I have never driven a turbo J car, is there that much of a difference in power. I also have never driven a Z24 with a V6. Anyone that can compare, I would like to get opinions on how much more power there is.
I can tell you night and day from 1.8 to turbo 1.8. I remember racing a bunch of kids in a regular ohc/fi car with mine when I first got it. It was not even fair - and I was bone stock. Like 80 some horsepower to 150...
forgot to add, the SOUND of the tubo is the best part...
I will have to get out there and try one for comparison. I know when I swapped the motor on my blue Cav the increase in power was like night and day.
Don't get me wrong, it still needs more to keep up with today's cars. That is why I am modding it...
I can help here. Here is my resume of 1st gen driving experiences:
Owned an '85 Subird S/E turbo hatch w/ 3 speed auto from '87 to '91
Drove a new '86 Sunbird 1.8 non turbo 3 speed auto rental for a week when my sunbird was in for minor collision work
Street raced my '85 against a Z24 hatch- probably an '85 as I don't recall seeing a high mounted stop light on the Z24
Currently own an '86 Z24 hatch w/ 3 speed auto
I won't include numerous test drives of new J cars at dealerships since those were 30 minute hops.
The normally aspirated 1.8 was adequate (just) in power. Lacked immediacy if you needed to pass.
The 1.8 turbo:
Was definately Jeckel and Hyde. The same lackluster performance until you put it to the floor 1/2 way or more. The turbo kicked in and if you floored it, the car torque steered left about a foot. Rain wetted roads or snow was inviting a lane change. The stock Goodyear GT Eagles were good in dry weather for their day but had poor grip in wet or snow
I raced a mid 80's vintage Mazda RX-7 on an empty interstate. We were neck and neck to the point were the 85 MPH speedo (85 at 4:30 on the dial) was pointing straight down. Estimated 110 or so. I was topped out and he was pulling away. Perhaps he had a 4 or 5 speed. I'll never know as then my accelerator cable slipped out of the holder over the block and the car responded as if I took my foot off the pedal. An embarrasssing end.
The street race against the Z24, circa 1988, had him with an early lead but I was quickly catching up when we rand out of room at the end of the quarter. He was impressed and said few could keep pace with him.
Fast forward 23 years to the Z24:
Has better in traffic cut and thrust ability over the turbo, due to the immediate low end torque. The exhaust note is deeper and more satisfying. I can mash the throttle and (knock on wood for luck) and not fear anything breaking.
The Sunbird turbo never had the solid feel- it was as if everyting was strained to the limit. And indeed, the Sunbird was forever in the shop - turbo leak, head gasket lead, bad electronics, and rust already in the driver door welds at the bottom. I sold the Sunbord out of frustration w/ the breakdowns and getting screwed by thr dealership. But the Sunbird has significantly better suburban MPGs- 23/24 vs 19 on a good day w/ the Z24. And the turbo had that exciting wheelspin and torque steer that the Z24 has only a hint of.
Both handled the mostly the same. The turbo has lighter curb weight by 75 pounds or so and was a tad more nimble. The Z24s steering was/is sharper. Don't know why as you would think it would be the same, but it is. I recall test driving a new '86 Z24 and was stunned at how razor sharp the steering was.
Had it been more reliable, I'd take the turbo. But it wasn't, and the Z24 is the better weekend cruiser as a result.
(Quoting a past member)-"Never underestimate a First Gen"
John-
Great write up. I agree with everything above, maybe except the exhaust note. I like the burble of the 2.8, but my 1.8 sunbird sound is much better with the 2.5 catback and magnaflow now
Thanks for the insight John.
A buddy of mine had a 79 Mustang Cobra Turbo that I drove a lot.
It was dog and we replaced the turbo at about 50k miles. Traded it for a new 84 Z28 when the turbo smoked again (literally the turbo would blow smoke like a crop duster). It probably would have lasted a lot longer if we had synthetic oil back then. I too drove a few new Cavaliers back in the day, Had a 1 year old 4 spd Cav hatchback as my first company car and it was a dog. 2nd was a new 86 sedan and 3rd was a new 87 sedan (both autos) and they were pretty good until you put the A/C on. Best one was a new 90 Cav with a 5sp and 2.2 it was reliable and had some go, I drove this for work and put over 250k on it in 4 years. The worst was the new 94 Sunbird with a 2.0, it was a real dog and could not keep plug wires or paint on it. My wife also had the 84 Cav convert this whole time. I am thinking about another j body and was thinking about a turbo or Z24. Guess I will have to get out there and try some.
