Allright.. Last night while i was standing in my ddriveway admiring my IMSA i swear god spoke to me. He said why would you want to put a V8 into this thing when you know it deserves a 4... And it got me thinking. I cannot afford an SD4 any time soon. The 2.2 EcoTec puts out a decent amount of power and has reliability since its newer. The other thing i was looking at was the quad 4...


What are the pros and cons of the both of them?
How much of a job is it for each swap?
Which one is better cost wise?
Which one is better for upgrading and preformance?
What are your thoughts of both motors?

i have not regretted my 2.2 ecotec swap .you can read all about in "ecotec swap " in the construction zone .i consider the Q4 a bit of an antique , i wanted a motor currently in production .and the cast iron block did not appeal to me , as well as reported head cracking problems .the ecotec is all alluminum and saves about 150 lbs in weight over a 2.8 .the handling is much improved .as far as power goes , i found the ecotec faster than my old 2.8 even before i turboed it .i use the cavalier 5 speed that it came with so the tranny is well matched to the motor .do a search , there are lots of threads on both these motors .

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Engine choice number 46 huh?

quote Originally posted by IROCTAFIERO: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Engine choice number 46 huh?

Nope id say 4... just keeping my options open.. i really want somthing in this car that will complement its history.

you have me at a crossroads...i loathe 4 bangers...they're for econ cars nothing else imo...but it came with a sd4 ( i know yours didnt buy ya follow my logic )...what about a 3.4 dohc? wasn't that suppose to be the 89's or 90's engine? if you souped a 3.4 dohc engine up that would really follow the line of an imsa fiero having a race version of the stock engine.

------------------
Cliff's 610th Positive Feedback Giver.
#12 NYFOC Member
In recent times, the custom aftermarket car/automobile roadwheel has become a status symbol. These wheels are often incorrectly referred to as "rims". The term "rim" is incorrect because the rim is only the outer portion of a wheel (where the tire is mounted )

Ecotecs can be built to be extremely nasty. I'm going to do an Ecotec swap someday. I say that with much more intention of following through with it than you do with engine swaps, too.

I would NOT put a Quad 4 into a Fiero. I have not had one in a Fiero so can't speak on any of the swap issues, but I've never heard one good thign about that engine, and when I was looking for an engine for my girlfriend's Sunfire every single Quad 4 Sunfire I came across when calling the yards was there for a bad engine. Never a bad trans or something else, it was a bad engine every time.

I'd say go with the Ecotec. Hell, the stock turbo Cobalt's run 13's, apparently. I've heard of a few of the things breaking 1,200 horsepower...that's insane from a 4 cylinder. It's obviously a good platform, it's still in production, and there haven't been reports of widespread failure points like many other engines, including the Quad 4 and 3.4 TDC.

If you go with a 4cyl swap and don't buy a swap that's already done, I wouldn't consider anything but an Ecotec....unless it was a turbo 2.0 from a Sunbird. Weird choice, I know, but a friend of mine had one in an 88GT, and it was pretty damn fast and revved to like 9k...impressive, or at least I thought so.

quote Originally posted by Hockaday: you have me at a crossroads...i loathe 4 bangers...they're for econ cars nothing else imo...but it came with a sd4 ( i know yours didnt buy ya follow my logic )...what about a 3.4 dohc? wasn't that suppose to be the 89's or 90's engine? if you souped a 3.4 dohc engine up that would really follow the line of an imsa fiero having a race version of the stock engine.

Nah actuley the 84 IMSA came with the SD4. i dont know about years following but 84's came with it. i want to try and follow the history of the car with an evolved 4 banger.

quote Originally posted by IROCTAFIERO: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Engine choice number 46 huh?

His grandma has a bottomless wallet. His grandma will buy him whatever he wants so he doesnt whine and cry. She will even pay for somebody to do the swap because we all know the kid cant.

quote Originally posted by turboguy327: His grandma has a bottomless wallet. His grandma will buy him whatever he wants so he doesnt whine and cry. She will even pay for somebody to do the swap because we all know the kid cant.

Wow... constructive.

When you finish being an a$$ perhaps you could come up with something useful to say?

I'd go with the 2.2 ecotec - a turbo manifold is available on ebay really cheaply, combine that with megasquirt, a cheap rebuilt turbo, intercooler and some time and you can see about 270bhp witthout changing the internals, very easy availability of parts, an all aluminium small motor which will improve the handling significantly, and the icing on the cake is that the standard 5 speed will use the standard axles!

search for roger thelin's kit, which needs a little bit of welding on the cradle, and converts the shift cables.

