Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
Discuss twin cam 2.4 ld9 in the alt.autos.gm forum at Car Dealer Forums; how good or bad of a motor is a 2.4 gm twin cam LD9? Is ...
  1. #1
    bob urz
    Guest

    Default twin 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

  2. #2
    Steve Austin
    Guest

    Default Re: twin cam 2.4 ld9

    bob urz wrote:
    > 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.

  3. #3
    HLS
    Guest

    Default Re: twin cam 2.4 ld9


    "Steve Austin" <saustin4@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:481ba037$0$3351$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
    > bob urz wrote:
    >> 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.


    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??


  4. #4
    William H. Bowen
    Guest

    Default Re: twin cam 2.4 ld9

    "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote:

    >
    >"Steve Austin" <saustin4@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
    >news:481ba037$0$3351$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
    >> bob urz wrote:
    >>> 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.

    >
    >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??


    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

  5. #5
    Vaughn
    Guest

    Default Re: twin cam 2.4 ld9

    http://www.popularhotrodding.com/fea...nes/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.




    "William H. Bowen" <wh_bowen@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:kkfp14h4ibrsnknnbtt6v3ldkp5p6moum0@4ax.com...
    > "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Steve Austin" <saustin4@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
    >>news:481ba037$0$3351$4c368faf@roadrunner.com.. .
    >>> bob urz wrote:
    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >>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??

    >
    > 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




  6. #6
    mr.som ting wong
    Guest

    Default Re: twin cam 2.4 ld9

    i will second that

    Steve Austin wrote:

    > bob urz wrote:
    > > 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.



  7. #7
    HLS
    Guest

    Default Re: twin cam 2.4 ld9


    "Steve Austin" <saustin4@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:481ba037$0$3351$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
    > bob urz wrote:
    >> 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.


    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?


  8. #8
    C. E. White
    Guest

    Default Re: twin cam 2.4 ld9


    "mr.som ting wong" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
    news:481DDA08.F5C550B3@cac.net...
    >i will second that
    >
    > Steve Austin wrote:
    >
    >> bob urz wrote:
    >> > 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.


    I was under the impression that the Ecotech fours were decent.

    Ed


  9. #9
    HLS
    Guest

    Default Re: twin cam 2.4 ld9


    "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.



  10. #10
    C. E. White
    Guest

    Default Re: twin cam 2.4 ld9


    "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote in message
    news:3thWj.572$l97.337@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
    >
    > "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.


    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


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 03 accent twin cam head
    By hyundaitech in forum alt.autos.hyundai
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 12:41 PM
  2. Changing rotors on a 99 E-250 Twin-I-Beam
    By Bruce L. Bergman in forum alt.autos.ford
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-10-2007, 06:45 AM
  3. Looking for: Intake Manifold for twin Mikuni 44PHH
    By bete in forum alt.autos.nissan
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2007, 12:43 PM
  4. Twin Turbo Problem
    By mike in forum alt.autos.subaru
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-01-2006, 01:37 PM
  5. Need a used twin cam 2.4L I-4 for 2000 Grand Am
    By Corrosive in forum alt.autos.gm
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-13-2006, 05:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •