Can someone explain to me the differences between the engine on the 95 Z24/GT and the 96 and newer, without getting too technical? I know the 2.4 has 5 more lb/ft of torque (is the performance increase noticeable?).
Let's say I had a choice between two cars to buy, a 95 Z24 and a 96 Z24, which were identical except the 95 had lower mileage, and they costed the same. Should I get the 95 for the lower mileage or the 96 for the newer engine?
you should get the 96 z24 cus i heard theres too much promblems with the 2.3l engine and the 2.4 is more reliable
Go for the 96 2.4
The main differences I can think of between the two are the oil pump and balance shafts. 2.4 will be easier to find as well.
2000 2200 Cavalier: 9/14/2000--10/23/2006
2007 G85 SS S/C: 10/23/2006--Present
Vote for me at
Motortopia.com! Thanks!
i would get the 95..obd1 pcm = chips
Quote:
The main differences I can think of between the two are the oil pump and balance shafts. 2.4 will be easier to find as well.
well as far as finding it i dont think it will matter cus i think hes looking at the CARS...but i have to agree mesra....
the 95 cav has more performance options,like pcm softwear and engine parts....but if you disagree just look at it like this...all the 2.4 twin cam guys take parts off the 95 2.3 to make their 2.4 faster...so whats that tell you about the 2.3?
besides, with the 95, you got the HO swap, and it's a bolt in basically, just a few "minor" mods (P/S pump line conversion is the only thing really I think, nothing else).
you can also do things with the 95 (after a HO swap) like, bore and stroke (2.6L) then run FI (BIG turbo or S/C, like the Greddy 18G or the Eaton M90). downside, the isuzu trans, upside Quaife makes a LSD for it (the Lotus Elan M100 model) and you may be able to find true isuzu internals for a nice tranny.
go to www.quad4forums.com and get the info, both TC and Quad4 enthusiasts go there.
Quote:
downside, the isuzu trans,
reverse that..just get the getrag tranny off the HO engine..itll bolt up as well..has a better drive ratios,stronger gears,and SOME came with an LSD.
did we mention that with the 95 you can LEGALLY remove your speed and rev limiters
I didn't want to get TOO in detail LOL
i have a 2.3 quad 4 and its got some pull to it but its supposibly hard to maintane ( cant spell ) but other than that they have alot of easy mods to do like changing in H.O. parts from the junk yard, performance chips, cat-back(expensive!) header (only one site i know of that sells headers for the 2.3 ) then you can easily make a intake with a high flow intake bought from autozone a rubber 90 degree rubber thing and a pipe to fit.......mines got 10000000plus on it and runs great
akunamata
CHECK OUT MY DOMAIN!!
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2236703
The 2.3 of course, no problems here.
Quote:
Q: How much Horsepower & Torque does my 3rd gen car have?
1995-97 2.2 OHV - 120 Horsepower / 130 lbs of Torque
1998-2002 2200 OHV - 115 Horsepower / 135 lbs of Torque
1995 2.3 L.O. Quad 4 - 160 Horsepower / 155 lbs of Torque
1996-2002 2.4 TC - 150 Horsepower / 155 lbs of Torque
2002-2005 2.2 ECOTEC - 140 Horsepower / 150 lbs of Torque
Hope im of help
Under Construction, should be finished before years over...
Corey
Corey Duquette wrote:Quote:
Q: How much Horsepower & Torque does my 3rd gen car have?
1995-97 2.2 OHV - 120 Horsepower / 130 lbs of Torque
1998-2002 2200 OHV - 115 Horsepower / 135 lbs of Torque
1995 2.3 L.O. Quad 4 - 160 Horsepower / 155 lbs of Torque
1996-2002 2.4 TC - 150 Horsepower / 155 lbs of Torque
2002-2005 2.2 ECOTEC - 140 Horsepower / 150 lbs of Torque
Hope im of help
yaaaaaaay i have a 160 hp stock and 155 trq
didnt noe that lol
akunamata
CHECK OUT MY DOMAIN!!
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2236703
Go with the 2.3. Many more options, and I'm really liking my HO 7200 chip
(Eprom?)
Haven't gotten to rebuild and swap in the HO yet, but I have a redline of 7200 rpms, no governor, and (if I remember correctly) advanced spark, and modified air/fuel ratio. (thanks again Scott!!!)
2.3's absofreakinglutely own as far as I'm concerned
Corey Duquette wrote:Quote:
Q: How much Horsepower & Torque does my 3rd gen car have?
1995-97 2.2 OHV - 120 Horsepower / 130 lbs of Torque
1998-2002 2200 OHV - 115 Horsepower / 135 lbs of Torque
1995 2.3 L.O. Quad 4 - 160 Horsepower / 155 lbs of Torque
1996-2002 2.4 TC - 150 Horsepower / 155 lbs of Torque
2002-2005 2.2 ECOTEC - 140 Horsepower / 150 lbs of Torque
Hope im of help
No!!! Incorrect!
It is:
1995-97 2.2 OHV - 120@5200 Horsepower / 130@4000 lbs of Torque
1998-2002 2200 OHV - 115@5000 Horsepower / 135@3600 lbs of Torque
1995 2.3 L.O. Quad 4 - 150@5600 Horsepower / 145@4800 lbs of Torque
1996-2002 2.4 TC - 150@5600 Horsepower / 155@2400-4400 lbs of Torque
2002-2005 2.2 ECOTEC - 140@5600Horsepower / 150@4000 lbs of Torque
Corrected version found here.
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=47&i=30104&t=30104&start=25
Noob know-it-alls should not do stickys!
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
2.4, mre parts readily availible, + it is am uch more dependable platform.
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Quote:
Noob know-it-alls should not do stickys!
funny..cus i think he was closer to correct
i like how people try to sell the LO quad short..it had bigger cams,bigger TB,bigger manifolds, etc...what makes you think it didnt make more hp than a TC?
Because I quoted from GM and not made up #s out of my azz.^^^
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Short Hand wrote:2.4, mre parts readily availible, + it is am uch more dependable platform.
wow, that statement was wrong on so many levels. the 2.4L is NOT more dependable than the 2.3L, and to say so is just ignorant.
A motors dependability is based on the owners care for the maintenance of said motor. the 2.3L was given a bad rap for people abusing their motors. The 2.3L was meant for the open road, to be moving all the time, not sitting in a traffic jam.
Quote:
The 2.3L was meant for the open road, to be moving all the time, not sitting in a traffic jam.
thats why god created the fan switch
hotbug1776 wrote:Short Hand wrote:2.4, mre parts readily availible, + it is am uch more dependable platform.
wow, that statement was wrong on so many levels. the 2.4L is NOT more dependable than the 2.3L, and to say so is just ignorant.
A motors dependability is based on the owners care for the maintenance of said motor. the 2.3L was given a bad rap for people abusing their motors. The 2.3L was meant for the open road, to be moving all the time, not sitting in a traffic jam.
It was wrong on NO LEVEL. We drive Econo Boxes which were meant for city slicking. So city driving is something it should have been prepped for. The TC on the other hand is in the hands of MANY abusive drivers in the city and on the highways and still outlasts.
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
your opinion, just like mine, of course we're both biased,
and I'm faster.