From what I know of your other cars, you could do most of this yourself I would say - I'm considering it if I don't go for a centrifugal sc for the 2.8 due to availability of the engine here in europe

quote Originally posted by turboguy327: His grandma has a bottomless wallet. His grandma will buy him whatever he wants so he doesnt whine and cry. She will even pay for somebody to do the swap because we all know the kid cant.

Go **** in your hat chubby fingers. you still cant even fix a temp gauge. and you took a break from an OIL CHANGE to go stuff your fat face full of food... than you left your idiot brother unattendted to go start the car when it was clearley being worked on.. your gene pool is full of real winners there.:roll eyes:

[This message has been edited by pontiackid86 (edited 09-05-2010).]

quote Originally posted by pontiackid86: Go **** in your hat chubby fingers. you still cant even fix a temp gauge. and you took a break from an OIL CHANGE to go stuff your fat face full of food... than you left your idiot brother unattendted to go start the car when it was clearley being worked on.. your gene pool is full of real winners there.:roll eyes:

What was that first part?? Your the one that cant pick an engine for your grandma to buy you. That requires nothing but thought and you screw that up. So your saying if you worked all day and food was done and it was like 8 at night and you hadnt eaten anything all day you wouldnt leave the drain plug out and let the oil drain while you ate?? You may not know what a full days work is but I tried. Im not fat at all. Im 5 11 and weigh 237. And its not fat. You dont really have a leg to stand on when you cant hold a job for more than 10 minutes.

the 2.4 is a very good motor if built propperly !.. i have ALOT of experience with them. number 1 failure in the engine is the main bearings. number 2 is the oil pump and 3 is a head gasket. blah easy ass things to go thru... there is a wide range of parts available. i have turbod both a 2.4 and a 2.2 eco. and honestly the 2.4 had so much more power overall. my 97z24 i had je pistons. eagle rods, arp head studs, cometic head gasket. a seceret cam swap.(2.3 lo intake cam and a 2.3 ho exhuast cam) 2.3 HO intake manifold 57mm throttle body. 36 lb injectors and a casper adj fuel pressure regulator. no a/c and a underdrive crank. aluminum fly. spec stage 3hd clutch. t3 57 trim turbo, 2.5 in mandrel piping. and tuned with hp tuners, it hauled ass. had about 4k into it. if i can get the video uploaded off my friends cel phone had the car at 156mph in 4th on the freeway. 0-135 on the entrance ramp. it was an insane ride.

as for turboing a 2.2 eco i did a 07 cobalt ls 57 trim turbo stage 2 clutch, 42 lb injectors, it ran good but kept having pcm tunig, there was no tuning available for it and the vehicle kept going into engine power reduced. then we hardwired a cobalt ss pcm into it and tuned it with the hp tuners. it runs good but nothing like my z granite it has alot less done to it. the 2.2 eco is a great motor over all very strong from the factory... but if you are planning a full build i personally would go with a 2.4 either quad edition or a 2.4 eco out of a cobalt ss non supercharged. the power differences is night and day.

quote Originally posted by turboguy327: Hows your CDL?? Since you posted that may 31st and its september?? Oh nevermind everyone. Just another PK bedtime story.

Can I ask what your problem is? Why not just keep your mouthshut instead of insulting people? Just go talk about him behind his back on RFT, they won't mind.

And PK, blowing up every time someone insults you isn't going to make them stop. I like you, you seem like a nice guy and everything, but if I were a jackass like some people seem to be, I'd give you crap just to see your reaction.

- End mini-rant -

[This message has been edited by MadDanceSkillz (edited 09-06-2010).]

my 2.2 eco is from a 2004 cavalier and HP tuners was available for it when i put it in .i use HP tuners , 34lb injectors ,snow water meth injection and air to water intercooling .no internal mods and a big 16G from turbochargers . com and it runs great .i would not use a motor i have to do internal mods to get power out of .the newer factory motors are so well designed that internal mods are a waste of time .i run 11 psi with no problems .the rods in a 2.2 are the weak point but have produced 350 hp with a turbo without failure .they will not take much nitrous , something to stay away from .the 2.4 and 2.0 ecotec blocks are the same castings as are the heads .the parts are all interchangeable .the 2.0 and 2.4 motors have the better rods and pistons .i am seriously considering buying a HHR SS turbo , drive it for a while and use the drivetrain for my fiero .the 2.0 turbo motor doesnt seem to be an option in any of the new GM vehicles .has it been discontinued?

