It doesn't matter. It just doesn't.

I recall:
*flashback noises*

Me: Well whatever, my engine makes the same horsepower as yours but it creates 190ft/lbs and yours makes around 125.
Him: Yea but I could slap a turbocharger on my honda and make more power than that and lots of torque
*end flashback*

In the end it doesn't matter. The honda will still be better because its N/A. It will be better because its a Honda. It will be better because the GM is 'low tech'.

It's the mentality GM has to beat, not the car.

It's the same reason that Supra's and Skylines cause wet dreams in every ricer on the planet. They got an image. It doesn't matter that there is better out there.

 

The Quad 4 has seen about 3 or 4 major reworks throughout its life, was unreliable and obnoxious, and the 180 HP version only lasted a couple years. Compare this to the life of the B16/B18 and tell me with a straight face that they compete.

Just keep changing the subject in this conversation, and then maybe you won't feel like you're loosing this argument. You obviously think that it's such a great engine, and you seem primarly interested in numbers rather than in the not-so-easily quantified things that make great engines what they are. That's fine; I know what I like in a motor, and it's not usually driven by the badge on the hood.

 

I think GM has to some extent accomplished what they wanted to do with the cavalier . I dont know about in other area's , but around here the cavalier of all things and the 2003 cars specifically seem the car to have .

A friend of mine parts cars on the side and is noticing a pretty big demand for wrecked cavaliers/sunfires for the engine only .

 

How am I changing the subject or loosing an argument. The Ecotech is a great engine that in base form competes fine with anything Honda has (non VTEC), and in supercharged form is just as powerful, efficiant, and reliable as any VTEC motor. The 200HP Ecotech will be in GM's full Delta line of cars once they are rolled out. Sure Honda could supercharge thier engines from the factory, but they havn't attempted to. The VTEC may be slighly smoother, but I don't see that as a selling point to the import audience. I can see it now... "Dawg, my VTEC ownz yo ION Red Line in N-V-H!"


Also I think your argument dismissing the Quad 4 is lame. It was an obnoxious, buzzy engine in it's highest out put levels...but no more anoying then the higher output VTEC engines that you have to rev the holy crap out of to get any power from. I would much rather have a blown ecotech that makes smooth power than an engine I have to wind the crap out of just to merge in traffic. The VTEC system has had a few reworks in it's life too...not to mention that even today very few Honda I4's leave the factory making 160HP+. There are also people who would argue about your comment on it's reliablity...one it was worked out it was a pretty nice engine. Honda continues to do the same. They are talking of giving the S2000 a new 2.4L I4 that revs less and makes more lowend TQ because that is what buyers wanted. Matter of fact Honda's whole line of iVETC engines was designed to overcome the shortcomings of the VTEC line (no TQ, harsh tansition in cam profiles). So teh whole argument that the Q-4 is crap because it was redesigned a few times is BS.

 

You guys might shoot down the Quad 4 for being an unreliable motor but I know a GM 4 that can put any NA honda 4 on its butt, that is right folks the SD-4. I am pretty sure they can be built to what about 300 HP. And they are quite reliable.

SD-4 the last true Pontiac Motor

 

Yea, whatever, man. Live with both for 6 months and you won't be able to make this comment. Defend the GenIII and the 3800 and I'll back you up, but if you wanna sit here and compare the Quad 4 or the Ecotech to one of Honda's engines you'll be in for a battle from anyone who's not hopelessly biased.

 

Very true.
Honda's engines are good, but they're not invincible. True the quad had its quirks, but mine ran well past 150k and ran very strong. Plus this Lotus designed Ecotec (not ecotech, brandon ) has a lot in store for the future. Just you wait Eric, GM will be a serious player in the four banger market very soon.

 

Whats the deal with the SAAB 2.3T 250 hp 4 banger?

 

I believe the newest saab has a turbocharged Ecotech.

BTW - I owned a car with a quad 4. It had okay power, but man was it the biggest POS of all time. And in terms of NVH, it wasn't even in the same ballpark as the Honda's I've driven. I agree with Eric - I'll defend the small block or the 3800 with anyone, but the quad 4 is NOT an impressive piece.

 

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I liked the Quad 4. The way it built its power the further up the rev range you went was really quite a rush. You just wanted to keep your foot in it because you knew the next 500 revs were going to be even better than the last 500. By contrast, I drove a friend's Civic Si and that thing made so much NVH that I was literally afraid of venturing into the upper reaches of the rev band and invoking VTEC. I thought for sure I'd see connecting rods flying through the hood.

With the Ecotec I think GM's goal was a smooth engine with a broad, flat torque curve. I'm sure they could have made it peakier and given it more power, but they chose to make a more driver-friendly engine. Given the number of people in this forum who value results over methods (e.g. OHV LS1 vs OHCs), I'm surprised there's been so much bashing of the Ecotec

 

While the Quad4 was by no means better than B16/18, it held its ground. I owned a car (Beretta GTZ) with that engine. I raced it often, took it to the racetrack twice (making about 10 runs every time, with burnouts) - all when it had over 100K miles. It even overheated once when rad hose broke and coolant leaked out - fortunately, head gasket was OK.

I was very impressed with the engine. And it propelled 2900 lbs car in the quarter mile in 15.9 seconds at 89/90 mph. Not bad for a 1990 model car with a lowly 4-banger.

When the car had 125K miles I sold it. It barely consumed any oil.

 

As it stands right now, we have a DOHC 4-valve inline-4 that not only makes less power than its predecessor, but only manages to make 10% more power and torque per unit displacement than the 4.8 L truck engine - an engine that uses pushrods and only 2 valves per cylinder. That's just not impressive.

 

While I agree that there's definitely room for improvement with the Ecotec, I have to believe that driving a car with a motor as high-strung as, say, the 2.0 VTEC in the S2000 would be downright annoying on anything other than a race track. Much like the exotic with the insanely high top speed, show me where or in what situations you're going to do any real-world driving keeping the RPM's in that motor's sweet spot....8,000 RPMs or so. Flat torque curves are still where it's at for street performance applications.

 

Again you are not taking things into perspective....

Not every Honda VTEC makes 200HP...and not all Ecotech's make 140HP.

In the base compact car market the ecotec is the hot rod...You look at the base engine in the Civic, Neon, Corrola, and Focus..they all make less power.

In the upperend the supercharged ECOTEC will take on the VTEC's of the world. I would much rather have a supercharged Ecotec than a VTEC..just my opinion..

 

You know, I really could care less what the HP per liter of any motor makes. What matters to me is the most power I can get for the least amount of money( generally speaking).