if it has a drastic reduction in size around the middle then its the LO ...a pic sure would help.......its gonna be your choice on this one...if you have a 5speed and it IS an HOquad i would suggest getting it..since you would only need the 95 pcm and harness to make it work and youd have a much stronger engine...if its an LO i wouldnt even bother since they didnt make any more than your twin cam did
yeah I bet its the LO quad
GMR has got nothing on this
hands over feet better then a LD9 in stock form.....
can be made to work, with a little of "out of the box" thinking.
I would do it.
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
Seen them do a build-up guide on it in Hot Rod Magazine, of all places. I think others here know of that guide & followed it to make a 2.6L Quad4 using the Twin-Cam 2.4's head & crank with the 2.3's block & pistons. Don't ask me about the rods 'cuz I don't remember. Still, I wonder what can be gained outta using the 2.4's head on the HO?
Go beyond the "bolt-on".
Nickelin Dimer wrote:Still, I wonder what can be gained outta using the 2.4's head on the HO?
The answer: jack @!#$. The 2.4 head sucks balls in comparison to the 086 or the 753 true H.O. heads.
....they were the first and second quad-4 heads... there is NO SUCH THING as a "HO" head......
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
Sorry... I was thinking how the 2.4 had a smaller chamber, and that would lead to an increase in compression. But, I guess it's like fitting Ford 260 heads on a 351W (Like a friend did)... Lots of compression with good flame-front travel, but too small of valves & ports (Even with porting) to allow it to breathe properly.
Go beyond the "bolt-on".
Thanks for stating that out IN RANDOM capital letters to add emphasis to your superiority Chris.
I notice this is a thing that GM employees tend to do when posting on forums. Is that like something they instill in you in initial training?
I'm an EX GM employee...... I'll have to go back over all my posts and see if I'm GUILTY of that as WELL!!!
SPD RCR Z -
'02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT -
'04 GTO 305whp
W41 BOI -
'78 Buick Opel Isuzu W41 Swap
KFLO wrote:Thanks for stating that out IN RANDOM capital letters to add emphasis to your superiority Chris.
I notice this is a thing that GM employees tend to do when posting on forums. Is that like something they instill in you in initial training?
No, it was something i learned when you were getting drunk at some collage party. Teaching others.
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
A couple of my good f;0riends 1 is a former GM'r, the other a current, both CAP out their points in their posts. Not knocking you guys at all though, because A your smart as @!#$ and build awesome cars, and B Midwest love.
Otherwise though more on topic, I know they didn't use those heads exclusively on HOs. I should have stated that better, and the college party thing isn't my game so much. I'm usually in the garage when the parties are happening.
WOW..thats REALLY weird..u just made me realize do the caps thing TOO...thats a REALLY good observation lol
and chris i think he was talking about the 2.4 head in comparison to the quad head being "TRUE HO"
^AGREED.....but I would feel better saying it being the "TRUE QUAD HEAD"
But I wanna know what the alterations or change from an 086 and a 753?
GMR has got nothing on this
from what ive seen the ports get smaller..i was under the impression that the valves got smaller..but im not sure now
That is above and beyond my knowledge level. 086 is the older one, and more prone to cracking, but also more prone to making bigger power. I'd just guess better shaping of intake and exhaust ports, perhaps as well as combustion chambers. Or poorer depending how you view the cracking/headgasket issues that they can have when not given proper care.
