so my friend tells me in the long run its better to have the 2.2 but the 2.4 twin looks realy good what do yall think
If you mean the 2.2 eco, then they are comparable motors. The eco has a better aftermarket because its a current motor, whereas the 2.4 is a dead platform. But the power is there to be made with a 2.4 just gotta do your research on here. Basically if you have one or the other stick with what you have.
You can make the same power with the same money in both of them. But the eco is lighter, and more current (ie parts are easier to get) do its the better engine. Oh and the ecotec has made 1500 hp.
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
The quad has also pushed the aero tech over 280 mph. If i remember correctly though both motors are designed after the offy, and i do recall recently reading. That the offy motor engineers helped desiegn the echo. I dont think you could go wrong with either motor. Its easier to find after market off the shelf cookie cutter parts for the echhen the ld9. So
Depends really as they said....for me, id go eco over LD9 simply because i worked on an LD9 and have worked on an eco, and the eco is slightly easier to work on, and in my opinion the eco has less problems....if your talking 2.2 OHV or 2200, that all depends...if your going for reliability, eco i would have to say is #1, 2200 and LD9 are kind of tied there...but maybe a little more edge to the 2.2 OHV....in my personal opinion from what I have worked on....I know there will be people that disagree but, like I said just speaking from my experiences with the engines..
"Hondas are like tampons, every pussy has one!!!"
They both have pros and cons. Depends on the build, I think the LD9 is a torquer motor over the L61. They both can take the same boost levels in stock form if tuned properly. They both seem to have close to the same breaking levels in stock form also.
For me I'm a LD9 person, and always will be. Still does not stop me from working on L61's and even suggesting them in some cases.
FU Tuning
Better the 2.2, faster the 2.4....
cavalierblue wrote:Better the 2.2, faster the 2.4....
QFT
and what is with the "more aftermarket support" ...what exactly is it that you can get for one engine but not for the other?
I still say both are comparable. but the above quote still stands
I'm not seeing how the ld9 is faster. You can make the same power from both but the eco is lighter.
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
Leafy (Club Jeffie FEA man) wrote:I'm not seeing how the ld9 is faster. You can make the same power from both but the eco is lighter.
I think they mean in stock form. Meaning bone stock to bone stock.I would agree.
FU Tuning
scott (section8cav) wrote:cavalierblue wrote:Better the 2.2, faster the 2.4....
QFT
and what is with the "more aftermarket support" ...what exactly is it that you can get for one engine but not for the other?
I still say both are comparable. but the above quote still stands
oh lets see here....
id like to know this as well.....
2.4 Quad
/end thread
2010 Subaru Impreza WRX Limited
1999 Cavalier Z24 Supercharged
1999 Grand AM SE (Beater Car)
1997 GMC Sierra
2007 Honda CBR 600RR
2005 Honda TRX450R
I had the option of 3 engines in 2002 when I bought my GT new, between the nostalgia and the expiriance, hands down I bought the 2.4TC equipped Sunfire. Also the 40lbs weight difference was not enough to justify the buzzy sound of the Ecotec.
I will give credit that GM has a nice build/parts book for the Ecotec, like Oldsmobile had back in the days for the Quads. Hahn has some nice kits also. Oh, and it is a little more efficient too.
It is a matter of taste, really.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
scott (section8cav) wrote:cavalierblue wrote:Better the 2.2, faster the 2.4....
QFT
and what is with the "more aftermarket support" ...what exactly is it that you can get for one engine but not for the other?
I still say both are comparable. but the above quote still stands
I will answer that with another question...which engine has readily available aftermarket cams in both the US and europe? Or aftermarket valvesprings that aren't origonally produced for a VW and made to work? Or a readily available bolt on turbo kit? Or neutral ballance shafts or delete kit?
Not the quad or the twin cam that's what.
This being said I love my 2.4 and don't particularly want an eco.
hey they said aftermarket vs aftermarket. the fact our parts are harder to find is moot. id be willing to bet the Q4 actually has MORE cam grind options from crane/comp than eco's do.
they said parts available... well, just because its got some other vehicle's part number doesnt mean we shouldnt use it. the motor dont know if its a VW spring.
i personally would rather be able to have to massage parts and make stuff work, etc. wheres the fun in the cookie cutter off the shelf build.. seriously?
oh, and you CAN get JBP's neutral balance shafts....
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Saturday, July 02, 2011 5:57 AM
-Z Yaaaa- wrote:hey they said aftermarket vs aftermarket. the fact our parts are harder to find is moot. id be willing to bet the Q4 actually has MORE cam grind options from crane/comp than eco's do.
they said parts available... well, just because its got some other vehicle's part number doesnt mean we shouldnt use it. the motor dont know if its a VW spring.
i personally would rather be able to have to massage parts and make stuff work, etc. wheres the fun in the cookie cutter off the shelf build.. seriously?
oh, and you CAN get JBP's neutral balance shafts....
I do agree with u but when I said available I meant readily available. When it comes to choosing a platform do you want the one with the easy parts to get or the one that needs some ingenuity? I prefer the challenge!
I hold no fanboy status for either engine, but I'll say this....
So is this an argument for which is a better "street" engine, or a better "race" engine? If it's the former, then I would agree that they are both plenty capable. If it's the latter, then I would have to argue for the ECOTEC.
- 4-bolt mains
- lighter
- Easier / faster access to internals
- GMPP 12-bolt billet crank
- GMPP Race ported head which outflows any ported ld9 or ported 086' I've seen (and has proven to hold at 1400hp)
- GMPP Billet camshafts that dwarf any Quad4 cams I've seen
- 4t65e adapter plate
- Billet Rods from several manufacturers
- Laundry list of other parts and how to put them together with the necessary clearances and what not.
Can you have these parts custom machined? Probably, but even if a manufacturer would agree to machine the parts, you are going to be paying out the ass for one-offs like these and you'll be waiting a long time before you see anything. But, on top of all of that, Quad4s have the innate problem of adjusting lash. So not only is it a pain in the ass to set the lash on solid lifters, it's a pain in the ass to reset the lash when the cam lobe and/or lifters start to wear. So, even despite the 2.3L quad4's great R/S, it's really pointless to have it if you can't rev the engine high enough to truly utilize it.
I have no signiture
A 2.4 "WITH" 2.3 parts is better.
2.2 does have lots of aftermarket support so thats convienient. But i do have to admit I like gathering parts and "MAKING" the LD9 something out of nothing. Thats the best part....actually building it....doing your research and learning. Rather than buying a whole kit and having a shop do it. Not alot of guys can say they can make over 300+hp out an LD9. So doing so is an accomplishment cause then that shows you know what your doing
GMR has got nothing on this
i have to admit..i like the eco's access to cams.
however i hate dealing with the valve train,or the eco head in general