R e a l l y enjoyed the write up John Mac!! Pauls concurrence adds to authenticity!! I Love this forum!! :-)
Well, John, seems like your decision might be to Z, or not to Z....LoL
Just some thoughts from a plug nickel... :
I've got the 1.8 OHC non turbo and the 2.0 OHV - there isn't much difference between the 2.
I've read a good bit of the turbo threads and they (the turbo Brazil engines) are kinda of engineers engines. They are great for technical modifications and in the case of one owned by Tony Cerulle are a hot rod and a half. I'd hate to even guess the funds that Tony has plowed into his machine, but it would probably make me blush! I think Paul has been very busy on his as well. Lots of over boosting, re-computing, and reinforcing, seems like one leads to another. There is no doubt that they are capable of lots of modifications and returning a good bit of power for them. They are , however complicated designs. The heads are aluminum, they have stretch head bolts that have to be replaced every time you remove them. and most are 25 years old or older. I've read of a lot of head gasket issues. Tony mentioned problems with a common weakness in the #3 cylinder, don't remember of it was the rod or main. The owner of my local junkyard isn't very fond of them - claims he had 2 cams break on him....and they are an interference design with a belt. All modern interference engines are chain driven. Now my base Pontiac isn't turbocharged, but that engine isn't one that makes me sleep well at night, it isn't going to be as easy to fix if it goes down on me. Even the starter is a nightmare to change on these!! I'll change a water pump on the 2.0 OHV any day of the week.
The Z's on the otherhand are v-6's . Old school cast iron head, cast iron block, nothing exciting here, but I'd bet they are easier to keep up . Gas mileage is worse, but if you are just driving occasionally, it shouldn't matter. I'm betting they are not an interference design, although I don't have hard data on that. Timing chain, like on your convertibles. And since the engines are only 3 cylinders long, I bet there is better access to the front of the engine.
There is one other engine , but it is on the 3rd gen Z's and GT's and that is the LD-9 engine - descendant of the venerable Quad-4.
Like the Brazil engine, it is very complicated, DOHC 16valve 2.4 -4cyl. Aluminum Head , chain driven.Water pump is a nightmare, almost have to pull engine to get at it. However, it is rated at 150 Hp, non turbo. I had one of these for 4-5 months, just loved punching the throttle on it!! Around 30MPG. Very weak low end torque tho. I'd hate to guess what a turbo'd modded LD-9 would do, it certainly would be a wicked, wicked thing, tho.
Probably all the info here just clouded up your head more, if I did, I'm sorry. I'm glad I'm not in your shoes...LoL. You got 2 very nice convertibles to start with!! Where would one go from there?? I remember you had a very nice 1984 Cadillac Eldorado, maybe a V-6 Cimarron might be a thought...
I got curious and looked up the info on the J-body V-6 engines on wikipedia. Wanted to share it here. I condensed it mainly applicable to the J-bodies so it easier to digest. :
Here is link for everything -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_60-Degree_V6_engine#Generation_II
The General Motors 60° V6 family of engines began with the 1980 Chevrolet 2.8 L V6 and continues to be produced today (if one doesn't count a larger block casting with larger bore center and new cylinder heads). Its use in the X-body cars leads some to refer to it as the X engine.
It is a 60° vee block with pushrod heads, except for a single DOHC member, the LQ1. This engine family continues with the new GM High Value engine.
The transverse engines began the 60° family in 1980. Like the rest of the Generation I engines, they were updated in 1985 with larger main journals for durability, along with multi-point fuel injection or E2SE carb and OBD I. Production of the Generation I transverse engines ended in 1986.
