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

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 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??

"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

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

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.

"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?

"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

"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.