Regardless of what anybody else says i love my 2200! Sorry for the OHV haters that feel I should have ditched my LN2 for a LD9 or a ECO, I decided not to follow the herd and go my own route.... and have not been disappointed for a moment!

OHV notec wrote:PJ is just still cranky because he wasted his $$$$ on counter-productive and unproven modifications

the one I left stock was just as bad. after it stranded me 3 times on the side of the road in my 98 sunfire I sold it.

As far as maintnence goes, my grandfather got the oil changed at the dealership every 3-4 thousand miles with Castrol GTX. Most of its life it was 5W-30 but for the last 20k it was 10W-40. I switched it to Pennzoil Platinum with 6k Mile OCIs. It has the stock exhaust, and its a 97. So rollercam,stock exhaust etc. I love the engine. Any idea how much a cam regrind would run? I know, I wish he had dropped the extra little bit for the 4T40e instead of the 3T40. If I could find one, how much of a PITA would it be to do a tranny swap? I take it the entire PCM would have to be replaced.

Josh G. wrote:Regardless of what anybody else says i love my 2200! Sorry for the OHV haters that feel I should have ditched my LN2 for a LD9 or a ECO, I decided not to follow the herd and go my own route.... and have not been disappointed for a moment!

x2....





P&P Tuning
420.5whp / 359.8wtq

Let's see...

Head modeled after big-block Chevy head, lower-valvetrain modeled after small-block Chevy, and camshaft timing & recipocating-assembly modeled after "Stovebolt" OHV I-6. All dead-nuts reliable, all with some form of performance orientation, and all having seen use in Gm full-size truck/van apps. Sounds like good design to me!

Averaged 24.5mpg in the '94, average 20 in the '99 (Don't ask why...). But are automatics, and the truck is heavier, but they're overdrive autos... Even the manuals have overdrive (Only type ever installed with this engine in the S-trucks). Plus the LN2 was designed to be a low-rev lugger, so...

Oil-filter is relatively easy to change on S-truck apps... Just reach down near the front between the fender-liner & intake-manifold, and there you go!

If you pull one from an early S-truck app, the A/C-lines tend to get in the way. That was addressed on later models, but otherwise... it sure takes-up allota room for a 4-cyl.

My '94 never ran hot or had cooling-system problems, and that was merely a water-pump around 140k+ miles. Did the thermostat at the same time for good measure. In-fact, the only real cooling problem I ever really had with it was when the fan-clutch failed... I replaced it (138k) and it's been fine until last summer (Cool on highway, a little hot around town).

I'll go further to support the reliability of on how basically... I've no design-flaw related trouble with mine ('94 & '99). The only trouble I ever had with the '94 was sometime during it's 165k-mi life... before it was mine... the timing-set leggo & the dumbass wrench that replaced it failed to fish the remaining pieces of it outta the pan. The oiling-system picked them up & fed them to the rest of the engine (lifters first!) resulting in a rod-knock that I addressed just after buying the truck. The contaminated lifters ticking drove me nuts, because every time someone new to the truck heard it they'd ask "Is that thing a diesel?". It ran strong (For a small engine) until the lifters finally collapsed around 165k-mi. Other than that, my only complaint is that damned timkin-link timing-chain... It just never seems to last long after 100k-mi.

You think there's a lack of performance support for the LN2 in J-cars? Try looking at what's available for S-trucks! We don't even have half as many header options as you guys. Otherwise, if you know how to build any of the engines I listed above that the LN2 shares design-modeling with, you can see where to go with modding the ol' Double-deuce!

As for sound, put a glasspack of same or slightly larger size after the catalytic & a 1/4"-larger quality turbo-muffler after that & you'll have a note like the old 4-cyl english sports-cars of the '50s & '60s. A sound that's like having a petite cheerleader girlfriend: Fun & sweet!




Go beyond the "bolt-on".

I loved my 2200 and I love my ecotec but if I had to choose all over again I would still have an ecotec. But if I came across a decent mileaged manual 2200 I'd pick it up in a heartbeat.

My 2200 was great!!! When it was in my 5spd cav it got 30MPG with ease, and was reliable as all hell. Only thing that i can say i hated was the cooling system. Which seems to be hit and miss for everybody. And i really dont see how in the hell it was hard to work on. When i swaped that motor to my beater sunfire, it took me all day saturday to pull two engines and install one, and start driving the sunfire on sunday morning. I miss it and want another one.

phil,i thought i would use a remote filter kit at summit for reasonable and you can get twins for F/I cars.

OHV notec wrote:PJ is just still cranky because he wasted his $$$$ on counter-productive and unproven modifications

Nick wrote:Pros:
-Extremely Simple to work on

My favorite thing about it also (replacing head on my DSM right now...OHC FTL)

Nick wrote:-Very reliable/long lived

Depends on specific model, and level of maintainance (can't be stressed enough)...

Nick wrote:-Very smooth running engine

Depends on maintainace/modifications...

Nick wrote:-Sounds decent for a 4-banger (unline many other whiny, annoying 4 bangers)- it has a deeper growl/purr, if a bit droney on the highway

Depends on the exhaust system/cat condition

Nick wrote:-Has decent low end torque

Great for daily driving, but see con #2...

Nick wrote:-Rollercam Style Pushrod (Thank goodness it isn't a flat tappet engine)

Depends on the year...

Nick wrote:-Quiet Idle

Depends on maintainance/modifications...

Nick wrote:Cons:
-Anemic Acceleration

You have the worst tranny for this, by far... The others are considerably better (about full 1 sec in 1/4 mile)

Nick wrote:-Wheezy at high RPMs

Yep. Get a cam regrind if this bothers you...

Nick wrote:-Difficult/expensive to mod for power

Not really...Compared to my SHO and my Audi, this is cheap and easy. DSM may be cheaper, as would be a Honda...

