99 chevy prizm + 3.4 dohc \m/

[95SleeperAcheiva]

i think oldskool has a valid point

[project89]

i think oldskool has a valid point

so do i, but ive nevr done anything liek that, im pretty sure it would be overly complicated to do it right


the motor and trans would be way to long motor would be into the front seats.

ive gota get over to the junkyard and start measuring some front end subframes to see if theres anything i can narrow down or anything that will be close to fitting

i almost thought about an ecotec swap and leave it fwd but i HATE fwd.


anyways ima head back out and work on it some more ill see if i cant get some stuff mocked up and snap a few pics

[95SleeperAcheiva]

ecotech=quad 4, good motor. anyway, you could do a quad 4 as RWD, that will leave you more room in that small front end. and there are tons of parts for running that motor RWD in aftermarket. NTM you can make some mean power from that mill.

[OldSkoolGP]

I do love a W41 Quad 4, but they aren't xcheap to get up and running these days.

[robertisaar]

I do love a W41 Quad 4, but they aren't xcheap to get up and running these days.

or easy to find... running anyways.

[no_doz]

thats cuz they take a shit on anyone who owns them, high performance indeed, but reliability has been very poor in every quad-4 that ive seen & they all have blown up with relatively low mileage, so id try & stray from that LOL

[robertisaar]

thats cuz they take a shit on anyone who owns them, high performance indeed, but reliability has been very poor in every quad-4 that ive seen & they all have blown up with relatively low mileage, so id try & stray from that LOL

the HO Q4 is about the most badass N/A four cylinder that i know of... 180HP is not bad for a GM four-cylinder from the early 90s... listen to me talking about 4 cylinders, its 5:10AM and i know its going to start getting brighter any minute. i think some sleep is in order.

[95SleeperAcheiva]

180hp!? ya the common civilian model! Look up Aerotech. The quad 4 started life as a 2.0L. It broke multiple records for speed, design innovations, etc...A lot of which still hold today!
So eat it Chevy monkey's! Most of your GM's cars today are OLDS POWERED, or Olds influenced! <EVIL LAUGH>

But, what do I know, it's just a crappy Olds.

[robertisaar]

well, i've seen that before... but it had a turbo(and from the wikipedia page, it sounds like a big one), and i was just talking N/A.... and then it got the 4.0Aurora motor...

[no_doz]

ill give it that, the quad 4 is EXTREMELY impressive for a GM engine...that being said in those same years toyota was putting out the 20 Valve 4A-GE & a few years later (still in the mid to late 90's) honda put out a 180BHP 1.6L B16B.

dont take this as me knocking GM, but why is it that although they had the technology (early 90's quad 4's & LQ1's) over 15 years ago, so why is over 90% of their lineup still made of 2 valve pushrod engines? as much as i love chevy, its kinda sad that we're looked upon as the "slow kids" of the automotive world? they successfully made tons of very powerful 4 valve alternatives that worked great, & rather than run with that & find ways to make them reliable (woohoo LX5 came along 10 years later...), they said screw it & went with maximizing the performance of an outdated technology.

lets act like chevy & make us up some high definition VHS tapes & then try & sell them against all of the DVD's & blu-ray out there. same thing

[no_doz]

oh and robert-do you sleep at all man?

[robertisaar]

oh and robert-do you sleep at all man?

occasionally...

my reasoning as for GM still using OHV engines: simplicity/reliability/cost/efficiency

i'm not going to explain the first three since they should be somewhat obvious...

but efficiency at low speeds, DOHC motors can't match it unless they can shut off valves. all of that area that the valves take up makes for very impressive flow at high RPM, but it suffers in the bottom because of it(because almost every motor ever made has been a compromise to apeal to the most purposes).

look at the LS9, probably one of the most powerful factory motors ever, and its a OHV. luckily it has a blower, so while the smaller valve area helps with low speed power, the blower adds more power up top. not to mention the fuel economy... can you get 20MPG highway with any other motor making 638HP? GM hit a MAJOR home run with the LS motors, they are very well designed and are adaptable to most situations.

i still like certain DOHC motors though, the LT5 ZR1 vettes come to mind, as do Northstars... it seems like in the early 90's GM was progessing at a VERY rapid rate, then they reverted back to what they know with no real reason as to why...

