88 Olds Calais (spelling ?) with running 2.3 quad 4 and an intake that looks like a header that has a rod knock being junked. What should I pull from it before it is sent to the bone yard. I was thinking maybe the throttle body, not sure what else so I thought I would ask.
I have a 97 sunfire with 2.4
Take the whole motor and rebuild that bish
15.2@89mph 2.171 60ft. 9.830 1/8 R.I.P. "LULU"
Grumpy McGrumpster(BIGGSZ24) wrote:Take the whole motor and rebuild that bish
Quite a lot of bad press on it. The benifits???
Have other 2.4's.
yea i hear 2.3 motors suck bad
The 2.3's bad reputation comes from the SOHC "Iron Duke". The 2.3 DOHC is a very solid motor.
If the 2.3 is an HO, rebuild it, use it. If you don't want to rebuild it, take the head. If its just a regular 2.3, don't bother. Also, if it is the 2.3 HO, take the intake manifold.
4cyltuner.com - Information Source For 4 Cylinder Tuners
Buy stuff from CarCustoms Ebay! Won't be disappointed!
If it is from an '88, just junk it. If I remember correctly (good chance I don't), 88 was the first year for the engine and there were lots of issues with the early engines. My parents had an '88 Calais and went through several major repairs. The one that sticks out was something on the lower end failed (spun bearing?) and when it was rebuilt, they had to update the oil pump and pan and a few other things that had been updated since then. I had an '89 Calais that just liked to pop head gaskets.
I believe 87 1st year for the quad 4. This is a non HO. I know the history of car since new. 89k on it and 2 crashes , 2 head gasket, 1 head and now the bottom end. It is very crusty on the outside.
'87-88 spec engines had the same specs. And those specs were garbage. There was not a high output option, the intake (while interesting looking) flows worse than the later model, oiling specs were updated, new head castings, cam spec changes, etc. Unless you just want a spare 2.3L block to build up, kerosene + match is my suggestion.
Quote:
The 2.3's bad reputation comes from the SOHC "Iron Duke".
The "Iron Duke" was a 2.5L OHV I4 that dates back to the ancient days of internal combustion almost. It powered a ton of GM I4 vehicles from the mid 70s to the early 90s, and was a solid, dependable, albeit molasses-slow powerplant. They were also used in other industrial applications, and (to my knowledge) were still being produced in a 3L marine only application.
There was a 2.3L SOHC "Quad OHC" that was crap on a cracker, but it wasn't any less reliable than other Quad 4s of their vintage. The Quad's bad reputation came from the exact '87-88 engine described above, which had terrible problems with head gaskets, coupled with the fact that it was one of (if not the?) first GM DOHC production engine, meaning most technicians looked at it like a nun would a vibrator.
1989 Z24 Convertible - Dust Covered
2006 tC - Dust Covered, but driven more
ZlineDavid wrote:Quote:
The 2.3's bad reputation comes from the SOHC "Iron Duke".
The "Iron Duke" was a 2.5L OHV I4 that dates back to the ancient days of internal combustion almost. It powered a ton of GM I4 vehicles from the mid 70s to the early 90s, and was a solid, dependable, albeit molasses-slow powerplant. They were also used in other industrial applications, and (to my knowledge) were still being produced in a 3L marine only application.
There was a 2.3L SOHC "Quad OHC" that was crap on a cracker, but it wasn't any less reliable than other Quad 4s of their vintage. The Quad's bad reputation came from the exact '87-88 engine described above, which had terrible problems with head gaskets, coupled with the fact that it was one of (if not the?) first GM DOHC production engine, meaning most technicians looked at it like a nun would a vibrator.
beat me too it...
i miss my 89 buick with the Iron Duke. Engine was indestructible.
5 YEAR ANNIVERSARY FREEBIE GIVEAWAY - CLICK HERE TO ENTER
What you know about Street Racing anyways? Only what Fast & Furious taught us....
SO EVERYTHING!
ZlineDavid wrote:meaning most technicians looked at it like a nun would a vibrator.
i must use this analogy. in fact, i will steal it and pretend it was mine. thanks for making my day!
"meaning most technicians looked at it like a nun would a vibrator."
I get the same reaction when I show folks my flathead La Salle.
My parents bought an '85 Grand Am from my aunt, (back in the mid-to-late eighties.) replaced motor in was a 2.3 HO, I remember that car well, I thought it was awesome! (I was only around 9 yrs old or so.)
I am not entirely sure how the HO found its way in it, especially if the Quad4 didn't surface until '87, as suggested here. I want to think it was around before then, but I'm not sure.
The Quad 4's have always been a favorite of mine, 2.4 versions included.
It was the
ONLY thing I liked about my '99 GA.
I'm a 6ft. tall, 250+ lb., man, and I proudly drive the Sunfire. My wife drives the half-ton 4x4...
I thought the HO was an option in 88... but I haven't looked into some solid articles to find out, just going by old articles from the 809's... and yes... I would like to be a witnes to the Iron Duke being a solid engine... had one in a 1987 Grand AM... had the roller lifters in it that year, made an extra 5 horse or something for a g rand total of 90.. LOL... good torque though!! used to put on some good smoke shows.. had people lookin at me like WTF!! Ha... 400,000 kms on it, 2 clutches, didn't want to change it again, so I junked it..stil ran when I junked it.
Also... 1988 Grand AM SE with the 2.3L... they had good power, they were rated for 150 I am sure, and thats about the same as the 2.4L.. so no benefits there... but yeah.. I smoked the bottom end on that engine nicely hehe... it was fun!! Actually wrecked it doing a 2nd gear burnout
Good way to go out.
I always wanted to buy one of the W41 crate engines from mantapart... drooool.. nothing like 200horse N/A.
