hey which one has more hp 91 cav with 3.1 or 2002 sunfire with 2.4

the 3.1 has 140, the 2.4 has 150 .i believe.



maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow....... but some day

yea, but the 3.1 has 180 ft lbs vs the 2.4's 155


<img src=http://ourworld.cs.com/jwithspray/Jbeier_sig3.JPG>

Yeah the 2.8/3.1's made way more torque on the low end, but seem like they had less high rpm power, whereas the 2.4 has less torque, but more high end HP. Even at higher RPMs, the 2.4 still has less torque than a 2.8, which is why it's harder to accelerate up hills with a 2.4.

For example, I hit the gas on my 89Z with 2.8L, and I can accelerate up a 3/4 mile, steep hill on the highway real nice. With my '00 Z, I hit about 80 going up the same hill, and it doesn't want to go any faster. For that reason I like the 2.8/3.1 better, though I am still trying to eek more power from the 2.4

The 3.1 had 10 more HP and a bit more torque that the 2.8 had, but it is pretty much the same motor, design wise.





--==pghcavman==--

Ya the 3.1 is only a stroked 2.8 so..... But the 2.8 (or atleast the one in my regal) Is slow as hell when cold, where as the 2.4 is better cold. Depends on the body weight and driving style I guess.


1971 camaro 427 --- here!

Stock... and loving every minute of it.