94,95 cavalier 2.2

[cujotom]

Are there any significant diffrences engine wise between the 94 and the 95 2.2 motor. Exhaust manifold, Intake, etc.. Thank You... Tom

[wafrederick]

The 94 and 95 are the same,no cam sensor.1996 and 1997 are differant in one way.The 1996 and 1997 have a cam sensor.

[angel_iz378]

i personally know for a fact that there is no diff in 94 motor and that in a 97 corsica- same engine (had my cavy engine replaced a few yrs ago)

[wafrederick]

Yes, there is differance between the 94 and 97 2.2,one.The 97 has a cam sensor and the 94 does not.The 1996 has a cam sensor too.I remember the book(hollander) says 1994 and 1995 only.

[Macstunnah]

I have 2 cars both 1995 cars with 1994 engines in them though the red one lol i just blew the motor up on yesterday so now its time for another swap.. LOL

[94VL]

How many miles on it and how did it blow up? Rod thru the block? Those 1.8/2.0/2.2s sure dont like the revs.No wonder the automotive press called the 1982 1.8 OHV engine the "junkyard engine".....for the fact that GM went backwards designing a new engine (not OHC...etc)as opposed to Ford's then new 1.6 Escort OHC and Chrysler's "Trans 4" 2.2 OHC engines.

[4dr92cavi4cyl]

Originally Posted by 94VL

...for the fact that GM went backwards designing a new engine (not OHC...etc)as opposed to Ford's then new 1.6 Escort OHC and Chrysler's "Trans 4" 2.2 OHC engines.

Look at it this way. Before the 1940's there were no OHC engines, OHV (push-rod) was it. Many tried to design OHC engins in the 40's with very little success, timing belts/chains would break in less than 100 miles, etc.

So the OHV design is more refined and reliable, plus there's low-end torque to spare as opposed to a OHC using that torque to turn a belt. Try turing the cam on a OHC motor with the head off, it takes a good 50+ pounds of force to get it budge.

The main disadvantage to OHV is there are so many moving parts you have a higher chance of failure with high-revs. That's why OHC engines have a 1000 to 2000 RPM higher red-line.

[Macstunnah]

there was 110,000 on the second engine that the oil pump went on then it seized up and well now is useless.

The first engine died at 160k with rod through block bs.

[94VL]

Lowly Crosley Motors Inc used an engine that featured an OHC design.Crosley folded in 1952.Pontiac had the OHC 6 from 1966-1969 that used a reinforced rubber timing belt....very low failure rate.The engine however was expensive to build and Americans didnt cotton to a "European" style engine in their all-American mid sizer (and Firebird),so it was replaced by a cheapo Chevy straight 6 (OHV) for 1970.Chevy even had the 1975-1976 Cosworth Vega with the DOHC cylinder head and reduced displacement of 2.0 liters.It was very expensive,and sold only a few thousand.Even the lowly Chevette was OHC.GM had the ability to make their Monza replacement (the J Body)come equipped with OHC,but cost was a primary concern.When Pontiac wanted to bring some spice to their J2000 lineup,they went to Brazil to source their 1.8 OHC engine.Its probably just as well Chevy stuck with OHV design,as their 1.8/2.0/2.2 had a nasty habit of putting rods thru blocks.Imagine a 6000 Rpm redline and the failures that would result.