jeremy Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 One thing i still can't get over with the Quad 4 HO motor is how much hp and tq it was making waaaay back then. Compared to the new k20(IIRC) out of a new Civic SI, they are only making 197hp and something like 130ish tq!!! 17 yr old technology Quad 4 HO 180hp 160tq State of the art Honda DOHC 4 197hp 130ish-tq :willynilly: The quad was certainly ahead of it's time but if you are trying to dog Honda, you can lump new GM engines into the discussion too ....the HO Quad 4 has better factory spec numbers the today's "state of the art GM DOHC engines" too 2.4L DOHC Ecotec 171hp 167ft/lbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5speedz34 Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 FWIW: In the Automotive world, things don't evolve very quickly, 17 years is really nothing in terms of changing anything in most engines. Jeremy, what other DOHC engines are you talking about? The 3.6 VVT DOHC definitely makes more than the Q4 or the 3.4 ever did. Same for the 3.5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 One thing i still can't get over with the Quad 4 HO motor is how much hp and tq it was making waaaay back then. Compared to the new k20(IIRC) out of a new Civic SI, they are only making 197hp and something like 130ish tq!!! 17 yr old technology Quad 4 HO 180hp 160tq State of the art Honda DOHC 4 197hp 130ish-tq :willynilly: The quad was certainly ahead of it's time but if you are trying to dog Honda, you can lump new GM engines into the discussion too ....the HO Quad 4 has better factory spec numbers the today's "state of the art GM DOHC engines" too 2.4L DOHC Ecotec 171hp 167ft/lbs If you say so all things compared, the ecotec gives a little more torque than the HO Quad and a shit ton more reliability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z34-5speed Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 I was in no way dogging Honda, just stating how far ahead of its time that motor was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 GP = LO Quad only Cutlass = LO & HO available Lumina/Regals obviously never got them. Quad 4s are a LOT of fun, most people who bash them have never driven one My parents had an 88' Grand Am with a Quad4 in it. The car had pep but the engine was poison. Eventually the engine had to be hauled out of the car, shipped to Quebec and shipped back for reconditioning. It died less than a year later. Quad4's are crap the way I see it. The only good that came out of the Quad4 is that they learned from their mistakes and created the 2.2Ecotech which has so far been a hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 Jeremy, what other DOHC engines are you talking about? The 3.6 VVT DOHC definitely makes more than the Q4 or the 3.4 ever did. Same for the 3.5. I was comparing GM DOHC 4cyls....of course the 3.6 will destroy the quad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 I was in no way dogging Honda, just stating how far ahead of its time that motor was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 If you say so all things compared, the ecotec gives a little more torque than the HO Quad and a shit ton more reliability. I can argue the reliability ...the quad had flaws, yes...but I would rather own a HO Quad w-body and have to maintain the engine properly or own a 2.8/3.1 pushrod that is 100x more reliable... ....I also have agree with Josh about adding a turbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRONDOG442 Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 Who can disagree with anyone with the shocker for an AVATAR!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 If you say so all things compared, the ecotec gives a little more torque than the HO Quad and a shit ton more reliability. I can argue the reliability ...the quad had flaws, yes...but I would rather own a HO Quad w-body and have to maintain the engine properly or own a 2.8/3.1 pushrod that is 100x more reliable... ....I also have agree with Josh about adding a turbo I'd like to have a Quad w-body too, but we're also able to fix or rebuild it when it breaks. Any average person who had owned a Quad 4 car could probably tell you how it failed and had to be rebuilt and $$$ poured into it to get it running again. If you're that type of person, you won't care that the HO Quad had 9hp more than the 2.4 EcoTec. I wish I had bought my girlfriend's '95 Grand Slam from her when the Quad 4 took a crap. Her uncle/mechanic replaced the cracked head, claimed everything else was fine, but combustion gases still entered the cooling system afterward. Cracked block maybe? I don't know, but if it were mine I would have pulled it and rebuilt it for more power. That engine was right at home in an N-body, much more so than a w-body. Also..... what's the story with the later '99 on 2.4L in the N-body? Looks just like the Quad 4 but with different markings... any good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey b Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 I'm guessing that you are speaking of the 2.4L that came out in 96 at the latest. Junk. Had one and swapped in for a junked one. 18 months later it took a shit. Looked for a used one and had no such luck for less than 600 bucks. They all go to shit and as a result are very hard to find. Rebuilding costs more than the 600 due to all of the part. They commonly fail because the oil change shops screw the oil filter too tight. Fragments of the rubber break off and get caught in a valve up top of the engine. The rest of the engine loses its lubrication. Repairing such a problem is quite a task. Most shops charge in the area of 600 for the fix. BTW, though slightly more reliable, very flawed and nowhere near the same output. