Just some input for the quad4/b16/b18 arguement:

The b16 has been around since 93 in North America and probably later in Japan. The b16 and b18 series engines are in essence, the same motor. One simply has a longer stroke than the other. Now, look at all the different varients of the 1.6L and 1.8L engines that honda has used since 93. They dang well better be almost perfect given the extent that they are used.

Early b16 Del Sols were nothing all to special in refinement or reliability.

If GM refined/tuned the quad 4 as much as honda has the 16/18 line of engines I'm sure it would run just as well.

 

The Honda S2000 motor is a peaky hard to use performance motor. Its peak Tq. is horrible and its average power is downright lame for a car of its price. The Honda "B" motors are known for weak connecting rods and blocks that self destuct under and decent amount of boost. The ecotec motor on the otherhand has a stock block that has had 1200hp put thru it. The eurotrash version of the 2.0L ecotec has matched thoes stupid HP per "litre" numbers in n/a form. How much boost do you think the S2000 can handle? 5 mabe 6 pounds. The srt-4 motors can handle 20 pounds if tuned correcly and im sure any ecotec built for boost will do the same. The opel speedster has a turbo version of the ecotech in a much better car than the s2000. So the US will be getting performance boosted 4 bangers that will be whiping on the import crowd. Look at compact FWD racing. The main contenders are Dodge and Pontiac/sunfire cars runing ecotech.

Look up this term... VE.... Thats what matters. Its the only way to compare motors of different displacement fairly. The S2k looses to thoes prehistoric pushrod LS1/Ls6...

Did you know that the 1.3 L Mazda rotary mototrs have more exst volume than a chevy 350 of the same time. Use more fuel make the same peak HP less average power and way less TQ. HP per liter is what loosers with small under performing hodas say to make there bonner boing.

 

Originally posted by Evil Turbo SS
The Honda S2000 motor is a peaky hard to use performance motor. Its peak Tq. is horrible and its average power is downright lame for a car of its price. The Honda "B" motors are known for weak connecting rods and blocks that self destuct under and decent amount of boost. The ecotec motor on the otherhand has a stock block that has had 1200hp put thru it.

So you're comparing a Honda with factory connecting rods to an Ecotec with a blueprinted race-built bottom end, including stronger than factory connecting rods. I just wanted to point that out.

The eurotrash version of the 2.0L ecotec has matched thoes stupid HP per "litre" numbers in n/a form. How much boost do you think the S2000 can handle? 5 mabe 6 pounds. The srt-4 motors can handle 20 pounds if tuned correcly and im sure any ecotec built for boost will do the same.

Any S-2000 engine built for that much boost can handle that much boost too. Why are you comparing race-rebuilt engines with factory ones?

The opel speedster has a turbo version of the ecotech in a much better car than the s2000. So the US will be getting performance boosted 4 bangers that will be whiping on the import crowd.

The Opel Speedster Turbo costs 32,600 euros, which is $41,329.23 US, not counting the price to make it NHTSA crashworthy and other import tariffs. And the Opel Speedster Turbo is only 200 HP.

Look at compact FWD racing. The main contenders are Dodge and Pontiac/sunfire cars runing ecotech.

And the cars that are the MOST popular are still Hondas. What's your point? (It's called Import racing for a reason...)

Look up this term... VE.... Thats what matters. Its the only way to compare motors of different displacement fairly. The S2k looses to thoes prehistoric pushrod LS1/Ls6...

Did you know that the 1.3 L Mazda rotary mototrs have more exst volume than a chevy 350 of the same time. Use more fuel make the same peak HP less average power and way less TQ. HP per liter is what loosers with small under performing hodas say to make there bonner boing.

 

Actually, it's called the NHRA Summit SPORT COMPACT series. Nothing about imports in the name. And besides, as the Ecotec proves itself more on the track, so will be the case with it on the street. Any way to boost GM's image in the minds of shoppers with import mentality is well worth the $$$.

 

Of course it's a good idea to get in on that 'scene'. I was just saying that

a.) Folks usually *call* it "import racing", at least around here.
b.) GM isn't *yet* a big contender. Toyota and Nissan are contenders.

It's not my favorite scene, but just putting Honda down like that isn't right.

 

I don't get too much into the whole power-per-unit-displacement thing, but I can't let a statement like this slide. The S2000 has superior VE numbers to the GenIII, which is why it makes good power and torque for its small displacement. The reason the GenIII does so well is that it packs a lot of displacement into a small and light package, and combines this with very good breathing characteristics.

The peak torque numbers would seem to indicate that the S2000 engine has a peak VE that's about 10% greater than the LS6. But, when it's only got 35% of the displacement, well - it gets a severe butt-kicking.