Eh, Not called for

------------------

[This message has been edited by Fiero_Fan_88 (edited 09-06-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Fiero_Fan_88: Eh, Not called for

Before you changed it i was going to say the same thing.

I mean im 6'4 and only weigh 180 lbs and it really is mostly flat muscle. Yeah i have a slight protective layer for winter but its not enough that i would say you could call ME fat.

237lbs and only 5'11 ya thats really super model skinny there !

Would it be right to say that with the 2.4 you've got to worry about VVT and electronic throttle though? Sorry if I'm wrong on that one, I haven't worked on one of those mills!

fosgatecavy98(?) is the other major ecotec guy on here, I believe he uses MegaSquirt (hence my suggestion of it), seems like a fun (although possibly slightly more challenging) way of tuning.

quote Originally posted by pontiackid86: Thanks a lot Gandalf

No worries bud, but I do agree with MadDanceSkillz - take it easy dude!

quote Originally posted by wftb: my 2.2 eco is from a 2004 cavalier and HP tuners was available for it when i put it in .i use HP tuners , 34lb injectors ,snow water meth injection and air to water intercooling .no internal mods and a big 16G from turbochargers . com and it runs great .i would not use a motor i have to do internal mods to get power out of .the newer factory motors are so well designed that internal mods are a waste of time .i run 11 psi with no problems .the rods in a 2.2 are the weak point but have produced 350 hp with a turbo without failure .they will not take much nitrous , something to stay away from .the 2.4 and 2.0 ecotec blocks are the same castings as are the heads .the parts are all interchangeable .the 2.0 and 2.4 motors have the better rods and pistons .i am seriously considering buying a HHR SS turbo , drive it for a while and use the drivetrain for my fiero .the 2.0 turbo motor doesnt seem to be an option in any of the new GM vehicles .has it been discontinued?

Yes hptuners can tune a cavalier. It doesn't support 05 up cobalt or g5 with a 2.2 eco. I believe the only tuner for it out there is trifecta out of cali. As you stated the 2.2 does have good power and can easily be modded . I personally feel the 2.4 is a more powerful engine. Although I have never put all my $$ into a eco. Only a 2.4 now if I built a eco exactly how I did my z then it would only be fair for me to judge the power difference.

HP tuners now supports 2007-2010 2.2 ecotec cobalts .i dont know why the 05 and 06 models are not supported ,but there are a lot of gaps in the HP tuners lineup .and the newer 2.2's are V V T motors now so i would go with a newer one anyway .as far as modded engines go , the old quad will not hold a candle to an ecotec .the GM drag program ended with 1400 HP out of a 2.2 ecotec.and the block and crank and all the valvetrain were stock up to 600 HP .changes to get there were rods , pistons and gaskets and intake .all with the bonus of a lighter engine without the Q4 weak points .to each there own , but i think the Q4 motors allure is more nostalgia than practicality .

Hmm wasn't aware they now support the 07 up. The 07 I turbod was in 07 car had 16k miles on it. Kid had the money so I did the job. I have seen the eco drag car and that thing is pretty sick. Never looked into exactly what it had tho. Only thing I truly never liked about the eco setups is the gearing in the transmissions is different than the getrag and isuzu for the quads. Everyone is in love with the lsj 2.0t but personally I'm not I think a 2.2 turbod would have been a better decision for gm but w.e. My friends 07 ls wastes his brothers 09 ss and the ss has a full dp back exhaust and a can tune.

quote Originally posted by pontiackid86: Allright.. Last night while i was standing in my ddriveway admiring my IMSA i swear god spoke to me. He said why would you want to put a V8 into this thing when you know it deserves a 4... And it got me thinking. I cannot afford an SD4 any time soon. The 2.2 EcoTec puts out a decent amount of power and has reliability since its newer. The other thing i was looking at was the quad 4... What are the pros and cons of the both of them? How much of a job is it for each swap? Which one is better cost wise? Which one is better for upgrading and preformance? What are your thoughts of both motors?

God usually knows what he's talking about. But I don't think he said a 2.2. He probably said a 2.4 VVT or an Cobalt SS motor.


