2.2 Liter ECOTEC L4 SFI

[Rich]

Just wondering if anyone has drove one of the newer cavy's with this engine. If so, how do you like it?

My best friend bought an 03 Cavy today, and he likes it. I have yet to ride in one, or drive one. I was unimpressed with the older cavy's and wanted to know how much improvement there actually is.

I also have heard that the ECOTEC is EXTREMELY quiet when running. Anyone care to comment?

[luvscivics]

I actually bought a brand new Cavalier LS Sport Coupe (Z24's replacement) this past June. It has the 2.2 Ecotech. I have a lot of experience riding in all the different Z24 motors and I must say that the Ecotech is the best yet. I previously owned a 99Z24 with the 2.4 twin cam rated at 10 more hp than the ecotech. I was a little worried at first, but there is no performance difference. They feel exactly the same performancewise. The advantages of the ecotech over the previous motors are that it's much quieter, uses less gas, and is able to withstand major mods with stock parts. The Ecotech is able to withstand up to 400hp. I also have an 88Z24 and there's one thing about those old motors that I miss........TORQUE! The Z's propelled by the 2.4 and the Ecotech are faster, but the 2.8 or the 3.1 have way more torque and have that unique thrust that the 4cyls can't reproduce (but hey it's a V6 vs a 4). So, to conclude: the ecotech is fast (feels the same as the 2.4), most durable, most quiet, and most fuel effiecient motor yet.

[mugenrsx]

400hp thats funny cause GM says the motor will blow at 200HP. so far it is no better than the 2.4. I think all general motors 4cylinder engines suck ass. they are all noisy and sound like they are made of thin metal that will break. The 2.4 is a lot faster than the 2.2 eco. stock 2000 Z24 1/4 in 15.7, stock eco LS in 16.5. And don't try and argue that cause its been test driven by many sport magazines and i've gone head to head with them. stock for stock i blew the doors off the eco by 2 car lengths just to 70mph not even the 1/4. both stick and i had a passenger. the eco is heavier and has less balls. yo do the math while i sit here and know for a fact i am correct. in my opinion don't buy the eco LS you will waste 17 grande.... and gain a head ache. plus GM dealer service blows i've had nothing but terrible service with all the chevy dealerships i've gone threw. my first time walking into a nissan dealership i was greated by a nice salesman and he took my browsing seriously. I stood in the Chevy dealership where i bought my car for over a half an hour and i had to ask for a salesman to speak to. fuck chevy they suck.

[mugenrsx]

Save your money dude i own a 2000 Z24 with mods and i'm selling it for only 11,500.00 thats 6 grand less and its allready got parts in it. and its the 2.4 that everyone wants. did you know that chevy still offers the 2.4 as an option because many ppl complained that they disliked the ecotec. feel free to ask any questions my names Tony even if you are not interested in my car. I know a lot about the 2.4 i built one.:sun:

[Rich]

Originally posted by mugenrsx
fuck chevy they suck.

I wanted opinions on this motor, not flames.

That was totally un-called for.

[Shortbus]

Originally posted by mugenrsx
I think all general motors 4cylinder engines suck ass. they are all noisy and sound like they are made of thin metal that will break

I believe you are referring to the "iron duke" 2.5 liter which used a metal gear to gear cam drive that made them knock and generally a noisy little engine. It got its name from being virtually indestructable, I owned one all through high school and it made the whole four years to hell and back many times.

Ok.

