99 chevy prizm + 3.4 dohc \m/

[robertisaar]

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

yeah, we did get a little off-topic...

[95SleeperAcheiva]

I'm sorry, I'm pro-Olds. But a little of the facts....
GM started with Oldsmobile and Cadillac. Both High-end cars and very expensive considering the other cars on the market. GM feared Ford with their cheap under $500 model A. So they built chevy, the cheap economy car. It is still today the cheap economy car of GM.
And since there are a lot more middle class middle income people in the US Chevy got real popular. They didn't get popular because of superior engineering, they got popular because more people could afford them. CHEAP.

Now, that falls along the same lines as why Honda is so popular today too, cheap. Today's ricers screaming, "Honda, honda, honda," are the same kind of people 30 years ago screaming, "chevy, chevy, chevy!"
Yes, 30 years ago the chevy nut swore up and down how his 283 cubed n/a could eat anything out there (ie, 440, 428, 425, etc) just because it was a chevy.

Well, we've heard it today too, "My 1.6L honda can eat that silly 3.1L" <cough> right!

Another thing, why did GM sit around on old tech? Personally i don't think GM takes toyota and honda seriously, on the performance aspect.
A few years ago soemone posted a $100k prize for breaking 200mph in the 1/4 on FWD. Toyota was getting close. Nobody heard anything from GM. The GM shows up at the track one day, pulls out a cavalier powered by and Olds quad 4, makes 1 pass, breaks 200mph, claimed their check, and left. GM's version of flipping the bird.

BTW the close circuit track record was held from 1976 by mercedes benz, until the N/A version of the Olds Aerotech 2.0L quad 4 took it in 84 or 86 I can't remeber off hand. I do remeber the turbo version Quad was putting out over 1400 HP. So look at the Ecotech and remember, Dr. Olds was here and Doc Watson assisted.

[robertisaar]

Now, that falls along the same lines as why Honda is so popular today too, cheap. Today's ricers screaming, "Honda, honda, honda," are the same kind of people 30 years ago screaming, "chevy, chevy, chevy!"

that is ALMOST word for word an explanation that i read out of car&driver today...

[asylummotorsports]

No Quad bashing guys.

I have a California original '91 Beretta GTZ that woke me up to the world of Quads.

155,000 miles, still original clutch, and anything on the business side of 5000 RPM is incredible, although I seldom get on it that hard.






OK back to 60* stuff folks!! LOL

[pocket-rocket]

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.

Probably because GM, bottom line, is a company. What drives companies? Money. What happens when your product breaks? Warranty. What does warranty cost? Money. So if you build a high performing high maintenance vehicle and sell it to the general public, what do you think happens? People don't bother to own up to the maintenance aspect, car breaks, company fixes car due to warranty, company loses money in terms of parts, tech time and bad reputation because said common village idiot that doesn't know his new 300hp v6 needs its oil changed every 5k miles and tells his friends it's the biggest steaming pile on the planet because it breaks. A guy I am potentially working with to make some money wants to do what I've been wanting to do for some time now, but lacked funds wants to financially back me on a money making effort buying non running cars that are in good shape, put some time and money into them to fix them to turn around and sell, found a 2002 Dodge Stratus for $650. The catch? I will give you a hint. It has the 420a engine in it. If you guessed bad timing belt (who on this board wouldn't) then give yourself a cookie! What would have prevented this now costly repair? Wow, who would have guessed if said village idiot would have opened his cars manual he would have seen that there is a belt in that there plastic cover (why else would a cover be plastic and easy to remove?) to make things turn, and that the belt is supposed to be changed at a certain mileage interval to prevent it from breaking and leaving him stranded? If every common Joe watched over their cars as much as most of the people on this board do, I think we might have more performance vehicles on the market instead of engines that you hardly have to watch over to keep happy. I'm not saying that the 3x00 are so simple they suck. I have seen some pretty impressive builds come along on this board, and I am glad that there are people on here to dispel what the average rice boy thinks about our American V6s. What I am saying is GM has too look out for their best interests, which is keeping vehicles on the road with as little maintenance as possible because that keeps more padding in their pockets.

[robertisaar]

^good explanation

short version: people are idiots, something i'll always agree with...

[95SleeperAcheiva]

I agree with that whole hearted. Yes the common idiot is to blame for american car bashing. For those of you who wrench for a living know how many people come in with their check engine light on and you ask them, "how long has the little light been on?" What do they say? "Oh, only 3 or 4 months." MONTHS!
They call them idiot lights for a reason, 'cause only idiots depend on them. Only idiots wait for the light to come on before they go get their car looked at.

