ecotec in a w-body

[brianteel]

i was talking to a guy today about this (cant remember your name if you read this sorry). we got to thinking why not stick the nice small 2.2 ecotoc motor in the car and turbo it. for the wieght of the motor and trans plus the turbo setup you should be able to get some good power and have alot of room still in the engine bay

[jeremy]

I would drop in a turbo'd quad before a turbo'd ecotech....

[brianteel]

just list some reasons why......i am just interested in other possibilities

[jeremy]

I love the powerband of the HO Quads....they are a blast to drive without boost. I really have nothing against the ecotech, I am just a huge fan of the Quads

[ToroToro]

The ecotec is much better than the Quad 4, IMO. It's way quieter, smoother, and I'm quite sure more durable.

 

And I'll say that the ecotec cavy I drove had a surprising amount of balls for what it was. Not a bad little motor...it's got potential for sure.

[dbtk2]

I love the powerband of the HO Quads....they are a blast to drive without boost. I really have nothing against the ecotech, I am just a huge fan of the Quads

 

I agree, my Calais 442 (H.O. Quad 4) had an awesome powerband, and 7200rpm limiter was awesome as well. That thing actually scooted along quite well. They make very good power and actually have a decent amount down low as well. 160ft.lbs. from a N/A 2.3 is not bad, and neither is 180 or 190hp depending on whether its a W41 or just a regular HO quad.

 

Shawn

[DiscoStudd]

The ecotec is much better than the Quad 4, IMO. It's way quieter, smoother, and I'm quite sure more durable.

Check, check, and check! Although the original Q4 was a balls-to-the-wall screamer, it was crude and unreliable. If you ask me, the ECOTEC is light years better than the Q4 and its 2.4TC derivative. The ECO's stock block, crank, and pistons can supposedly handle 500hp without needing to be "beefed up." And due to it having both aluminum block and heads, the headgaskets last alot longer than the Q4's.

 

I don't know how many pristine GA's and Calais' I saw in the boneyards with dead Q4's in them over the years. The original Q4 had a good powerband, but was noisier than an Iron Duke (and 1/4 as reliable.) The 2.4TC was less raucous (and less prone to blown headgaskets at 50k,) but you had to wind it up above 6500 RPM to get any power out of it, and with the "improvements" it had over the Q4, it sounded like a strangled crow at that RPM. The 2.2 ECOTEC isn't quite as brutally quick as the original HO Q4, but it brings the power on early and doesn't sound like a chainsaw on crack when you wind it out...

 

IMHO, ECOTEC > Q4/2.4TC ...

 

why not stick the nice small 2.2 ecotoc motor in the car and turbo it. for the wieght of the motor and trans plus the turbo setup you should be able to get some good power and have alot of room still in the engine bay

I think it would actually be a good swap for an 89-91 Grand Am SE (or any 1G N-Body GA for that matter.) GMPP sells a supercharger kit for the 2.2 ECO that's supposedly good for 240hp. The 2007 Pontiac Solstice GXP is slated to have a turbocharged 2.0 liter ECOTEC with variable valve timing and direct fuel injection that will net 260hp/260tq (0-60 in 5.5 seconds.) Now what if they turbo'd the 2.4 ECO? That'd be a real screamer!

[SigEpCutlass]

 

why not stick the nice small 2.2 ecotoc motor in the car and turbo it. for the wieght of the motor and trans plus the turbo setup you should be able to get some good power and have alot of room still in the engine bay

I think it would actually be a good swap for an 89-91 Grand Am SE (or any 1G N-Body GA for that matter.) GMPP sells a supercharger kit for the 2.2 ECO that's supposedly good for 240hp. The 2007 Pontiac Solstice GXP is slated to have a turbocharged 2.0 liter ECOTEC with variable valve timing and direct fuel injection that will net 260hp/260tq (0-60 in 5.5 seconds.) Now what if they turbo'd the 2.4 ECO? That'd be a real screamer!

 

You sir are correct. If all goes well, I will be driving one of those awesome roadsters in '07/'08!

[fastbird232]

Turbocharged Ecotec = L67, in terms of power. But with the weight savings, a four-banger w-body would be faster than an L67-powered car of the same model, right?

 

Thing is, you're gonna spend a lot more on the Ecotec setup. But shit, it'd be the only one in existence! DO IT!

[THe_DeTAiL3R]

I think ecotec in a w-body would be great!

 

Now I think the 2.2 ecotec might be a little slow... (go drive a 05 Malibu w/ecotec) but they get incredible gas mileage!

 

The ~170hp 2.4L Ecotec in the G6/Solstice/new (base) Cobalt SS is actually a nice motor and is probably as fast (or faster) as a 3100 (just doesn't have the same torquey "feel") ... now that would actually be a decent engine to drop in.

 

[94CutlassSLCoupe]

I love the powerband of the HO Quads....they are a blast to drive without boost. I really have nothing against the ecotech, I am just a huge fan of the Quads

 

I agree, my Calais 442 (H.O. Quad 4) had an awesome powerband, and 7200rpm limiter was awesome as well. That thing actually scooted along quite well. They make very good power and actually have a decent amount down low as well. 160ft.lbs. from a N/A 2.3 is not bad, and neither is 180 or 190hp depending on whether its a W41 or just a regular HO quad.

 

Shawn

 

Werd...we have one in a W-body (and might be getting a 2nd W-body Q4), and that thing is still pretty bad ass..my Dad drives it all over the country, banging gears the whole way and crusing at 80-85 and still pulling down over 30MPG without breaking a sweat. When I drove it and went 70-75mph i literally got 34 mpg in the winter...the thing is just redicuilous. Its just as quick if not quicker than my 3100. It just seems a little slow right out of the hole. I don't mind the engine noise and it really isn't that "crude" as far as idle goes. and we've had ours for 11k miles with no issues whatsoever (135k on the clock).

 

The car looks like shit, but its still a hella fun car