From: john on
http://wardsauto.com/home/respectable_4-cyl_engine_100421/

The Ward’s 10 Best Engines competition has recognized outstanding
powertrain development for 16 years. This month, Ward’s explores the
history of GM’s direct-injection 2.4L Ecotec I-4.

A quick count of this year’s 10 Best Engines award winners reveals no
fewer than six 4-bangers: two turbocharged, two HEVs, one diesel and
even one naturally aspirated, workaday 4-cyl. engine – General Motors
Co.’s 2.4L Ecotec.

“In the Equinox,” Ward’s editors raved, “this engine never fails to
delight with ready throttle response and strong mid-range
acceleration.”

Several were “astonished to achieve 30 mpg (7.8L/100 km) in the
Equinox in mixed driving, without babying it.” And we’ll bet some, if
they had not known it was a 4-cyl., might have mistaken it for a V-6
as many other reviewers have.

From: Hachiroku ハチロク on
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:59:03 -0700, john wrote:

> http://wardsauto.com/home/respectable_4-cyl_engine_100421/
>
> The Ward's 10 Best Engines competition has recognized outstanding
> powertrain development for 16 years. This month, Ward's explores the
> history of GM's direct-injection 2.4L Ecotec I-4.

What about the Toyota 1.8L used in the Celica GTS that puts out the same
HP in a smaller package? It's built on a platform that's been around since
the 1967 Toyota 2000 GT using Yamaha heads, and has been used around the
world in various cars and forms since?

BTW, it's one of the most reliable engine series around.


From: hls on

"Nate Nagel" <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote in message
>> That will be a first for GM...
>
> Sounds a lot like the VW turbo motor... based on an early 70's design...
> not saying that the GM motor isn't good (I have no experience with it)
> but there have been excellent four-poppers available for decades.
>
> nate

True, there have been, Nate, but I cant remember GM making
any of them.
From: Vic Smith on
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:18:33 -0500, "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote:

>
>"Nate Nagel" <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote in message
>>> That will be a first for GM...
>>
>> Sounds a lot like the VW turbo motor... based on an early 70's design...
>> not saying that the GM motor isn't good (I have no experience with it)
>> but there have been excellent four-poppers available for decades.
>>
>> nate
>
>True, there have been, Nate, but I cant remember GM making
>any of them.

Depends on your definition of "excellent."
I've had a 2.0 Cav and a 2.2 Corsica that both ran past +120k miles
when I junked them because of body rot.
Total engine work done: 1 water pump on the 2.0.
+30 mpg highway, and +20mpg city.
All "excellent" to me.
Of course they were dogs accelerating.
I rented a 2005 Malibu with the Ecotec for a long trip, and it was a
world of difference. I was impressed.
I'll might end up with an Ecotec in my next new used car.
First I heard of them was a workmate with a Ecotec Malibu asked for
my "dealing with mechanics" advice back in about 2002.
His water pump failed and his mech told him he might need new heads.
Only had about 60k miles on it.
Turned out he didn't, but he still dished out $600 for the stuff under
the cam cover.
I read up the Ecotec a bit and saw it was OHC, and figured I'd never
see one, being happy with pushrods, timing chains and external mounted
water pumps.
Still am, but I might not much choice when I get my next car.
Wish we had the dealer mechs here like before. Shiden was one.
They could tell you the good/bad about various engines because they
saw them all day.
In any case the Ecotec was a real game changer for GM.
Too bad it's the ninth inning.
I did see on an Ecotec forum a way to change out the water pump
through a cam cover access panel without moving the timing belt.
That was encouraging.
Maybe I can get over my distaste for OHC.

--Vic
From: dsi1 on
On 4/27/2010 6:39 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:18:33 -0500, "hls"<hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Nate Nagel"<njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote in message
>>>> That will be a first for GM...
>>>
>>> Sounds a lot like the VW turbo motor... based on an early 70's design...
>>> not saying that the GM motor isn't good (I have no experience with it)
>>> but there have been excellent four-poppers available for decades.
>>>
>>> nate
>>
>> True, there have been, Nate, but I cant remember GM making
>> any of them.
>
> Depends on your definition of "excellent."
> I've had a 2.0 Cav and a 2.2 Corsica that both ran past +120k miles
> when I junked them because of body rot.
> Total engine work done: 1 water pump on the 2.0.
> +30 mpg highway, and +20mpg city.
> All "excellent" to me.

You might be right about these being a good engine. I had a Cavalier
with the 2L. I could never understand how I could get 27 MPG on that
pushrod engine while I never got more than 21 MPG from all my other cars.

> Of course they were dogs accelerating.

I though the car accelerated just fine, although I admit that stomping
on the gas ain't my thing. Next to my Subaru, it was a top-fuel
dragster. The Subaru engine was such a dog that turning on the AC would
cause a noticeable drag on the engine. :-)

> I rented a 2005 Malibu with the Ecotec for a long trip, and it was a
> world of difference. I was impressed.
> I'll might end up with an Ecotec in my next new used car.
> First I heard of them was a workmate with a Ecotec Malibu asked for
> my "dealing with mechanics" advice back in about 2002.
> His water pump failed and his mech told him he might need new heads.
> Only had about 60k miles on it.
> Turned out he didn't, but he still dished out $600 for the stuff under
> the cam cover.
> I read up the Ecotec a bit and saw it was OHC, and figured I'd never
> see one, being happy with pushrods, timing chains and external mounted
> water pumps.
> Still am, but I might not much choice when I get my next car.
> Wish we had the dealer mechs here like before. Shiden was one.
> They could tell you the good/bad about various engines because they
> saw them all day.
> In any case the Ecotec was a real game changer for GM.
> Too bad it's the ninth inning.
> I did see on an Ecotec forum a way to change out the water pump
> through a cam cover access panel without moving the timing belt.
> That was encouraging.
> Maybe I can get over my distaste for OHC.
>
> --Vic