So the 1995 is direct drive power steering and has sequential fuel injection, but is still a Quad-4... SO that brings me to my point and question...

How difficult would it be to swap out the '95 2.3 head with an older 2.3 HO head and cams? More importantly... what are the major differences in the 1995 quad 4 engine?

The LD9 guys have to deal with excessive compression due to smaller combustion chambers, but since it's a 2.3 I'm thinking that wouldn't be an issue.

Problems and possible solutions, please pick them apart:
1) Power steering pump... convert to old style set up or have cam carrier/shaft machined and modified
2) Sequential injection and cam sensor... kinda harder... I can burn my own chips for OBD-I but '95 is an interesting year, could an older computer be substituted?
3) Intake manifold... I have an extra HO one sitting in my garage. Same goes for exhaust.

Any ideas or information on the '95 quad is appreciated.



22 miles per gallon and dropping fast...

only 95 auto is sequential = obd2 only = no chip to burn
manual has no cam sensor

you can use your original cam carriers, but older cams need to be modified to drive PS.

Converting PS backward needs brackets to mount pump to trans and older 2.3s did not use isuzu so bracket = custom.

HO Ex man hits the heater hoses.

intake is basically the same across all years.


sig not found

Thanks for the information, only question left then is the compression, I'm assuming since the engine reads 2.3 Quad4 that the combustion chamber size issue with LD9 blocks and quad heads is not, in fact, an issue here.

This is a friend of mine's car, and it is an auto which explains the cam sensor then. That would complicate matters since we were going to be using the HO cams and housings, if the computer is going to be looking for a position signal. Custom is not a big deal for me, MIG welders make lots possible... but I'm not sure I wanna do that much work for someone else's car haha.

So this is what I'm thinking then, HO head and intake manifold since they flow way better than the low output ones he has now, secret cam exhaust cam and not have to deal with tuning. Too bad it's not a 5speed a full HO conversion sounds easy on those.



22 miles per gallon and dropping fast...

The compression would be the same but the older 086 head has a different water neck, it isnt the plastic kind on your 95 so youll need to get one of those too. Also the 95 2.3 has ballance shafts and the sam crappy oiling system as the 2.4. youd be better off putting a whole HO engine in the car.

compression is not an issue....it bumps the compression ona 2.4 when you use the quad head because the 2.4 has a longer stroke, and quad heads have a smaller chamber i

Go LG0, or forget it.

Chris




'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08

scott (section8cav) wrote:compression is not an issue....it bumps the compression ona 2.4 when you use the quad head because the 2.4 has a longer stroke, and quad heads have a smaller chamber i

Im def not trying to step on your toes or aim this directly at you or jack this thread but I see people say this all the time n it drives me nuts. It has nothing to do with the stroke of the 2.4. It is because a 2.4 was designed for a larger cc head. The pistons have no dish or valve reliefs in a 2.4 while the 2.3 does which is why the 2.4 has higher compression. The 2.4 should have a close to zero deck height and also so should the 2.3. For those who dont know that means when the piston is all the way up it sits flush with the block. The factory sees to it the rods are the correct length for the stroke as well as the piston pin location for proper deck height. Therefor the stroke does not affect compression, just the ccs of the head and the dishes/valve reliefs in the pistons. When you change the stroke of an engine then the deck height can be affected and usually the pin location in the piston must be changed to keep zero deck height. but not when you just swap heads between the 2.3 and 2.4

end rant sorry

and Scott please dont take this personally not attacking you just felt the need to clarify. I know how this forum goes lol.

you DARE to contradict ME !!??!!

um....

Compression RATO..... RATO. has very much to do with the stroke of a engine.......




Chris




'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08

scott (section8cav) wrote:you DARE to contradict ME !!??!!

HAHA well not you per say. but that was always my understanding and ive been seeing lots of people say this.

Taetsch Z-24 wrote:um....

Compression RATO..... RATO. has very much to do with the stroke of a engine.......

I could be wrong i just dont see how stroke has anything to do with why the 2.4 has higher compression with a 2.3 head. Its the same stroke with either head. If you could explain it to me I am more than willing to admit i am wrong. I could see this being an issue in a stroker engine or a engine with longer rods, then it does very much have to do with it. I guess i should add im talking about final compression ratio.

cory- what your saying makes sense to me...

if the 2.3 piston physically came ABOVE the deck and protrude up and into the combustion chamber then yea, sure... the ratio (chris, thats RATIO. ) would be increased due to less volume in the chamber. but it doesnt come above... it shares the same 'zero deck height' as the ld9.

but i could be wrong, wouldnt be the first time.

and cory- as long as you get the newer pistons then and only then are they completely flat, which brings me to something ive often wondered about wiseco pistons and they're 'ratios'. they claim they are 9:1's however, they are dished, but the dish is freaking massive and stock is a flat top. stock is supposidly supposed to be 9.5:1 and are completely flat. its my thinking that the standard wiseco 'stock replacement' 9:1 or hell even their claimed 'mythical' 9.5:1's are even less than that are are far more likely to actually be closer to 8.5:1. this is why my boosted motor will be getting completely flat top pistons, just like stock. wiseco claims they are 10:1 but i just dont see how they could be.



