 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / May 2008twin cam 2.4 ld9
how good or bad of a motor is a 2.4 gm twin cam LD9? Is it just a quad four with some of its issues solved? Bob > how good or bad of a motor is a 2.4 gm twin cam LD9? > Is it just a quad four with some of its issues solved? > > Bob My rule of thumb is- if it has four cylinders and GM made it, then it's crap. >> how good or bad of a motor is a 2.4 gm twin cam LD9? >> Is it just a quad four with some of its issues solved? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My rule of thumb is- if it has four cylinders and GM made it, then it's > crap. Now that you mention it, I can't think of any series of 4 cylinder they ever made that was very good. The Nova silicon aluminum one was terrible, the Iron Duke was faulty and cracked, the Quad Four had problems, etc... Did they EVER make a really good, strong 4 cylinder?? >>> how good or bad of a motor is a 2.4 gm twin cam LD9? >>> Is it just a quad four with some of its issues solved? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Did they EVER make a really good, strong 4 cylinder?? Bob, to answer your original question YES, the LD9 engine is a re-engineered version of the Oldsmobile Quad-4. It is not a bad engine - still a bit on the noisy side for my tastes and its low end torque is kinda lame (they work SOOOOOO much better with a 4-speed automatic or a manual VS the 3-speed automatic), but if properly maintained I've seen them last 150K plus. The two biggest pains in the butt on the older ones is DIS ignition problems, water pumps and the front engine mounts. Now onto Steve's assertion that all GM 4-cylinder engines are crap - I beg to disagree and as an example I'll site one GM 4-cylinder that I think is a good one - the 1.8/2.0/2.2L Tonawanda engine, which was used primarily in the "J" body cars and some "S" and "T" series smaller trucks. Not a fancy engine (basic pushrod motor with no balance shaft or turbocharger or any other "hi tech" stuff) but a reliable workhorse. Back in the '80s GM even offered a good amount of hot rod parts for this engine. Considering the number of those engine produced, their failure rate is quite low and the only chronic problem they have is with water pumps. However, on the Gen I version changing the water pump is an easy job. Many of you might disagree, but I prefer the 1st Generation of this engine, produced from 1981-1986 (iron block and iron heads). The Gen II version with the aluminum head made more horsepower but is not quite as forgiving about overheating. On the other hand, the later Gen II engines have DIS ignition and sequential port fuel injection, a much better setup than the first year with the computer-controlled 2-barrel carb (those where lame). I owned one car with the Gen I engine (a 1983 Cadillac Cimarron) and had zero problems with the engine other than a water pump replacement at 73K. My downstairs neighbor owns a 1989 Buick Skyhawk with a Gen II 2.0L with over 240K on the odometer - her only engine problem was again a couple of water pump replacements. I've done a lot of maintenance work on cars with these engines over the years but VERY seldom did I have to tackle major issues. When it comes to "J" cars I'd take one with the Tonawanda engine over one with the Brazilian OHC engine any day. I'll totally agree with you on the old Vega engine from the 70s - nice concept but it wasn't quite ready for the real world. The UAW strike in the fall of 1970 saved me from owning on (I'd ordered a loaded Vega GT - after waiting for awhile I cancelled the order and bought a used 1967 Buick Skylark from the same dealer. That Buick turned out to be one really GREAT car)!! Regards, Bill Bowen Sacramento, CA http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0408phr_worst_automobile_engines/index.html CHEVY 2.2L I-4 Recently replaced by the all-new Ecotec 2.2, this pre-Ecotec inliner was a disaster. Lacking in power, unreliable, and hungry for head gaskets, the anemic four was offered in many GM front-drivers (like the Beretta and Cavalier), and the popular line of Chevy S-10/GMC S-15 pickups. Press reviews at the time recommended against backing these engines with automatic transmissions, especially in the pickups. With pathetic power and unreliable durability, what could be worse? A series of steel freeze plugs were also known to corrode, providing a messy time bomb that could go off at almost any mileage reading past 50,000. It's no wonder GM used absolutely no engineering or design from this engine when developing the Ecotec. We think GM should offer Ecotec upgrades to all owners of these pathetic mills, but alas, the designs have so much variance between them, swaps are no easy task. Too bad. >>>> how good or bad of a motor is a 2.4 gm twin cam LD9? >>>> Is it just a quad four with some of its issues solved? [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Bill Bowen > Sacramento, CA i will second that > > how good or bad of a motor is a 2.4 gm twin cam LD9? > > Is it just a quad four with some of its issues solved? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My rule of thumb is- if it has four cylinders and GM made it, then it's > crap. >i will second that > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> it's >> crap. I was under the impression that the Ecotech fours were decent. Ed "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message news:48299c23 > I was under the impression that the Ecotech fours were decent. > > Ed I believe that Ian has said that they are pretty good little engines. Father-in-law has one in his little GMC pickup truck.. It is gutless and sucks gas, but have had no real engine problems at 30,000 miles. Gets 17-18 mpg. It has had two alternators go out, body noise will drive you nuts, and a few other things, but at least no head gaskets, manifold gaskets, etc yet. > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message > news:48299c23 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > other things, but at least no head gaskets, manifold gaskets, etc > yet. I had a Saturn Vue with the 2.2L Ecotech. After my son ran it through the mud (and I mean deep through the mud), we lost a coil pack, but otherwise the engine was trouble free. I wish I could have said the same about the transmission. When the car had around 40K miles I traded it in because I didn't want to worry about needing another new transmission. Ed >> how good or bad of a motor is a 2.4 gm twin cam LD9? >> Is it just a quad four with some of its issues solved? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My rule of thumb is- if it has four cylinders and GM made it, then it's > crap. Steve...let's assume you were going to build up a kit car or special, using a four banger.. What would be your engine of choice? If you wanted to turbocharge it, would your choice change? > how good or bad of a motor is a 2.4 gm twin cam LD9? > Is it just a quad four with some of its issues solved? > > Bob Well, the question I have is good for which application. It's certainly good enough for the cars it is found in. I'm not sure which "issues" you are talking about but the LD9 really represents the final stage of evolution for the quad 4 engine. I can only guess as to why you are asking. If you are looking for a car with a really good and unbelievably smooth 4 cylinder engine then look at late model Toyota.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.