The original topic concerned the lack of respect for the Ecotec relative to the higher-end Honda engines, and I have yet to see anyone convince me that we've seen an impressive Ecotec in US showrooms. While I'm sure that the SC Ecotec will be a nice piece of machinery, it has yet to make a reputation for itself because no one can buy the damn thing yet!. And to make the assumption that the competition will remain static is to fall into the same mode of thinking that yielded much of GM's underwhelming pass-car line-up throughout the last couple of decades.

 

This is one of those threads that's best to sit out and let the experts discuss awhile before chimming in. Beyond horsepower & torque, maintence schedules & who makes what my engine knowledge is pretty spotty.

Just the same, there has to be some reason the 180 hp Quad 4 didn't sitck around in GM's lineup. I don't remember any problems with the engine, but GM seems to keep it's good engines around (sometimes for a very long time).

Hondas are good engines, but the issue I have with them is that they seem to be made for smooth operation over longevity, and it seems you have to rev them like mad to get power out of them. I'll admit I've never personally driven a VTEC, so I'll have to go by the information of others on that, but I've known quite a few people who were stranded, or destroyed their engine well under 100,000 miles because of a snapped nylon cam belt or some other fragile piece that seems to never happen with engines from here, 4 cylinder or otherwise.

GM seems to be planning to make the Ecotec the new Chevy small block as to it's versitility and performance parts availability. I think that's the reason why output is less than amazing compared to Hondas engines (which seem to be already high-strung from the factory).

Aparaently, the Ecotec has alot of potential, and it should be interesting to see what happens to it over the next few years.

 

I guess we have to be "forward thinking" and "open to new ideas" and all that jazz...

Methinks I prefer the old American solutions to problems...



Circa 1783:
"The British have literally hundreds of frigates and line-of-battle ships, what hopes could our tiny Navy have?"

Answer:
"Mr. Joshua Humphries here says he can make a ship that can sink any frigate with ease, and leave any line-of-battle ship in its dust."



Circa 1940:
"Hmmm... our inline aircraft engines don't make enough power..."

Answer:

"Let's make a 2400hp radial! Frontal area be damned, we'll SCARE the air out of the way."

-or-

"Howza bout we slap TWO engines on?"



Circa 1967:
" The Europeans think their Ferraris are faster than the Corvette."

Answer:

"Call up the chief engineer down in Warren and tell him we need a 560hp, all aluminum block Rat down here ASAP. Oh yeah... AND I DON'T CARE THAT WE'RE ONLY GONNA SELL 2 OF THEM."



Circa 1985:
"The Mustang GT is pretty quick, what are we going to do about this?"

Answer:
"Hey... anybody ever thrown an intercooler on this here turbocharged 3.8 liter motor just to see what happens?"


If GM HAS TO build a 4 cylinder to be viewed as competitive in this market, at least give us 250hp out of it.

 

Circa 2003:

Eric Bryant says "I have yet to see anyone convince me that we've seen an impressive Ecotec in US showrooms."

Answer:

GM leader Lutz tells GM Performance Division to get their $hit together and build the 1000hp Ecotec turbo from the Sport Compact Series for mass production to silence all who doubt the sleeping giant, GM.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by guionM
[B]
Just the same, there has to be some reason the 180 hp Quad 4 didn't sitck around in GM's lineup. I don't remember any problems with the engine, but GM seems to keep it's good engines around (sometimes for a very long time).


The quad 4 isn't still around but at least one of its offspring is. Lets look at its first offspring the DOHC 3.4L 60* V-6 LQ1. That is right a V motor. Look at the design of it and the time it came out and what do you have a desendent(sp) of the quad 4. Now lets look a little further to another division besides Olds, who made the quad,; chevy, pontiac, olds, who all had the LQ1; to Caddiliac and see what they have that is DOHC and has the same displacement as 2 Quad 4's---that is right folks the Venerable Northstar is a decendent of the Quad 4. I am pretty sure on this the N* springs even fit into the Quad 4's heads!!!

Now to the Quad!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 91_z28_4me
[B]Interesting if true, but somehow it seems a little farfetched that the Northstar is a derivative of the Quad4. Also, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't the DOHC 3.4 V6 based on Chevy's OHC V6 engine?

 

The DOHC 3.4L and Quad 4 were developed at the same time for the FWD GM-80 FWD Camaro.

The 3.4L was making 280hp and the Quad 4 was making 200HP at the peak of development, however GM had to tone both engines down because the transaxles had trouble surviving.

 

When will we see a VVT ecotech

 

Give the Ecotec some time, the VTEC's have been around since the early 90's. Also, go easy on the quad fours. I have heard from J-body drivers that the quad four with the GM supercharger can run 14's. That seems a bit low, but I'll take their word for it. Also, didn't Acura/Honda make it so you can feel VTEC kick in? I heard that from my friend with a RSX-S. Anyways, the VTEC is better for now, but give the Ecotec some time.

 

How do you figure the S2000 has a higher VE. Displacement has nothing to do with the formula for VE. Simple how much air and fuel does a motor need to make its power. The honda uses more fuel and air per HP it makes. It is the loser.