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangeStang Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 remove Q4 and install TIII j/k only way i could deal with the Quad-4 is if it had low compression forged pistons and a T3/T04E shoving air into it. Why just because you are a turbo guy? They are pretty quick stock 180hp for ho trim And they will out run most 6 60's My dream quad would be a sprayed ho in a retta! well....yes. why else? a Turbo Quad-4 would kick ass! that engine deserves a turbo. GM should have at least made a detuned version of the '88 Cutlass Supreme Pace Car engine available instead of just high compression and more aggresive cams. i agree they are quick for stock but jeez...just try to make one faster without a power adder. you won't gain that much relatively speaking. and spray is for wussies It's quick cheap power though! P.S. It has no turbo lag.lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSedan Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 very true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 I'm guessing that you are speaking of the 2.4L that came out in 96 at the latest. Junk. Had one and swapped in for a junked one. 18 months later it took a shit. Looked for a used one and had no such luck for less than 600 bucks. They all go to shit and as a result are very hard to find. Rebuilding costs more than the 600 due to all of the part. They commonly fail because the oil change shops screw the oil filter too tight. Fragments of the rubber break off and get caught in a valve up top of the engine. The rest of the engine loses its lubrication. Repairing such a problem is quite a task. Most shops charge in the area of 600 for the fix. BTW, though slightly more reliable, very flawed and nowhere near the same output. Unless you mean it ran past '96, cause I saw one in a '00 Grand Am. Here's a '01 GA on ebay: I don't know. I mean, I'm sure this engine could be made to scoot like the older ones did. Whether it was a change in the pistons or cams or whatever, I wouldn't be afraid to tackle that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 They commonly fail because the oil change shops screw the oil filter too tight. Fragments of the rubber break off and get caught in a valve up top of the engine. The rest of the engine loses its lubrication. Repairing such a problem is quite a task. Most shops charge in the area of 600 for the fix. you cant call an engine unreliable if a shop tightens the filter tooo much!! thats like saying the lotus is a piece because the shops dont know how to put them on a lift! i have heard that the 2.4 is quite the improvement over the 2.3, but yes, not without its flaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRONDOG442 Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 The 2.4 LD-9 is a great engine its reliable and VERY similar to the original QUAD 4 but they dont suffer from the shitty head gasket issues, also many parts are interchangable like a 2.3 cylinder head, intake, injectors, and exhaust system on a 2.4 is a rock solid combination. The only problem this motor has is the timing chain tensioner is made of nylon and it goes to shit after about 130-150k of use. When you replace the chain and tensioner you gotta pull the motor up a little bit to access them in the N-bodys... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Efficiency Posted December 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 thats my plan with the W body is to take a 2.4 bottom end with a 2.3 oil pump to eliminate the balance shafts, then throw a 2.3 HO top end on it and go, they dont inspect the cars so i can get away with anything really. I plan to turbo my GA and run a few races there just to see if they even notice. I have it all planed out, I just need to change the ECM, injectors, MAP, spark plugs and the turbo of course with all the plumbing, also have to do the hole exhaust but on the race car its no big deal, its just a strait pipe and then a 90 and out the side infront of the rear wheels, then I'll swap it back to stock for my saturday night race. I have everything to do it, just need to fab up a turbo manifold, which is easy on the quads cause they have that stock tubular exhaust mani that i have a few of sitting around that i can hack up. not sure how i'm going to quiet down the BOV yet tho, lol This race season i'm just focusing on my home track with the GA but next year i'm going to build the W body and run both, this thread was mainly to see what my chances are of even finding a quad powerd GP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addicted To Boost Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 Heres a QUAD 4 GP: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1991-grand-prix-Le-NICE-CAR-gas-saver-Quad-4-ENGINE_W0QQitemZ320196871572QQihZ011QQcategoryZ6783QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey b Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 They commonly fail because the oil change shops screw the oil filter too tight. Fragments of the rubber break off and get caught in a valve up top of the engine. The rest of the engine loses its lubrication. Repairing such a problem is quite a task. Most shops charge in the area of 600 for the fix. you cant call an engine unreliable if a shop tightens the filter tooo much!! thats like saying the lotus is a piece because the shops dont know how to put them on a lift! i have heard that the 2.4 is quite the improvement over the 2.3, but yes, not without its flaws. If they were reliable they wouldn't be hard to find used. They are very common and on that platform it doesn't take much to get totaled. BTW, both that I dealt with failed far before the rest of the car. The filter fragmenting off is a common cause of oil blockage, but the fact remains that the oil passage way is simply not large enough for sufficient flow. That is why all of these engine fail before the rest of the car. If you look around you will find many people passing these cars off due to engine failure and there are no engines to be found. For the performance of this car you might as well just get an ecotech. As far as the dates of production I was simply that the engine was released during or before 96. Don't know how long they were produced but evidence shows they were run until 01 or later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Efficiency Posted December 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 they made the quad 4 from 88-95 with 95 being the transistional year all us quad guys stay far far away from, its OBD 1.5 and has the worst cams, and head that come on the Q4 plus it has balance shafts and you cant swap on pre 94 cams cause they dont have the hole or wheel of the sensor used on OBD 1.5. 96 on used the 2.4 twin cam, they changed the name to shy away from the bad rep the quad got but it was essentially the same motor, i dont know to much about the 2.4 except that the bottom end works well with a 2.3 top end, it gives you around 11.25:1 compresion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns87 Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 That ebay car is only an hour from me, but ewwwww 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.