As far as the Quad-4 goes... I think the Quad-4 is a great motor, and because it's relatively old you can still run it with OBD-1 and not have to mortgage your house trying to figure out how to wire up your gauges.

That said, if "I" was going to do a Quad-4 swap... I would more realistically consider going with a slightly modified TwinCam swap. The TwinCam is the 2.4 liter version of the Quad-4. It's nearly identical to the Quad-4 except for the fact that it has dual balancing shafts. The shafts help smooth out the engine. The red-line is not typically as high as the W32 Quad-4, but it's a MUCH more common motor, and is undeniably much more reliable. All the little bugs that people had with the Quad-4 were resolved with the TwinCam. It would fit really nice in the Fiero as well.

They have a pretty high RPM also. Do some research into something called "the Secret Cam Swap." I don't know why they gave it such a stupid name, but it boosts the 165hp of the TwinCam to 185hp by swapping in a 1995 intake came from a Quad-4, and a 1993 exhaust came from a Quad-4 (all of which fit the 2.4 TwinCam).

Then, along with an aftermarket intake (there's a website dedicated just to these motors) and throttle body, and of course, the less restrictive exhaust of the Fiero, you can easily do 200hp with about 185ft-lbs of torque. It has a great torque curve, nearly flat for not being a VVT motor.

I've always thought this engine combination would do quite well in a 1987 Fiero Coupe 5-Speed, or an 88 Fiero Formula. Or even something like an 84 2m4 SE.

What you can expect is probably high 14s on a good day, and 34+ miles to the gallon on the highway.


In my 1997 Grand Am SE Sedan with the 165hp and 165lbs of torque, I ran consistent low 16s in the quarter, and averaged about 23mpg in the city, and ~30 on the highway. That was with a 4T60E transmission, in a car that weighed about 3,100 pounds.


EDIT: just wanted to add that, for the TwinCam / Quad-4 at least... naturally aspirated, it's good for a real sporty car. It's not going to make your Fiero a die-hard drag racing king... but it'll make it lighter, will certainly help the weight distribution, and will make it a great all around commuter sports car.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 09-06-2010).]

I just want to chip in and say that I drive an 09 Cobalt with the 2.2, and have been active on the cobalt forums for over a year now- and every guy there will tell you that the 2.2 is the most potent out of all the 4 cyl gm engines. It has the largest aftermarket support, and will make more power per dollar than the others. Now theres the issue of the 05-06 engine not being able to have aftermarket cams, I forgot the specifics but basically you'd need a completely custom cam ground for it. A couple of the guys there throw on the LSJ M60 s/c and net about 210-230whp on that setup with just the charger and related equipment. The guys there say that the engine will not handle over 250hp consistently cause of the rods.. Thats about what I can say on the subject. I think if you did what a gent here already mentioned, and change out the rods/pistons for something more durable, you'd have one hell of an engine..

quote Originally posted by MadDanceSkillz: I would NOT put a Quad 4 into a Fiero. I have not had one in a Fiero so can't speak on any of the swap issues, but I've never heard one good thign about that engine, and when I was looking for an engine for my girlfriend's Sunfire every single Quad 4 Sunfire I came across when calling the yards was there for a bad engine. Never a bad trans or something else, it was a bad engine every time.

Would the LD9 Twin Cam 2.4L engine be considered a Quad 4? A ecotech sounds like a cool swap but would it end up costing more than a 3800 sc?

Yes a 2.4 is a modernized 2.3 quad 4. As for it costing more than a 3800sc it all depends. I have found totaled 03 cav ls's with a 2.2 eco for 500 bux. And full drivetrains for 6-800. Some people prefer a 4 cyl over a 6 you can still put just as big of numbers down with a 4 cyl turbo'd as a s/c v6. And not to mention the fuel savings .

Well I know a guy who has a 2.4L twin cam with 300k miles on it so it seems to be reliable so I don't see why the engine shouldn't be put into a fiero. Maybe the older quad 4's had more problems than the 2.4L.

The 2.4 is definitly more reliable than the older quads but 300k is a damn stretch on one. Most I've ever seen was 200k. As I stated above a 2.4 is simple to build and parts are available. I personally would build another if I had a car for it to go in.

Neither of the engines will work with the fiero manual transmissions correct?

the eco im positive is a different bolt pattern . as for the quad. im not entirely sure. i think its the same as a fiero but i could be wrong. need to ask phonedawgz he would know.