LE2
The 2.8 L LE2 was the first version of the 60° engine. It was a transverse version produced from 1980 through 1986 for the A-Body and X-body cars. The standard ("X-code") engine for this line, it used a 2-barrel carburetor. Output was 115 hp (86 kW) for 1980 and '81 112 hp (84 kW) for 1982-86 and 135 lb·ft (183 N·m). Bore was 89 mm (3.5 in) and stroke was 76 mm (3.0 in).
LB6
The LB6 engine was introduced in 1985 to replace the original LE2. It used Multi-Port Fuel Injection and produced 130 horsepower.
Applications:
1986 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24, optional on RS.
1985–1986 Cadillac Cimarron
The second generation, still 2.8 liters, was introduced in 1987. It used aluminum heads with splayed valves and an aluminum front cover. It was produced exclusively for transverse, front-wheel drive use.
The next year, Chevrolet introduced a full-production long-stroke 3.1 L (3136 cc, 191 CID) version in the Pontiac 6000 STE AWD, thanks to an 89 mm (3.5 in) bore and 84 mm (3.3 in) stroke. It was produced simultaneously with the 2.8 L in various compact & midsized vehicles until 1990 when the 2.8 L was dropped. MPFI was added to both, and a full-production turbo version was available on the 3.1 L. An even higher displacement DOHC 3.4 L LQ1 was also developed and, eventually, the new GM High Value engine family followed. Production of OHV Generation II engines ended in 1994 after the introduction of the Generation III in 1993.
The 2.8 L 60° V6 was used in the following vehicles:
1987–1989 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24
LH0 The 3.1 L 60° V6
The LH0 ("T-code") was introduced in 1988 on the Pontiac 6000 STE AWD. It featured a more exotic (for the time) multi-port fuel injection. While not known for its high RPM power, the LH0 has strong low- and mid-range torque. The 3.1 L engine has retained an excellent reputation for reliability. It was produced until 1994 (1996 for Mexican market) and was exported in some models. This engine produced 135 hp (101 kW) and 180 lb·ft (244 N·m) of torque from 1988–1989, then upgraded to 140 hp (104 kW) at 4800 RPM and 185 lb·ft (251 N·m) of torque at 3600 RPM.
Uses:
1990–1994 Chevrolet Cavalier
1991–1994 Pontiac Sunbird
So it seems that the vast majority of these engines are aluminium headed, darned if I learned something new!! :-)
looks like a good idea Orlen, but for what I could get a complete Sunbird with a turbo for, it would be much easier to just buy it complete. The 84 Sunbird turbo that was for sale near me was in great shape and I looked at it. The only things that I didn't like was the oil leak and the auto trans. I should have driven it but I had already decided not to buy it and didn't want to waste the sellers time. It was owned by one of our members and didn't realize it until he posted shortly after it went up for sale. It really was a good buy for someone that wanted an automatic. The interior was like brand new and the top was new.
I've read a good bit of the turbo threads and they (the turbo Brazil engines) are kinda of engineers engines. They are great for technical modifications and in the case of one owned by Tony Cerulle are a hot rod and a half. I'd hate to even guess the funds that Tony has plowed into his machine, but it would probably make me blush!
Ha ha ha, if you knew what I had in my car you'd probably puke and have me committed!!! It's way more than the car will ever be worth I can assure you of that! I wanted to see what could be done with it so I spent money like a drunken sailor making it go faster. The car does have great sentimental value to me being in my family since new. It's also the only car I ever got into a magazine with which was quite an honor. I still could spend a helluva lot more on it but for now I'm happy where it is. It ran 15.8 new and was fast enough to beat my 87 442 which ran in the 16's. It would also do a nice burn out around a corner and got fantastic mileage
. At least I have some good stories to tell and can advise anyone else what to do with their cars to go fast cheaply.
