i have a 99 2.4 cavi, and its knocking. wrecked my last motor a few months ago due to the same thing. i dont want to put another 2.4 in it cuz i think there @!#$t. i was thinking maybe an eco tec this time. would be easy direct swap? or would i need wire harness, tranny, exhaust manifold and every thing?
-or- i have my old motor still, would it be easier/better idea to rip it apart and put some aftermarket bearings, rods and pistons in it? make it a little stronger then stock
if ur willing to tear apart the eco and do stuff why not just do a 2.3 oil pump swap to the 2.4 and have it stop being "@!#$"?
Rebuild the 2.4. If you got to it in time it will be fairly "cheap" to fix.
Every engine has its issues, Eco included.
-Z Yaaaa- wrote:if ur willing to tear apart the eco and do stuff why not just do a 2.3 oil pump swap to the 2.4 and have it stop being "@!#$"?
this...
however, brad, he was referring to tearing apart his old 2.4
IMO its not worth swapping from 2.4 to eco or from eco to 2.4... the eco is rated 10 WHP slower than the 2.4, and for the work thats involved and the parts you'll need to source (unless you pull a complete eco with accesseries from the junkyard, including the radiator, wiring, PCM, and Transmission), you will not notice any gains for the money spent...
I'd rebuild the 2.4
Do the 2.3 oil pump swap
balance the crank shaft
get clevite 77 bearings
if you have extra $$ get forged pistons and rods...
and make sure you do the proper maintenance on the motor as you go, and you'll have a rock solid bottom end...
alright thanks guys. whats a 2.3 oil pump come from?
a 2.3 LOL
but in a nutshell.. its the older version of the 2.4.. its called the 2.3 "quad 4" you want the oil pump stuff from the 89-94 motors.
to further ur studies... go to the performance forum search and type in exactly "2.3 oil pump swap sticky". from there you'll gain the knowledge needed to do the swap.
Just for the record, the 2.3L oil pump is NOT necessity unless your future calls for raising your redline over 6500 RPMS (under 7400RPMS).
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
My cavalier 2003 is a ecotec 2.2 most stock well i race a guy in a z24 he had alot more in he car and smoked hes ass you need to think about the motor its no cast iron= power to weight or their wouldn't be ecotec swaps on this website fyi i got my ecotec motor for 200 from a junk yard with 55,000 miles on it and i bought a second tranmission getrag f23 for 125 the car has a 1998 radiator it works. Hell if you go to the junkyard and you pull the wiring they well not cut it then that come with the motor... beside for 10 whp differents i getting 34mpg city and 40mpg highway.
corey jeffery wrote:My cavalier 2003 is a ecotec 2.2 most stock well i race a guy in a z24 he had alot more in he car and smoked hes ass you need to think about the motor its no cast iron= power to weight or their wouldn't be ecotec swaps on this website fyi i got my ecotec motor for 200 from a junk yard with 55,000 miles on it and i bought a second tranmission getrag f23 for 125 the car has a 1998 radiator it works. Hell if you go to the junkyard and you pull the wiring they well not cut it then that come with the motor... beside for 10 whp differents i getting 34mpg city and 40mpg highway.
That guy couldn't drive... The 2.4 motor puts out 10 extra HP and has slightly better quarter mile times than eco (stock vs stock)... since i have owned the car, I have never lost to an N/A Eco on the track.
Back in the day I raced my friends 02 eco LSS fully loaded car with my 01 fully loaded Z24. The eco is lighter but im also a fatass and hes a bean pole so i am pretty sure i more than evened out the difference in weight between the 2 engines. Anyway we ran em half a dozen times and I won by atleast a car length and a half every time. Also the 2.4 has a better powerband in stock form. I had to drive my dads eco for a week and I hated it lol.
The 2.4 in my convertible has 206,000 miles on it and i have been quite neglectful of it recently. If you replaced you engine with a used one Im sure it was not properly maintained in its younger years and thats why engine number 2 is gone.