[no_doz]

ls9? from what ive read of it, it is 6.2l & cranks out around 640hp with a roots supercharger. i am not impressed.

LS9--8 cylinders & 640HP/6.2L or 376 CI= 103(roughly) hp per liter or 1.7hp per cube

LG0--4 cylinders & 180HP/2.3L or 138 CI= 79 (roughly) hp per liter or 1.3hp per cube

now lets look at the difference

2009 SUPERCHARGED 6.2L/376CI 8 cyl----1992 NA 2.3l/138CI 4 cyl

twice as many cylinders, 17 years newer, 2.7 times bigger, only 25% more powerful per CI...oh and its SUPERCHARGED you ever seen what a supercharged LG0 runs like?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1wJmY-lvX0 -lil hint

im not debating that the 2 valve design doesnt offer loads more torque in the low end & that it has its good points. my point is, why make an HD VHS tape when you know how to make dvds for only slightly more? why put 17 years worth of research into furthering 2 valve engines, an outdated technology, because right now the 4 valve engines have a flaw of being slightly more expensive & lacking that low end torque needed.

thats like not going with dvd's because they are easy as shit to scratch and ruin, whereas the VHS tape can be scooted around the driveway for 5 or 10 mins & still play just as good (as its potential).

we have had 17 years to figure out how to make variable length intake manifolds & all kinds of fun stuff to compensate for the lack or low end torque & to perfect our currently highest level of mainstream engine technology, rather than spend 2 decades trying to improve something that has been around 50 years & has been outdated, rather than putting all that effort into the 4 (or 5 ) valve designs, & by now chevy would probably have a whole line up of 4 valve engines that produce TONS more power & get much better gas mileage than their 2 valve components.

if gm had spent the last 17 years improving the LG0 design & applying it to their engines, the cost of the technology would have come down to near same levels of cost & wed have 3.5-4.5 v8's in our camaros & gto's & such, rather than these 6L+ monsters that get terrible mpg, weigh a ton, are huge, & can only be affordable to drive daily by bill gates steve jobs & the 5 richest kings of europe.

lets look at it like this, lets say that GM ran with the LG0 technology, improved it, & brought it to the level of the B16B, 180hp at 1.6l is 112 per liter, with only 4 valves & no forced induction. now lets double the pistons & bump up the displacement to 4.0l, now were talking around 400-450hp, thats as much as a new camaro with 6.2 NA 2 valve v8!!

with VVT & 17 more years of engine technology, i dont see why we couldnt have gone that route & have 4.0 v8s that push as much power as 6.0+ v8s, while taking up less space, less weight, & less gas when you drive normally.

[robertisaar]

by that some argument, why aren't we using rotary motors in everything?

ford did good with the modular motors(in the mustang at least) since it has a variable intake.

we have our LZ9 with VVT and variable intake. and now the direct injection 3.6DOHC.

mercedes has some strange HCCI motor than change change compression ratio on demand

mazda is about the only company using rotary motors

subaru and porsche are obsessed with boxer motors....

etc, etc, etc...



GM just took the known path, i can't blame them, it works.

[no_doz]

i can, because seeing that they could make a 180hp 2.3 back then, & seeing the mpg potential of the 3.1's & 3.4's as opposed with other companies v6's, im sure with that extra 17 years experience into building 4 valve engines would have created some astounding changes to todays vision of a american sports car.

also the boxer engines are great, they dont die & you can run them at idle with 5 speed & they just crawl without dying. still though, it still follows the standard principles of the internal combustion engine that weve been running with for 100 years or so, while the rotary is still very similar & flawed due to a few simple characteristics that lose energy & allow gas to slip to the exhaust.

honestly rotary technology has made like no changes other than more rotors, new metals, & fuel injection/FI, no substantial changes have been make that have drastically helped the economy or power or etc... the whole 3rd port & valve that closes on the NA engines to allow for low end torque is a nice start, but when looked at fro ma performance standpoint or for great mpg the idea pretty well doesnt apply anymore.

im sorry for the thread hijack, we will take this discussion somewhere else & let you get back to making your adrenaline fed nitro powered 500mph deathtrap