Nick wrote:-Comparatively low fuel efficiency (33, 34 @70-75 with the 3T40 Auto)

You have the worst tranny for that. I get 25mpg combined (3-spd), but my sister's 4-spd gets 35 combined, and 40 on the highway. I would imagine the manual would be even better...

Phil Lindsay wrote:i have one really big con .....
placement of the oil filter!
it drips right on the exhaust ..... brilliant!

No #@$^#%^#$. I hate that soooooo much. Especially with the auto trannies, it's even worse. But hey, the filter is cheap (just the filter element for an ECO is twice as much...)

I can agree wth much of this here...much will depend on the care of the engine in the car. I still see more 95-99 Js out there going almost more than any other compact. Some can be said for the 3.1 too....


They are a tough little engine though.

I bought one of these because I thought they were bulletproof too. I always took care of it and changed oil religiously every 3k. Lets be honest, I do get on the throttle every once in awhile, but you have to in order to get out of your own way. ~100k, small piece of the cylinder 1 piston GONE. So of course I had no compression and terrible blow by which coated my intake and TB. Probably ruined my cat too. If I knew the 2200 was gonna do that, I would have gone for a 2.4 in the first place. Now I replaced it with one that has 47k and get a pleasant (sarcasm) 22MPH with a 5-speed, which is what I got with an engine basically running on 3 cylinders. Runs pretty good though, smoothest 2200 I've ever driven.


"In Oldskool we trust"

and by MPH I mean MPG


"In Oldskool we trust"

I have over 100k miles on mine. No problems so far. I just hate the tapping sound (common problem) when its cold. I havent even really had many problems with the whole car either. Ive seen Honda's that need repairs under 50k miles and I work at a Honda dealership. The cooling system on the 2.2 sucks though, but other than that it seems to be fine and I like the good gas mileage.


'00 GMC Sonoma 2200
'02 Chevy Cavalier 2200

sorry.. missed this

Nick wrote:Have you HEARD any of the newer 4 cylinders? They sound like whiny pieces of ass.

yes I have.. most single cams sound like junk.. or when dumb kids cut their mufflers off.. it doesn't take much to make a 4 cylinder sound like crap, but some engines <cough>OHV<cough> just can't be helped other than muffling the crap out of them and using as much resonator as possible to cover up the ugliness.

Nick wrote:I've driven more modern 4 cylinders, too. A 03 Ecotec 2.2, a 2009 Ford Focus 2.0L DOHC, and an 07 Fusion 2.3L. The worst offender was the 2.3L in the fusion, that isn't close to very smooth. Mine is still just as smooth running as them.

I'll be honest, so far as NVH goes.. the OHV wasn't any worse than anything else. but so far as power delivery? the eco wins hands down. power feels much more linear than the OHV (for obvious reasons) and the big factor.. there's MORE of it.

Quote:

I dunno why you are having those problems

I'm not, cuz I threw that crap out and swapped in the ecotec. never looked back, couldn't be happier

and the cost of the ecotec oil filter is offset by the fact that to change it I don't have to get on the ground, I don't have to get covered in oil, I don't have to reach down or up and scratch my arms or sneak around the trans or watch out for the hot exhaust pipe.

my filter is in a little cartridge under the intake manifold. its easy to get to, easy to change. I use a 32mm socket on the cap, throw the old element away, click the new one in and tighten it down.
I love my ecotec.

Personal stats:
2002 model LN2/Getrag owned for 125k miles
Mobile 1 synthetic oil changes regularly
Not a single mechanical failure, saw redline daily
Average 33-35mpg, personaly best 42mpg
I/E/H/mounts/TB
Yes it sounded like ass, but i didn't choose the exhaust system nor choose to change it
With the bolt ons, it was MAYBE as fast as a stock eco that's being liberal

I won't disagree that the 2.2 lacks power. Considering the 2.0L DOHC in the Focus has 140HP, and the 2.4L Chrysler/GM has 180 ish... It's pretty sad. But I like it. I'm sure the cartridge filter is easy to change, I don't like them simply because they don't filter quite as well as Spin-ons.

Those power numbers in relation to those "newer design" engines is because of one simple thing real 'rodders have known for years: The more air it breathes in & out, the more power it can make. Anything with more than two valves will naturally breathe better, because the combined valve area is larger... Which allows more gases (notice I said gases, not air) to flow through. Add F/I of any sort & then it's just a matter of how tightly it's relatively squeezed under compression. And as anyone who really knows anything about engines can tell you... the tighter you squeeze the mixture (Higher dynamic-compression obtained) before igniting it, the more power it'll make when it's burning.

Plus, having to dilute the mixture in any way with inert gas (EGR) will hurt power production, but eliminating such a method of dilution with re-programing the the fuel & spark curves to work smoothly without it is asking for trouble.


Go beyond the "bolt-on".

i hate my 3 speed auto in my 00.

The 2200 is definitely a good sounding motor. I was running with an Accord and the driver said I had one of the best sounding four bangers he's ever heard. Some people love the sound of VTEC, but I'm not one of them.

The 2200/Ecotec argument is similar to LT1/LS1.

The 2200/LT1s have a tougher block, are cheaper, sound better and boost nicely due to low compression.

Ecotecs/LS1s are faster out of the box, lighter and get better fuel economy.

As for smoothness, the 2200 is nothing special. Cars equipped with 2200s are smooth, and automatics have an unusually low idle of 600 rpm which makes them quiet at stop lights. Get solid mounts and the vibrations become apparent. Four cylinder engines lacking balance shafts are at the bottom of the totem pole where smoothness is concerned, unless we're counting 3-cyls. There's not an inline four on planet earth that can match the smoothness of an inline six. It's inherent in their design.


2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd