I did one eco tech swap many years ago and was happy with the results but that was a normally aspirated swap. Now I am in the beginning stages of building a Fiero for my Daughter and leaning heavily towards an eco tech swap for her car. Only thing is I do not want her starting off driving with a turbo or SC engine so which would be the best normally aspirated engine to use along with the F23 for her car. Also this engine would be able to be used for moch ups for mounts and such to make eco tech kits. Dan
I think you were asking which NA ecotec was the best for your daughter's Fiero, Dan. I'm not an expert and I'm sure this is the most elementary question for someone of your caliber so don't take it as me attempting to be a smart alec but what characteristics are you looking for as it relates to performance?
Want decent performance that down the road can be enhanced with a nice turbo but not for her at 16 just learning how to drive if you know what I mean. Local wreckers has a few Cobalt's as well as many other eco tech cars and a few are manual tranny so I have lots to pick from just not wanting the turbo for her quite yet. Dan
Im planning on doing an 2.0L Ecotec Swap, i'm gonna take the LSJ block and head, swap out the supercharger for a turbo, change some internals, add the msd distributor and run megasquirt for a stand alone ecu...once the 2.8 v6 dies that is. She's still currently running strong...but I have the LSJ on standby...i'll post a build forum once this happens.
You have 2.2 - 150 hp 2.4 - 170 2.0 supercharged - 205 hp later can turbo for huge gains 2.0 turbo 260 hp
Save time and hassle I'd go supercharged. Can always take belt off if your daughter drives. Then like I said you want more can turbo or get TVS blower
Well I'm guessing you can take belt off from charger and drive if its like L67
Second that. Seems like LSJ would be best bet. Nice grunt for a budding racer w/ plenty options to up the ante when daughters ready for next level of performance.
I read that it's they're so much more efficient than stock M62 blower w/ great top end. Still retain that off the line axle breaking torque that most superchargers do but doesn't peter out at highway speeds.
I read that it's they're so much more efficient than stock M62 blower w/ great top end. Still retain that off the line axle breaking torque that most superchargers do but doesn't peter out at highway speeds.
Now to bad the m90 never got that... there was a whipple for a limited time. I admit do love blower sound.. but the 3800s went turbo.... those whipples can be nasty too
The whole thing would be a contradiction for me. If I wanted a modern overcomplicated setup like the Ecotec, why would I be driving a car from the 80s?
The whole thing would be a contradiction for me. If I wanted a modern overcomplicated setup like the Ecotec, why would I be driving a car from the 80s?
Why would you post in a thread about it, if you're not interested in it?
An Ecotec isn't really any more complicated than the 2.5 or 2.8 in a Fiero. It is however, a modern, all aluminum, DOHC 4 cylinder that can easily make more power than both, with less work.
The whole thing would be a contradiction for me. If I wanted a modern overcomplicated setup like the Ecotec, why would I be driving a car from the 80s?
Why not? Why do anything we humans do? It's the thrill of the chase that keeps this existence interesting. Furthermore, that is how progress is made.
Originally posted by dobey: Why would you post in a thread about it, if you're not interested in it?
1) That's the subject of the thread. Reasons why people don't pursue this swap. 2) There's a difference between not wanting something, and not being interested in reading about it.
It's clear that people buy Fieros for different reasons. Some buy them as a shell to be modernized. For a modernized Fiero, the Ecotec would be interesting. Personally, I like the way cars were designed in the early EFI OBD-1 era. I understand them, and like them. After that they jumped the shark. I don't like working on cars from the modern era, they aren't fun for me nor are they cheap. i.e. I don't get it. So naturally, putting that type of drivetrain/controls into the Fiero would contradict why I went to the trouble of finding and buying a car of this age. I'm the kind of guy that rolls his eyes when he sees an LSwhatever in a car from the 60's. You don't have to agree, but that's an insight into why I wouldn't want an Ecotec in my Fiero. An old car with a modern engine just ruins it for me. Nevertheless, an Ecotec Fiero would be interesting, even if I don't want it myself. If I could do any swap, it would probably be the SD4. But that's not financially realistic. My realistic swap would be the 3.4L, at the risk of being boring.
to each their own .a modern engine in an old car does it for me .and you dont have to build up a 2.2 ecotec to have more performance than a 2.8 .i have had both in my car and the 2.2 ecotec is faster and the light weight makes it handle better .the claimed 135 HP of the 2.8 only existed in an add mans dreams .most dyno less than 105 HP at the wheels .as far as being more complicated , i find it simpler with the lack of a distributor and simple sensors to make it all run .and i tune from a laptop with HP tuners .some 2.2's are over 160 hp , it depends on the model of the car you get it from because of exhaust restrictions .
to each their own .a modern engine in an old car does it for me .and you dont have to build up a 2.2 ecotec to have more performance than a 2.8 .i have had both in my car and the 2.2 ecotec is faster and the light weight makes it handle better .the claimed 135 HP of the 2.8 only existed in an add mans dreams .most dyno less than 105 HP at the wheels .as far as being more complicated , i find it simpler with the lack of a distributor and simple sensors to make it all run .and i tune from a laptop with HP tuners .some 2.2's are over 160 hp , it depends on the model of the car you get it from because of exhaust restrictions .
Whats up buddy! Where did you get engine mounts and hardware? In the near future I have plans to swap an Ecotec 2.0 turbo in my 88 GT.
Originally posted by wftb: the claimed 135 HP of the 2.8 only existed in an add mans dreams .most dyno less than 105 HP at the wheels
Well, the 135 HP rating is at the crank, not the wheels. And not at all a useful number by itself. Stock dyno at the wheels is typically in the 105-115 range, yes. But given losses in drivetrain, and losses due to other environmental conditions, with a slight margin of error, that is right in the range where 135 HP would fall. So yes, I wouldn't say it's a dream number. But it's also a pretty useless number; especially when comparing the 2.8 to a DOHC 4 cylinder.
The 1.4l turbo Ecotec in the Cruze Eco for example, is also advertised as making about 138 BHP. And the Cruze Eco weighs about the same as a Fiero GT. But the Cruze Eco feels like a total dog compared to the Fiero. Because the Fiero makes about 60 ft-lbs more torque at the crank, compared to the 1.4L turbo. They both have a pretty broad torque band, but the 2.8 makes plenty more than the 1.4L does.
The Ecotec is a far superior engine design, but it's not a platform of perfection as many often make it out to be. Comparing engines straight up based on HP numbers alone is just nonsense. As long as the engine is making some torque, the HP numbers will keep going up, the faster the engine spins. And Ecotecs being small DOHC engines, can be spun a bit faster than a 2.8 can. An electric motor that makes 120 ft-lbs of torque throughout its entire RPM range, and can spin to over 20,000 RPM, would be slow as a logging rig when spinning in normal driving RPM ranges, but would make over 450 BHP at 20,000 RPM.
the mounts i made myself using the rubber bits the eco came with .thats in my thread in the construction zone.the eco cruse weight i would have to look up .i know the car my engine came in weighed more than a fiero GT but had better 1/4 mile times than the fiero did .the eco cruse is a small engine and it is geared for MPG so its poor acceleration is not surprising .i had the luxury of comparing both the 2.8 and my ecotec in the same car and the 2.8 is a poor second compared to the 2.2 .remember also that my eco has the transmision that it came with from the donor car so the gearing is a good match .i dont think the guys that have bolted up to the fiero trannys get as good results .i dont want to bash the 2.8 too hard , it is a 40 year old design after all and lots of people like the stock look in there cars .but you dont have to go to a 2.0 turbo or supercharged motor to get better performance , a 2.2 eco is all you need .and then there is the 40 MPG highway mileage as a bonus too .
Originally posted by wftb: i know the car my engine came in weighed more than a fiero GT but had better 1/4 mile times than the fiero did .the eco cruse is a small engine and it is geared for MPG so its poor acceleration is not surprising .i had the luxury of comparing both the 2.8 and my ecotec in the same car and the 2.8 is a poor second compared to the 2.2 .remember also that my eco has the transmision that it came with from the donor car so the gearing is a good match .i dont think the guys that have bolted up to the fiero trannys get as good results
The 2.8 is definitely not as good an engine. I was just making the point that the Ecotec is very different, so a direct comparison, especially purely from the point of HP rating, is not a good comparison. The transmission in the Cruze Eco has gearing fairly close to that of the Getrag, and it's also even closer to the MT2 F40's gearing. And the 1.4L turbo makes peak torque at 1800 RPM, with a fairly flat curve throughout the powerband. The Cruze Eco also has taller tires to help it out, so the same engine in a Fiero GT with stock tires will accelerate even more slowly.
Gearing does help, but the engines that make more torque, and keep making the torque at higher RPMs, will accelerate faster, with the same transmission and gearing bolted to both of them, because they will be able to increase the engine speed and overcome the resistance of moving the car forward, faster.
While the 2.8 would accelerate faster, compared to the 1.4L turbo, both in stock form, the Ecotec would still be a far better engine choice, especially when keeping the M32 trans it is bolted to, as in a Fiero, it could probably result in 30 MPG city, and 50 MPG highway, and while accelerating more slowly than the 2.8, would still be pretty quick off the line. Also, some small changes in programming could probably also push the torque up so that the engine can spin faster, and some lightweight 17" wheels could be used instead, with 215/55-17 LRR tires, which would make the acceleration more closely match the Fiero's. If you could squeeze 200+ ft-lbs out of the 1.4, throughout the powerband, keeping the curve relatively flat, it would also remain a very fun car to drive off the line, and still get over 30 MPG around town.
FYI, there is a GM-provided tune of the 2.0 Turbo that bumps it from 260/260 HP/Torque to 290/340 on the five speed. The auto was limited to 290/290. It's software and one sensor. There are 3rd party tunes that make even more power.
Also, at least in the Sky, this is an intercooled turbo. I'm not sure how this could be accommodated in a mid-engine car like the Fiero.
I'm trying to chase down a dyno chart for a stock 2.0 with the GM approved tune. Will post if I find.
The Cruze Eco also has taller tires to help it out, so the same engine in a Fiero GT with stock tires will accelerate even more slowly.
Wait, what???
Taller tires (larger diameter) always make a vehicle accelerate slower, when all other things being equal. Ask anyone who has purchased a 4x4 truck and then put some big tires on it.
FYI, there is a GM-provided tune of the 2.0 Turbo that bumps it from 260/260 HP/Torque to 290/340 on the five speed. The auto was limited to 290/290. It's software and one sensor. There are 3rd party tunes that make even more power.
Also, at least in the Sky, this is an intercooled turbo. I'm not sure how this could be accommodated in a mid-engine car like the Fiero.
I'm trying to chase down a dyno chart for a stock 2.0 with the GM approved tune. Will post if I find.
Furthermore, the tune also adds the launch control option, for sure and might also add the no-lift-shift option (if this isn't already there from factory)...
we need the engine from either the cobalt SS turbo or the HHR turbo .pretty sure the GM tune was available for them too .but with the solstice/sky turbo , the exhaust and turbo manifolds interfere with our fiero axles .all the 2.0 turbo motors are intercooled .the cruze turbo motor is considered an ecotec as well , i really cant get excited at all about that engine .it is too small as far as i am concerned and it has a cast iron block /aluminum head combination .that usually spell trouble down the road .the cruze turbo would be a good iron duke replacement but the only thing it would do better than a 2.8 would be gas mileage and slightly better front rear balance .i havent looked into the current crop of 2.0 turbo ecotecs but it would not surprise me if they have the exhaust headers cast in to the heads .some of the new ford motors are like that .
[This message has been edited by wftb (edited 08-26-2013).]
So far the only good turbo or SC cobalt engine I have found is either close to $2,000 in cost for just the engine or is baffed from abuse. I can get three or four 3800SC engines for that price which is what has kept me going with the 3800SC engines all these years being easily available and at a reasonable price. Of course that is slowly changing which is why I am working on 3900 swap right now and a 3500 swap next month as they are very easy engines to come by for a reasonable price. With the cobalt SC and turbo engine most wreckers treat them like they are gold and worth a fortune where the normally aspirated eco techs can be picked up real cheap quite easily from just about every wreckers around. Unfortunately there is not a version to my knowledge of the 2.0 l that is normally aspirated that shares all the same mounting points and such as the turbo or SC engine or I would use that for now and just upgrade later on. If I am wrong here please correct me. Dan
I didn't think gm tune was that aggressive I've raced a gm tuned tc cobalt and edged hin out pretty good. Thats with hptuners I believe from zzp. Mu tune wasn't that aggressive... as any more the stock clutch would slip
The tunes were available for all tc models.
In newer tc models torque is up to 300
[This message has been edited by LoW_KeY (edited 08-22-2013).]
Originally posted by akademikjeanius:Furthermore, the tune also adds the launch control option, for sure and might also add the no-lift-shift option (if this isn't already there from factory)...
The Kappas (Sol and Sky) didn't get launch control with the tune. We did get NLS from 1-2, 2-3, and I think 3-4. It's fun, but it's taken me a long time to unlearn taking my foot off the gas when the clutch goes in.
The curb weight on the Sky Redline is almost 3100 pounds and with the tune on the five-speed, it's a 4.9 0-60 car.
Does anyone know for sure the HP and torque limits for the Cobalt version of the tune? It's 290/340 manual and 290/290 auto on the Kappas.
the 2.2 ecotec and the 2.0 ecotec share the same block and mounting configuration .the diffs are in the electronics , reluctor wheels , DBW and electric vs hydraulic PS,and HPDI etc etc but you mount them the same way .
Nothing better in my eyes than taking an old car and modernizing it. That is the greatest appeal to me when talking about Fieros. I love the flexibility and numerous options to make it exactly what I want it to be. Plus, not many people expect it, let alone know what the car is anymore.
And for my next stunt, EJ25t (using the SVX FWD trans) into a 65-69 Corvair!
Taller tires (larger diameter) always make a vehicle accelerate slower, when all other things being equal. Ask anyone who has purchased a 4x4 truck and then put some big tires on it.
In terms of MPH @ RPM, taller tires will roll a greater distance with each rotation of the engine. It will however, take more torque to overcome the added resistance of rolling a greater distance with each rotation. I'm guessing a lot of people don't fix their speedo gears or reprogram the ECM to deal with the change in tire size when adding big tires too, so the speedometer would read slower than actual speed. 4x4 guys also tend to end up switching to all-terrain tires when putting big tires on and lifting their trucks, which will increase ground friction, and drag, on the truck, making it require more energy to overcome the added resistance.
Though, if your engine is producing enough torque to overcome the increased resistance of the taller tires, then yes, your car will accelerate faster (even if your speedometer is wrong because you didn't fix the gear/ECM to account for the change). If you don't believe me, go do the math. It's simple to do, and there's a calculator on this site: http://www.car-videos.net/tools/speedrpm.asp
The Kappas (Sol and Sky) didn't get launch control with the tune. We did get NLS from 1-2, 2-3, and I think 3-4. It's fun, but it's taken me a long time to unlearn taking my foot off the gas when the clutch goes in.
The curb weight on the Sky Redline is almost 3100 pounds and with the tune on the five-speed, it's a 4.9 0-60 car.
Does anyone know for sure the HP and torque limits for the Cobalt version of the tune? It's 290/340 manual and 290/290 auto on the Kappas.
Thanks for clarify on LC and NLS. Never considered the readjustment required to apply the shift w/o lift option. Looking forward to the day when it becomes an actual challenge in my LNF/LHU/LDK swapped car.
H.P./T.Q. limits for 'Balt equivalent upgrade are slightly lower than Kappas. According to Crate Engine Depot:
the 2.2 ecotec and the 2.0 ecotec share the same block and mounting configuration .the diffs are in the electronics , reluctor wheels , DBW and electric vs hydraulic PS,and HPDI etc etc but you mount them the same way .
Thank you that just helped make my decision on which engine to use for my daughters car. Dan
Just returned from the wreckers and they are going to pull a nice 06 cobalt 2.2 for me and I am going to mount it up to a nice F23. Not bad less then 135,000 km for $500 where another wanted $1,800 for a 2.0L turbo engine with over 240,000 km on it. Dan
Just returned from the wreckers and they are going to pull a nice 06 cobalt 2.2 for me and I am going to mount it up to a nice F23. Not bad less then 135,000 km for $500 where another wanted $1,800 for a 2.0L turbo engine with over 240,000 km on it. Dan
check and see if it still has the hydraulic power steering mounted on the end of one camshaft .if it doesnt and the head does not have even the mounting provision then you have a gen 2 motor .it will have DBW and a 58x reluctor wheel crankshaft .i am pretty sure those changes did not happen till 2007 or if they even matter to you but i thought you should know what you might be up against .there is also interference between the waterpump crossover pipe and the F23 if the engine came from an automatic car .there have been 4 versions of the 2.2 , they still look mostly the same but there are differences from old to new . new versions have V V T as well .
They are nice to color too :P just had to add that in
I got bored and decided to color it a bit... still gotta do rest ran out of tape. still have to clean up fiero's motor again, but I figured I'd start here.
[This message has been edited by LoW_KeY (edited 08-24-2013).]
They are nice to color too :P just had to add that in
I got bored and decided to color it a bit... still gotta do rest ran out of tape. still have to clean up fiero's motor again, but I figured I'd start here.
Thanks for clarify on LC and NLS. Never considered the readjustment required to apply the shift w/o lift option. Looking forward to the day when it becomes an actual challenge in my LNF/LHU/LDK swapped car.
H.P./T.Q. limits for 'Balt equivalent upgrade are slightly lower than Kappas. According to Crate Engine Depot:
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
[This message has been edited by MulletproofMonk (edited 08-26-2013).]
Yes, I know. LowKey asked what kind of power gains could be expected from GM stage 1 kit on the 'Balts/HHR's as he already knew what it was for the Kappas and he knew there was a difference in gains between them all for same kit.
Really schweet comparision chart, b.t.w.!
[This message has been edited by akademikjeanius (edited 08-26-2013).]
Keep 'em coming