Tony
1987 Sunbird GT turbo convert
Ported intake, Fiero 53 MM TB, 52 lb inj, ported and flowed head, tube header, Mitsu TD06, ARP rod
bolts/head studs, adj cam sprocket, 4" x 12" x 31" FMIC, Paxton AFPR, modified 125 trans/LSD
unit/3.42's, custom chip tuning, Alky Control Methanol injection
13.61 ET at 101.44 mph, 262 WHP/350WTQ
2009 Pontiac Solstice GXP roadster, 2.0 turbo w/GMPP exh, CAI and turbo upgrade, 290 hp/325 ft lbs
1969 Olds 442 convert
400 Eng, 200-4R trans, 3.73 posi, power everything, OAI
I agree , I had a 90 Cav coupe with the 2.2L 5 Spd that I bought new and put over 250k on. It was a fantastic motor/tranny combo with plenty of power and virtually no problems and at the time was even considering putting one into the blue 84 conv. The 2.8 in the Cimarron seems to have adequate power but I really have not pushed as it was not registered on my trip(s) around the neighborhood.
Hey Tony, good write up ! You appear to have achieved "legend" status with your engine mods. While you have taken a different approach than I did, we both are trying to obtain that fine line of "street" drivable power, longevity and helping to increase the national debt owed :>
I have, from the very beginning, built my car to run on ethanol based fuel(s), so I didn't have to worry about the corrosive side effects on normal production fuel systems. This also has given me much more latitude in the #'s of boost...compression ratio... and tuning curves of the engine. It's available locally, and for my occasional night adventures to play with the "kiddies" has proven to be a window into power, upon demand, that most gasoline burning combos could never-ever dream of.
Heard you had a turbo Regal (?) perhaps we might cross paths at one of the E/Coast Buick meets sometimes, if and when my racing schedule will permit.
Alan
I'd love to read any write ups about your modifications Alan since I'm sure they're very creative. If you have any links please send them along. I'm always looking to learn something!
Tony
1987 Sunbird GT turbo convert
Ported intake, Fiero 53 MM TB, 52 lb inj, ported and flowed head, tube header, Mitsu TD06, ARP rod
bolts/head studs, adj cam sprocket, 4" x 12" x 31" FMIC, Paxton AFPR, modified 125 trans/LSD
unit/3.42's, custom chip tuning, Alky Control Methanol injection
13.61 ET at 101.44 mph, 262 WHP/350WTQ
2009 Pontiac Solstice GXP roadster, 2.0 turbo w/GMPP exh, CAI and turbo upgrade, 290 hp/325 ft lbs
1969 Olds 442 convert
400 Eng, 200-4R trans, 3.73 posi, power everything, OAI
My thoughts are so short on this.I just like my 2.0 being that is what I know.Plus one advantage(I think I have) is the manual 4spd which is great on mpg.It will wind up to 60 with ease and seeing my shift light(yeah tells me when to do this to save gas) ha ha.Idk just like the 2.0 easy to work on (I think) more space than a v6 and done.
Tony, to sum up the info that you desire, here goes.
I don't do "write ups" about my R&D or vehicles, due to the following reasons. These sites are for consumption by the "general" interest of a particular marques owners. Some folks are after the visual impact...others are after endurance or minor street mods. Very few, if any are after all out total street performance. There are sites for just this type of racing information, and manufacturers are very helpful.
With that said, some will read a reply and think it applies to any/all vehicles of that type. They just grasp the parts list and go spend their hard earned money on useless, in their particular case, parts... end up with a pos running vehicle and give up entirely on the auto scene. That's not GOOD for the sport.
That's not what I have ever done or will subscribe to. My input is for constructive/instructive purposes when possible. Anyone who has ever asked a 'specific" question of me, I have always tried to supply the best possible answer/combination for their 'particular" application. Just ask Paul94Z28. After all i'm a racer, pure and simple, who will sometimes drive his vehicles on the street. So "if" you're looking for the "magic" combo to bolt onto your ride, don't use mine, because it's user specific only. Your combo couldn't begin to handle what my pieces could supply to the engine. It wouldn't even run ! And that's not a smart azz statement, that's fact Tony.
My cylinder head flows more than twice the cfm that your head flows, on the intake and exhaust sides, even with stock size valves, not the ones that are presently in the head. Considering that an engine is nothing but an air pump, the more air you can flow, the better your chances are for increased horsepower. BUT that isn't the real solution that i'm after, it's only part of the solution. What makes HP is the quantity of fuel that an engine can BURN. The more fuel burned, the more power made within the parameters of your tuning abilities or the engines controls abilities. Plain and simple, direct to the point. I have spent the better part of 70 yrs. digesting info, much of it now obsolete :>( but I still continue to learn. That's the wonderful thing about this hobby, it's constantly in a state of flux.