There are tons of innovations that came out of GM, NASA, Ford, IBM, all american owned, operated, and researched by Americans. But do they advertise it? Does NASA widely tell about their break-through's? Like the cures for cancer that they have but the drug needs to be made and administered in zero G. Or the true 100% pure metals and wild alloys that we can make but have to be done in space? How about the company I personally was involved with that can make a Bio-fuel that when refined makes bio-diesel, omega-3's, high quality feed stock, and the by-product? IS 110 octane gas, with no harmful by-products remaining! It is literally the only thing out there that 100% material goes in and 100% material is used coming out. It is so perfect that the diesel burns with ZERO sulfur, the omega-3's and feed stock make enough money on their own to pay for the cost of the refining and growing to the fact that the 110 octane fuel left over can be sold at 1 cent/gallon and make a profit! Want the extra kick in the jewels on this one? It takes 15 days to grow and process a batch! You can also use an area the size of the state of Rhode Island and fuel the whole planet! So what's wrong with them? Why not share? Why not put the USA way ahead of the rest and let their own people know that WE did it? That the USA makes the number 1 technologically advanced products in the world? That 99% of technological break-through's are the results of American Ingenuity?! Why!?

GREED POWER CORRUPTION

The time will come.

Semper Fi

[no_doz]

pocket-rocket that was a fantastic explanation, & that explains why most of gm's passenger cars are 2 valve engines, but the fact that they've went with 2 valve engines for the performance vehicles just sucks. camaros, firebirds, gtp's, all of these should have 4 valve engines, but they dont.

if the ls1/lt1 had been made with 4 valves per cylinder for the last 10 years, wed have some really mean ass 32v v8 sports cars.

atleast the new camaro has the 3.6 dohc vvt v6 that makes over 300 horse from the factory, & even though its around 100 horse below the v8, with good modding id take the 3.6 over the v8 any day!

im also loving over 300hp & 30mpg that the 3.6 has

[pocket-rocket]

I agree with the comments after my published novel there, lol. Yes, 4 valve engines have more peak horse power then 2 valve engines, but... what does the good ol' American drag racing and v8 following drool over? Low end torque. 4 valve engines in the simplest form (like the LQ1) don't have very much of it in the low end. When I mean simplest form, I mean no fancy VVT, no variable intakes and stuff like that. What gets you off the line? Low end torque. So, maybe my whole aspect (as true as the idiot light deal is) isn't exactly right and maybe they are also keeping with low end punch, as well as K.I.S.S.

[robertisaar]

americans love torque...

what trucks have DOHC motors?

[no_doz]

i had a 95 toyota t100 x cab short bed with 3.4 dohc engine, 5 speed, & 4x4-scrapped with it for a whole summer & got incredible gas mileage-it towed anything & everything, & it got around in the mud like no other.

it also handled like a car & easily felt as fast as my old z34 sedan-a good deal faster once we put a cherrybomb on it 28-29mpg on trips while hauling stuff is very nice.

also low end tq doesnt matter as much if you have gear ratios that accommodate and compliment your engine's powerband :P

[robertisaar]

i had a 95 toyota t100 x cab short bed with 3.4 dohc engine, 5 speed, & 4x4-scrapped with it for a whole summer & got incredible gas mileage-it towed anything & everything, & it got around in the mud like no other.

it also handled like a car & easily felt as fast as my old z34 sedan-a good deal faster once we put a cherrybomb on it 28-29mpg on trips while hauling stuff is very nice.

also low end tq doesnt matter as much if you have gear ratios that accommodate and compliment your engine's powerband :P

something the factory doesn't always do...

[no_doz]

exactly but a lot of japanese vehicles have gear ratios that are meant to compensate for the lack of low end torque and if executed properly its not really an issue.

i think gm has no excuse for having 90% of their lineup being 2 valve engines, because changing first & second gear to more accommodating ratios shouldnt be that hard for an auto giant like gm.

[pocket-rocket]

also low end tq doesnt matter as much if you have gear ratios that accommodate and compliment your engine's powerband :P

I agree to an extent. I wouldn't go throwing 5.88's in my truck because it has no real low end torque, that would absolutely kill my highway driving. The 3.73's that I have in it now do compliment it well though (even though it still lacks low end grunt). At least the last time I had to tow my wifes car (2k Daewoo) home on the dolly, it had no problem keeping up with traffic doing 55 in 5th. Now pulling the full size F150 v6 4x4 in need of a slave cylinder? I was doing 60 when I went past a Corolla S and he decided he had to go faster then a Ranger pulling an F150 doing 60 in a 50 zone (I don't recall if I was in 5th, 50/50 chance on that one).

[no_doz]

lol nice! what vehicle/engine/trans combo were those hauls with, and do you remember what kind of mpg you got?