Hummerman, I have not heard a lot about the ecotech, all I know is I haven't sold any major engine parts for them yet. They are quiet and extrememly economical which was gm's intention. I would buy one of these for exactly as they are intended "a freeway comuter car" they were not designed to hold value.(referring to previous post)

[mdb25]

Mugen, I really have no respect for your opinion. That's all you're giving is your opinion. What magazines are you getting your stats about the 2.2 from? I'm just curious because i read all the big magazines (car and driver, motor trend, consumer reports....) and i have not seen one bit of info about the 2.2 ecotec. Where do you do your math. Secondly, if we're going to talk opinions here, I have owned both the 2.2 and the 2.4 (both in Z24's). Trust me, the difference is not noticeable. You are a friggin idoit. GM only offered the 2.4 for a handful of 2002 vehicles. Very rare. I'm not saying that the 2.4 is a badd motor, but the 2.2 ecotech is superior in quality. Yes, it is lower in torque an hp. You have to drive a car to see what its like. According to your logic, the 2.4 should be slower than the 3.1 becuause there are 2 less cylinders and a lot less torque. Hmmmmm.... somehow i dont think thats true. The 2.4 Z24's are def faster than the old 3.1. What is happening is an advancement in technology. Yes, just because newer cars have less hp, fewer cylinders and smaller displacements, doesn't mean they are slower. Just compare old 60's muscle cars to the new sports cars. Which motors are better??? Which cars move faster? I think u get the point. Automotive technology is and has been moving towards engines that use less fuel, are more reliable, and yet go just as fast (or faster) than older engines. It's been a going trend for oh say the past 30 years. Then again, we cant expect an idiot like you to understand that. You only understand what you see if movies like fast and the furious. Just another idiot who thinks he knows everything about engines cuz he saw the movie. Seeing as how you are so interested in reading GM forums, click on the grand am forum and search for the guy who made a post questioning the 2.2 ecotec. Within that post and it's responses, you will find a link to an article regarding the 2.2 ecotec. That article will completely prove you wrong. Modifieds have produced up to 400hp before connecting rod failure. If the 2.4 was so much better, then why did they replace it with the 2.2??? Tell me genius..... come on math wizard. You are just another fag that got slam dunked by the dealer when you bought your acura. Hahhahahahahah...... and my LS sport only cost me 14grand after the 3 grand rebate. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. My car payments are probably 40% less than yours.hahahhaahahahahahhahahahahah you idiot. Yes, i got to admit... i traded in my 99z24 (with the 2.4 twincam) just so i could drive a slower car. yesssss...... thats exactly why i bought the 02 cav ecotec. I wanted a slower car....hahhahahaha. I guess you just don't understand.

[luvscivics]

Mungen, I don't know where you get your info, but I did a little research on the new ecotec vs. the 2.4 twin cam. By all accounts that I've read, the ecotec is a much better motor. Where do you come off saying that it's heavier?? Every article that I've read says that it's much lighter!! Only 305 pounds! Hmmmmm....... somehow I think that will cancel out the lost 10 hp and give you a cavalier that is faster, or just as fast as those cavy's with the 2.4 Not to mention better quality, less fuel consumption and a hell of a lot less noise. Not bashing 2.4's or anything, but if you are going to compare it to the ecotec, I can't find anything that proves that the 2.4 is better. Well, I'm not just talking out my ass like you either. Here is a link to a published aritcle that gives some comparison info on the ecotec and the 2.4. Thanks for your opinion dude, but I really don't think that you know what you are talking about.

http://www.carbuytip.com/reviews/200..._grand-am.html

[Just_A_pal]

Hey everyone here!
I just wanted to share my own experience with you about new Chevy Cavalier 2003. I drove it 750 km and was quite impressed by performance, noise levels, and gas mileage. It was a rental car and I really didn't want to part with it. I didn't know anything about that car before and then when I started driving it I thought it was 6 cyl. To my surprise I found 4cyl. neatly packed 2.2Ecotec under the hood. As I have some automotive background I figured it has direct ignition(each spark plug is fired by separate coil) and Multi point fuel injection as well as 16 valve dual camshaft cyl. head. To summarize all the facts - Ecotec is definitely very good engine and it's design reminds me of Volvo 960, which has similar setup and is known as extremely agressive and fuel efficient. I'd definitely go with that car as soon as I can afford it.
It's my own point and impression.

[studballs]

my AUTOMATIC ecotec ran a 15.92@ 84mph with a B&M shift plus and a dynomax muffler. Track was at 1200 feet.




mugenrsx