You have emailed me many times, and we have even spoken on the phone numerous times. My reply to you has always been "THINK TONY" ! Open a book.... Google a subject... I can't just download all of my brains memory or take up enormous amounts of bandwidth explaining every facet of all the systems, that comprise a totally "compatible" set of parts.
If you still persist in knowing what pieces it takes to make my combo go hummmmmmmm........ start with the cylinder head and just the valves and porting. That will set you back and lighten your wallet by about $62-6500. Then i'll point you in the direction of some really expensive pieces to complement the head. IMHO though you would be better off trying to duplicate the Indy turbo Menard powered Vega that I built, and we discussed at length, but that's pricey also, isn't it ? Or perhaps one of your Turbo Regal friends engines in an earlier H bod Skyhawk.
Now I must try to take care of a long overdue order for some parts i'm going to ship to sunchicken, on this site. He must think I died or something, on him :>
Take care Tony, the best of luck on whatever your newest project might be, and your newfound data on engine systems.
Alan
Your tech is way beyond my mental capacity Alan (and wallet!) but it's always thought-provoking to hear about. Like you I do think a Buick turbo 3.8 would be a cool swap in an H-body though
Take care my friend,
Tony
1987 Sunbird GT turbo convert
Ported intake, Fiero 53 MM TB, 52 lb inj, ported and flowed head, tube header, Mitsu TD06, ARP rod
bolts/head studs, adj cam sprocket, 4" x 12" x 31" FMIC, Paxton AFPR, modified 125 trans/LSD
unit/3.42's, custom chip tuning, Alky Control Methanol injection
13.61 ET at 101.44 mph, 262 WHP/350WTQ
2009 Pontiac Solstice GXP roadster, 2.0 turbo w/GMPP exh, CAI and turbo upgrade, 290 hp/325 ft lbs
1969 Olds 442 convert
400 Eng, 200-4R trans, 3.73 posi, power everything, OAI
Whoa......
Outta this kitchen - done got too hot for me!!
.
Orien.... you'll have to excuse me, as I don't have the faintest idea what your post means. While i'm guilty of not understanding the newer generations sayings, perhaps you might care, or someone else could, give me a reasonable explanation to said remark.
I'm not only interested in furthering my automotive information, but also in how to communicate with my fellow members of mankind.
Thanks in advance for any info you would care to share.
Alan
motorman377 wrote:Orien.... you'll have to excuse me, as I don't have the faintest idea what your post means. While i'm guilty of not understanding the newer generations sayings, perhaps you might care, or someone else could, give me a reasonable explanation to said remark.
I'm not only interested in furthering my automotive information, but also in how to communicate with my fellow members of mankind.
Thanks in advance for any info you would care to share.
Alan
I think he means all the info blew his mind lol
oh and a Buick turbo 3.8 in an H Body Skyhawk would be awesome
SpikeJ
now that's FUNNY ! NEVER would have guessed anything like that, NEVER !
Who says ya can't teach an old fart something new...... this one i'll always remember Orien.
Alan
I have driven them all but a turbo 1.8 or turbo 2.0. I from my perspective the v6 is the best choice. I have a 91 2.0 sunbird white convertible with white interior , 2.2cavalier rs, and a 89 z24 with a 2.8 i switched for a 3400/3500 hybrid. The 2.8 was way better then any of the 4 cylinders even with 200,000 miles on it. My 91 sunbird had 38,000 original miles, and my 91 rs had 121,000. All my car are very well maintained and always were. My 2.8 still ran strong when I removed it. The v6s also came with better steering racks, sway bars, strut bar, and subframe brace. There was only like 200lbs difference between a 4cyl version and the v6 and the difference in HP and TQ made a huge difference. Also the V6s made peak power at about 4500 rpms or so. Which made it better then most engines at its time. Also the v6s sound amazing with straight pipes
On the inside my car looks like a fighter jet.
~ Mike ~