94CutlassSLCoupe Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Well, since i've been back in PA we worked on the blue '90 a little bit. My dad had replaced the head gasket in the car and a few other things trying to get it running right. (it runs but really rough and has no power) I finally lured a friend of mine from HS over with the GM Tech I. He plugged it in and immediately found that the IAC count was 119 (should be around 30) so it was dumping fuel. He unplugs the #3 injector and suddenly the car sounds pretty good and even revvs up pretty well. Apparently that injector was sticking open and dumping fuel. We're getting a new one in tomorrow after the trip to the junkyard turned up no Quad4 HO injectors, which apparently are special low impedance high flow rate ones. So, hopefully it will be on the road soon. We've had it for almost a year and i drove it once last week in its poor running condition. With gas prices the way they are I think my dad is gonna want this car going again very soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5speedz34 Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 With gas prices the way they are I think my dad is gonna want this car going again very soon. Yeah, no shit. That's good to hear. Alot of times those problems you can't solve all you need is a scanner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94CutlassSLCoupe Posted March 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 yeah, i remember fighting the detroit freeways with the black one we used to have to the tune of 27-29 MPG, and i wonder why they didn't sell more of these. I got 37mpg once with the other one with it all on the highway. Its pretty good for an old w-body in the acceleration department too. Really, its hard to buy a reasonably sized car that gets this kind of economy. it also drinks 87 octane dog piss despite the 10.5:1 compression...hurray overlap! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkton Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 I got a 91 2.3l Quad 4 if you ever need parts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomZoomFan Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 That's damn good mileage. My 2.2 gets around 21 or 22, but that's because I floor it all the time to keep up with traffic. I imagine that's not necessary with a Quad 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94CutlassSLCoupe Posted April 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Ours is the HO version, monkton, iirc yours is an automatic car... Well, we drove it back to our house from my dad's friends today. It runs pretty damn sweet now. I'll have some pics of it soon...we started buffing the paint out where it looked oxidized so it won't look bad for too much longer. No, you don't have to floor it all the time...in reality it will go up most hills at any speed 45+ in 5th without lugging. I could tell my dad was having a good time when he shifted 1-2 and 2-3 at 6500rpm...then he started barking tires a lot when taking off. He was playing with all the international series crap too. Not sure if the factory CD player works yet...but everything else seems to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94CutlassSLCoupe Posted April 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 oh, fyi it was just a bad #3 fuel injector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5speedz34 Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 oh, fyi it was just a bad #3 fuel injector Nice, all that for one fucking injector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 I love Quad 4's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94CutlassSLCoupe Posted April 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 it was gonna need a head gasket very soon. when we took the head off we saw some evidence of it starting to leak...so all that got taken care of. I'll have to come get that headliner on the friday before memorial day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5speedz34 Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 it was gonna need a head gasket very soon. when we took the head off we saw some evidence of it starting to leak...so all that got taken care of. I'll have to come get that headliner on the friday before memorial day Hey man w.e. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94CutlassSLCoupe Posted April 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 very nice. The fuel economy meant jack back then, gas was like $1.10/gal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5speedz34 Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 The paint went that bad from when i posted those other pics?! Damn. very nice. The fuel economy meant jack back then, gas was like $1.10/gal LOL, what in 2001? More like .99 cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 nah I meant back when that car was made. That was a response too why more people didn't buy those cars with the good economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bake82 Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Nice car!! I love 88-91 Internationals!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5speedz34 Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 nah I meant back when that car was made. That was a response too why more people didn't buy those cars with the good economy. I think gas was lower than a $1.10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 I really like the fronts of those cars, but the rear ends kind of kill it for me......I would really like a HO Quad though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkton Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 Ours is the HO version, monkton, iirc yours is an automatic car... Oh every mechanic that's seen my car said it was, but they probably didn't know much. How much of a difference is there between the two? I know that manual and automatic tranny's make a difference but power wise what's the difference? I always thought my car was fairly quick. Aren't both engines meant to be "performance"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94CutlassSLCoupe Posted April 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 Ours has the background painted black and it has "HIGH OUTPUT" cast right into the cover. Yours is just the standard DOHC engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutlassdude96 Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 the big difference is that the HO has 180hp with the help of higher compression pistons vs 160hp for the LO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5speedz34 Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 Ours has the background painted black and it has "HIGH OUTPUT" cast right into the cover. Yours is just the standard DOHC engine. I thought the Low output one is SOHC? Ours is the HO version, monkton, iirc yours is an automatic car... Oh every mechanic that's seen my car said it was, but they probably didn't know much. How much of a difference is there between the two? I know that manual and automatic tranny's make a difference but power wise what's the difference? I always thought my car was fairly quick. Aren't both engines meant to be "performance"? Umm DOHC. Cams are different. Alot is different honestly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 Ours has the background painted black and it has "HIGH OUTPUT" cast right into the cover. Yours is just the standard DOHC engine. I thought the Low output one is SOHC? Ours is the HO version, monkton, iirc yours is an automatic car... Nope, there are 3 Quad4 engines, the SOHC, the DOHC LO Quad4, and the DOHC HO Quad4. the SOHC is by far the worst of the three. Oh every mechanic that's seen my car said it was, but they probably didn't know much. How much of a difference is there between the two? I know that manual and automatic tranny's make a difference but power wise what's the difference? I always thought my car was fairly quick. Aren't both engines meant to be "performance"? Umm DOHC. Cams are different. Alot is different honestly. Nope there are 4 different Quad4 engines from that era. the SOHC, the DOHC LO Quad4, and the DOHC HO Quad4, and the W41 Quad4. the SOHC is by far the worst of them all. they blow headgaskets 2:1 compared to the others. Monkton, you have the LO Quad4, rated at 160hp. engine code LD2. i had it in my old Achieva. pretty decent up to 80mph. the difference between it and the HO Quad4 are(iirc): heads, exhaust manifolds, cams, and valve springs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkton Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 Oh okay, thanks for the info. And yeah I was going to say I definitely don't have SOHC. /End threadjack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94CutlassSLCoupe Posted April 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 that's what ours looks like...the LG0 VIN A engine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.