Just not worth the swap to the eco imo. too much work and will cost more than rebuilding a 2.4 to stock form.
Its not about the 10 hp power first off the ecotec weight less so really is the same horsepower if you realy think about it called power to weight beside i can make 10hp easy on my motor just changing a few stuff switch I have. You should ride in a newer cavalier I have had two different poeple that own a z24 and 2200 engine ride with me they have seen my point about my ecotec...the quarter mile dosn't matter because different poeple so you don't know how they drive.
1. Your argument of power to weight is insignificant here. Between the both engines (turn key) you are looking at approx 40-50lbs weight difference on the engine. That weight can be offset by the amount of fuel is in the tank, or how many burritos you scarfed down that day. Did you even know on the 2003 models that GM added extras through out the chassis in which it will weigh more than a 2002 and older chassis?
2. Also the 2.4L has 155 ft-lbs@ 2400-4400 vs. the 2.2L has 150ft-lbs@4000... pulling power down low.
3. As previous mentioned 2.4L: 150@5600 vs 2.2L: 140@5600 for HP... pulling power up top.
4. Welcome to 2002.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
corey jeffery wrote:Its not about the 10 hp power first off the ecotec weight less so really is the same horsepower if you realy think about it called power to weight beside i can make 10hp easy on my motor just changing a few stuff switch I have. You should ride in a newer cavalier I have had two different poeple that own a z24 and 2200 engine ride with me they have seen my point about my ecotec...the quarter mile dosn't matter because different poeple so you don't know how they drive.
My brother had an 04 base model... i have a loaded 2000 Z24... in 2005 when i bought my car, both cars were completely stock... I hated his car... i love mine. (granted more hate went towards his lack of options vs performance)
We both drove each other's cars at the track one day, my car won every time... not by much, but it won...
that should effectively kill your weight argument and the driver argument.
Finally... I'm so glad when i built my motor, i did not have to sleeve my block for my wiseco pistons. i also feel a bit better knowing they are encased in cast iron vs soft aluminum.
read this i got off the web If you can find one, the ecotec is probably a better choice. It is a much more refined engine and despite having 10 less horse than the 2.4, it is just as fast. The ecotec is an all aluminum chain-driven system and weighs only 300 lbs. I don't think that those 10 ponies from the 2.4 will be missed. I speak from personal experience because my last car was a 99 z24. Anyway, if you plan on doing mods it wont matter. Scrap yards are your best bet. There isn't too much on the net in terms of whole engines. Don't go to a u-pull-it scrap yard because those engines are usually stripped of all the goodies. I just bought a 3.1 for my 88Z24 that only had 40000 miles on it and that came out of a 1990. Front drive GM motors are a dime a dozen ( a great thing about owning an american car). The good thing is that regardless of what you choose, 2.2 ecotec, or 2.4, this engine is easy to find in a junk yard. This engine is shared in the Z24, grand am, alero, pontiac sunfire gt and probably a few others. It should be a piece of cake to find. Granted the 2.4 will be easier because it has been used for the past 6 years. Check out this link on the ecotec though. Maybe it will help you out:
www.dragracingonline.com/features/ecotech_1.html
Starting with a bone stock ECOTEC 2.2-liter engine in April, 2001, O'Blenes and Steve Bothwell, engine development manager at Bothwell Racing, were able to produce 140 horsepower using a dyno at Shaver Specialty Engines in Torrence, Calif. By removing the exhaust system from the ECOTEC they were successful in increasing the horsepower reading to 170. Adding nitrous to the ECOTEC power plant raised the horsepower output to approximately 250.
1.If you are going to tell the the story, tell the whole story, don't half ass it. It is 310lbs undressed... in other words NOT a turn key.
2.Your 99 Z24 had a different tranny, with different gearing. And even then, that model was reportedly quicker than the Eco cavaliers ever tested (by media), driven by unbiased views too. R&T got in 1997 a 1997 Z24 to 15.7 sec in the 1/4... try to find any media source breaking the 16 secs barrier.
