I am new to all of this stuff on here. I have a 2001 Z24 2.4L, I hear all of this stuff about which engine is better, I have heard go with the 2.2L or ecotech. I hear that the 2.4L is unreliable but have never been giving a reason. My question is which is the best one, the eco, 2.2, 2.4?
i am putting on my flame suit for this one, you shall soon see why. It is mostly opinion based but generally they are only as realible as the one owning and working on them. I own a 2.4 but would love an eco.
2.4_LS_4Door (Dayton86) wrote:but generally they are only as realible as the one owning and working on them. I own a 2.4 but would love an eco.
yeah i agree that you can extend the life of an engine by treating it right and taking care of it.
if you want an engine that you can rack up a few hundred thousand miles on w/o much trouble.....go with the 2.2/2200, but realize that its slow as hell.
if you want an engine that is strong out of the box and moddable but not too expensive.....go with the 2.4 since they are older and you can pick one up cheap and there are plenty of companies that make parts for them.
if you want an engine that should last awhile and takes boost well.....go with the ecotec. this is the next generation of GM engines and im sure we'll see nothing but good things from it.
overall, if you can afford it, go with an ecotec since thats whats hot and where everything is headed.
This is a pointless debate as everyone will have a different opinion. Each engine has its own strengths and weaknesses. I am biased toward the 2.4 because I have 2 and love them. Others will say Eco because they think its better. Research what you are after as far as modifications, reliability, what is needed for the swap, and what you would prefer. the Quad family has been in use since 1987 and lasted until 2002. The Eco was introduced in the early 00's i believe. The pushrod motor serves its own use and can be a reliable stock motor or built up for power. Personaly I would say that since you currently have a 2.4 to just stick with it.
The only reason the 2.4 has been claimed to be unreliable is because of idiots owning them and failing to maintain them correct.
It seems to work for me. I keep up on the maintenances, it only has 32000 on it.
PJ buy me that shirt and bring it to the bash,
Built&Boosted moar
04 Cavalier Turbo r.i.p my baby
2nd place 2009 GM tuner bash qwick 8--holla
If you go with the eco I will buy the 2.4 from you...
2.4 FTW!
DaFlyinSkwirl (PJ) - APU wrote:
Bad A##!!! I love that shirt bro!!!!
I gotta get me one of those Eco FTW shirts!
---
stay strong my 2.4 brothers
13.1 @ 115
I do like the 2.4. I have no other experience other than a stock 2.2 NOT IMPRESSED with it. Its not saying much but my 2.4 with just a short ram beat my buddies mustang with dual exhaust.
Quote:
I have no other experience other than a stock 2.2 NOT IMPRESSED with it
which 2.2 there's two of them...
ecos run with Zs all day long
ohvs.. thats a different story
I didnt know there was two different 2.2's.
learn something new everyday.
Skylar Kelly wrote:I didnt know there was two different 2.2's.
yeah theres the older 2.2/2200 ohv which was a dog as far as power was concerned. like i said in my post...they'll run forever, but they got no balls
the other 2.2 is the newer style, based off of the ecotec family of engines. theyve been using them in europe for awhile and they finally made their way stateside en mass back in 2002.
stock for stock i prefer the 2.4. its more powerful (barely) but its just fun to drive. has a nice sound to it too.
but when it comes to modded engines, the eco wins hands down. GM had a 1000hp cavalier with a 4-cyl 2.2 eco in it. i never saw them do that with the quad
^^ Back in the 80's GM had a little project involving a Quad 4 that made something like 600 HP on alcohol I believe.
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1970/article.html
"1988 Oldsmobile Aerotech
Click for larger image
The 1988 Oldsmobile Aerotech, an experimental high-speed vehicle incorporating the latest in performance technology, was driven by three-time Indy 500 winner A.J. Foyt to a world closed-course speed record of 257mph (413 km/h). It was powered by a specially-prepared turbo-charged version of the Quad 4 engine. The Aerotech body was designed by GM Design staff and is one of the sleekest vehicles yet developed for a GM car division. The design of the Aerotech includes the capability of adjusting underbody sections to control the distribution of downforce, front to rear."
Has the Eco gone 257MPH yet? Serious question.
mitdr774 wrote:Has the Eco gone 257MPH yet? Serious question.
doubtful, although im sure its been close.
ok...after a quick search, i found this car (the cobalt ss bonneville speedster--with a 2.2l ecotec) to have hit a speed of 243mph. so its possible that they are inching closer to the aerotech's speed, but what i found impressive was the difference in body styling. the aerotech looks more like a konnesig whereas the cobalt keeps the stock shape of a production cobalt.
im willing to bet that if the eco engine was in the aerotech, that it would shatter the current speed records....
the thing is that the Aerotech was from the late 80's. With adavnces made in the past almost 20 years the car would be faster. No doubt that the Eco speed record engine in that car would also produce some bad ass speeds as well.
Im still a believer in keeping the correct engine in the car unless the engine is toast and you have a killer deal on a swap. To use the Eco you would need a lot more parts than just the engine in his car (currently 2.4).
2.4 FTMFW
^^ see opinions (everyone has a different one)
Sounds like I should be ok with the 2.4. Not planning on forced induction for a while.
There are a lot of 2.4's out there making power. There are also Ecos making power. But yes you should be ok with the 2.4.
All I care about for now is keeping up with my friends mustang. that shouldnt be to hard. Our friend with the talon seems to think even after his coldair I can still take it but it was close with just his dual exhaust. Mustang boy didnt want to go again. I think he was just scared to lose again.