Every time I scream "Release", I mean it, you know it. I feel the day. Black 7.

before you can understand compression ratio you must first understand what the compression ratio MEANS...example.....if u say an engine has 9.5:1 compression, what do those numbers mean? once you know what they mean you should better understand what effects the equation.

to me thats final compression ratio.



Every time I scream "Release", I mean it, you know it. I feel the day. Black 7.

Z s Z has it right.
Everyone elxe can go out and play now.


2.3 head on 2.4 has higher comp because the 2.3 chamber is smaller.... end of story.
Stroke, deck height, yadda, yadda, yadda have nothing to do with it because none of them was changed. The short block did not change, only the head (chamber volume).



The following are concepts that are correct, but do not apply to the 2.3 to 2.4 head swap--
Increasing stroke without changing TDC chamber volume increases compression.
Changing deck height without changing head chamber volume or gasket thickness changes compression ratio.
Again, none of the applies in the 2.3/2.4 combo.

LT1cavy wrote:
This is a friend of mine's car, and it is an auto which explains the cam sensor then. That would complicate matters since we were going to be using the HO cams and housings, if the computer is going to be looking for a position signal. Custom is not a big deal for me, MIG welders make lots possible... but I'm not sure I wanna do that much work for someone else's car haha.

So this is what I'm thinking then, HO head and intake manifold since they flow way better than the low output ones he has now, secret cam exhaust cam and not have to deal with tuning. Too bad it's not a 5speed a full HO conversion sounds easy on those.

The cam sensor is not a real problem, tuning a 95/96 OBD2 PCM is the problem. Since the car has a 4speed electronic trans, your only real option is to swap in a 97-99 PCM and rewire accordingly if you want to tune it. The PCM only uses the cam sensor for sequential injection which is not really important to how it runs/performs.
Swapping in HO parts will reguire tuning to make more power, especially since all the gains will be above the stock programmed rev limit/shift points.

The HO head and exhaust manifold will flow better. The intake does not. The HO intake is tuned to run stronger at higher rpm that the LO but flowbenching them will yield about the same results. The HO intake manifold will make more power at higher rpm and should be used.



sig not found

protomec were not just talking about a head swap here, were talking about what ALL effects final compression, (includind stroke)so it looks like You can go out and play now.

how the hell does stroke change compression if the piston doesnt physically move closer to the combustion chamber? it cannot do this in our engines because of our zero deck height.



Every time I scream "Release", I mean it, you know it. I feel the day. Black 7.

because compression isnt measured simply by the chamber of the head.

WAY OFF TOPIC NOW!

The topic is 95 2.3 with older 2.3 parts!

z yaaaa wrote:how the hell does stroke change compression if the piston doesnt physically move closer to the combustion chamber? it cannot do this in our engines because of our zero deck height.

you are missing the other side of the operation. Longer stroke means the piston moves further away from the chamber, short = less far away. How far away the piston gets is a part of X in the statement "X:1 compression"

scott (section8cav) wrote:protomec were not just talking about a head swap here, were talking about what ALL effects final compression, (includind stroke)so it looks like You can go out and play now.

Liar. Here is your incorrect statement that started all this off topic posturing.

scott (section8cav) wrote:compression is not an issue....it bumps the compression ona 2.4 when you use the quad head because the 2.4 has a longer stroke, and quad heads have a smaller chamber i

You are specifically talking one specific head swap there, are you not? And did you incorrectly claim the stroke was the cause of the compression change when you posted it? Looks like it to me.


sig not found

i incorrectly nothing...may not have been completely correct..but not incorrect
................this coming from Mr. posture himself

.... so...


OK, for my 95 to 92 engine swap, I

A, Got a Prom header and a program from Cavfan.
B, Bent the hell out of the high pressure hose to the pump.


Everything else came with my GTZ I had as a doner (@!#$ thing is mint too! sometimes I wonder why i did it..)


The J body master hooked up to my L car slave (external) and the wiring was plug and play.

The hard things to do is this, If you have a "086" head, your going to want to run the HO ext manie... you have to fab up your own down pipe, or weld the flange from the L car on the J car down pipe.....

It was a fun swap, got done and drove away that weekend.

Chris




'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08

Quote:

If you have a "086" head, your going to want to run the HO ext manie.

or get the header...im supposed to have the header out and ready to ship to Ron within the week, i know your gonna want one

ive got the missing link when stroke is higher the engine pulls in more air that a shorter stroke meaning more air to compress leaving us with a higher ratio

ORRRR...

and NOOOO one likes to hear this...

Get a 88-89 LD9 HEADER, its a 4-2-1 style, it has LARGER Primary's then the Stains (ya know, the one that DYNOED the most power for a LD9..) Header, the down fall of this is you have to buy two U-Bends and a Y-pipe and Fab up your own Secondarys........ Not two hard. Two people around me, (with in 30 Miles, Yes Team GREEN people) have done it.


Your header took to long Scott!,,, thats why that damn T3O4E ended up hanging on the back of my W41.



Chris




'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08

I have the 4-2-1 style manifold sitting around.......i paln on using it in my vert. I think it is the best choice for a cavy with a quad4 head.

i plan on just getting one from ron next spring.



Every time I scream "Release", I mean it, you know it. I feel the day. Black 7.