3. Lastly, and again don't half ass your explanation. Your article... which was a regurgitation from a press release by GM. But GM at least gave out how those test were conducted. Basically a huge asterisk needs to be on those figures. Those test were done at the crank, which in-turn will give a higher figure than at the wheels. And two, those figures are GROSS ratings and NOT NET ratings, again giving you a higher figure (read up what's the difference). Old schoolers will love testing like that, but those testing doesn't tell the whole story.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
http://www.dragtimes.com/Chevrolet-Cavalier-Timeslip-8165.html 1/4 Mile ET: 15.623
1/4 Mile MPH: 85.090
1/8 Mile ET: 10.034
1/8 Mile MPH: 70.190
0-60 Foot ET: 2.508
VBOX 60-130 MPH:
Standing 1 Mile MPH:
Temperature F: 62.0
Density Altitude (DA): DA Calculator
Timeslip Scan:
VBOX Graph:
VBOX 60-130 MPH:
VBOX Graph:
Car Make: Chevrolet
Car Model: Cavalier
Car Type: base
Car Year: 2003
Driver: Mike Sturgill
E-Mail: Click HERE
Videos: Cavalier Videos
Web Site:
read that is all stock 2003 cavalier
You are trying to prove a point using information someone entered on a public website without a time slip to back it up?
Just give up, you are fighting a loosing fire.
The entire LD9 vs Ecotec argument is entire personal preference. Both can perform great with money dumped into them.
Aluminum blocks are typically used more for economical reasons(lighter) than performance.
"Oil Leak ? What oil Leak ? Oh, Thats Just The Sweat From All The HorsePower!!"
Besides i know my car weights 2138 with me in on the scale i weight 170 so do the math so the weights under 2000 lbs now a fully loaded 24v weights 2600 then you still have to add the driver. yet again power to weight!!!!! beside you guys get what 23 City / 33 HWY with a manual transmission i get 32-34 city and i got 40 mpg on the highway going from Kalamazoo, MI to Bards town, KY and dove around for three hours trying to find the fair grounds before getting gas. so i know which motor better in the long run. you guys are trying to say a car that weights more is faster thats like saying your car is faster then my 1980 750h kawasaki because you have 150hp and my motorcycle has 84hp. yet again power to weight.... so 600lb is a big differents
Ok then, you drive a Ecotec powered dune buggy... your power-to-weight ratio is now legitimate in your argument. See, we were all talking about engines in a J-body, not on a space frame with 4 wheels.
Lastly, read what "DSMskyline" is recommending you.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
This argument is a bordering on rediculous.
eco vs 2.4 is an old argument and is completely up to the individual
if one engine was difinitivly better then the other then no one would use the one that's coming up short
I personally like a v6 3rd gen
Regardless to power to weight and everything you've mentioned thus far... its been proven time and time again that the LD9 in a J bone stock is faster than an Eco in a J bone stock... Stock vs Stock performance, the LD9 barely wins. Because of it "barely" winning, in stock form, its a personal preference on motors.
And when you put a Rod through the block, dogging the hell out of a bone stock engine, you are going to wish you had an LD9.
Finally,
and i write this big since you missed this before--- The LD9 only weighs 50 Lbs more than the Eco, that weight is negligible I'm also willing to bet that my LD9, with the weight reduced crank shaft, the removed balance shafts, forged internals, decked head, ported & polished head, and modified cam towers, weighs less than your eco.
You can continue to be an eco whore and keep preaching, The brick wall over there is all ears =)
ill simply stick with the 2.4 because i already have that in my car and a have my other motor sitting in my garage. logically it would make more sense to beef up my old 2.4 instead of completely switching to a different motor and keeping it stock. switching motors and beefing an ecotec would be higher in cost and labor. i was thinking of doing this swap if it would swap easily with very few changes because i would just like a stronger motor and i was told an ecotec could handle a turbo. but just making my old 2.4 stronger would also probably handle boost aswell. this thread was very educating
ive yet to see anyone actually weight an LD9 versus an ECO to prove its really that much lighter...
