Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the 80's/90 'ssunbird/sunfires and cavalier's were throw away cars where you drive them beat the crap out of them then when your done you scrap them or wholesale them off they were not very desirable just a point A to point B type of car. I do belive later on GM had a DOHC motor in the Z24 and sunfire GT's it was called the The Quad 4 and they had it in alot of small and mid-sized cars in the mid 90's
the 80's/90 'ssunbird/sunfires and cavalier's were throw away cars where you drive them beat the crap out of them then when your done you scrap them or wholesale them off they were not very desirable just a point A to point B type of car. I do belive later on GM had a DOHC motor in the Z24 and sunfire GT's it was called the The Quad 4 and they had it in alot of small and mid-sized cars in the mid 90's
The quad 4 engine had unbelievable amounts of power for a 4 cyl but was a pain in the a to work on. The water pump was a weakness and to replace it the timing chain assembly had to come off along with the exhaust manifold. They also had an reputation for burning up the coil assembly.
If I remember correctly, A J Foyt had a hand in the design of the Quad 4 and set a closed course record over 260 mph using that engine.
Part of the reason to look back on past mistakes is to learn the lesson of the past and to not make the same mistake. One of the mistakes GM made with the Sunbird and Cavalier was to not make improvement in overall quality during the many years it was in production. Yes, eventually GM did switch to the 2.4 twin cam engine but why was an existing SOHC discontinued in favor of the OHV engine? I didn't have the opportunity to drive the SOHC engine but I did drive the OHV engine and the 2.4 twin cam engine. The 2.4 was rough and loud. The OHV was OK but not as smooth as the Corolla or Civic engine at the same time period. Perhaps GM decided that as long as people continued to buy the Sunbird/Cavalier brand new then why bother making changes to the platform? I did own a 1984 Buick Skyhawk and a 1994 Chevy Cavalier but they were used cars and what I could afford at the time. No way would I have bought one brand new especially with it's depreciation rate. The GM OHC engine didn't get any respect until the ecotech engines. The Cobalt was a great step forward from the Cavalier but was still lacking in many areas. It's sort of like the 1997 Malibu which replaced the Corsica. The Malibu was a huge step forward from the Corsica but was still lacking in many areas when compared to it's competition. The current malibu competes well against it's biggest competitors. Perhaps the same will happen with the Chevy Cruze. From web photos, it looks like the Cruze is targeting the Corolla instead of Civic. We'll see when it actually comes out.
The quad 4 engine had unbelievable amounts of power for a 4 cyl but was a pain in the a to work on. The water pump was a weakness and to replace it the timing chain assembly had to come off along with the exhaust manifold. They also had an reputation for burning up the coil assembly.
If I remember correctly, A J Foyt had a hand in the design of the Quad 4 and set a closed course record over 260 mph using that engine.
Quad-4s were famous for head gasket issues also. Besides that, it was the connecting rods and timing chains.
4-6-8 and 4100 are other crap, although the 4-6-8 was an idea before its time and could be fixed by just having it run as an 8
yeah the 80's were sad time for perfomance even the monter carlo SS and oldsmobile 442 only had a 305 and 307 CID pumping out 180-190HO and they were large cars by 80's standards the onlt small block V-8 of the 80's that had any real power was fords 302 EFI HO which made 225HP and 300lbs of torque in a light tiny car.
Also let's not forget 4 cylinders in pony cars, although that started with the Mustang II. How dare GM follow suit with the iron duke in a Camaro or Firebird. Cars like the Rampage and EXP didn't do well with their little motors either.
Also let's not forget 4 cylinders in pony cars, although that started with the Mustang II. How dare GM follow suit with the iron duke in a Camaro or Firebird. Cars like the Rampage and EXP didn't do well with their little motors either.
the rampage was trying to go after the RWD El camino but is was a FWD POS it had no chance and was one ugly looking thing
Also let's not forget 4 cylinders in pony cars, although that started with the Mustang II. How dare GM follow suit with the iron duke in a Camaro or Firebird. Cars like the Rampage and EXP didn't do well with their little motors either.
That was one thing that made me scratch my head, though slightly understanding. That was back when the U.S. was suffering a gas crisis so they wanted to offer an "economical Mustang/Camaro". But then again I do not think the 4 cylinder was needed on either car as the 6 cylinder was optional and I believe the 6 got about the same mpg as the 4 and even offered more power, albeit not much. GM didn't jump on the 4 cylinder pony car bandwagon until '82 and that only lasted thru '86 IIRC. Ford OTOH dropped the inline 6 in the Mustang sometime during the 80's but kept the 4 cylinder going strong for the rest of the fox body run.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
