twin cam 2.4 ld9

how good or bad of a motor is a 2.4 gm twin cam LD9? Is it just a quad four with some of its issues solved?

Bob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

bob urz wrote:

My rule of thumb is- if it has four cylinders and GM made it, then it's crap.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now that you mention it, I can't think of any series of 4 cylinder they ever made that was very good.

The Nova silicon aluminum one was terrible, the Iron Duke was faulty and cracked, the Quad Four had problems, etc...

Did they EVER make a really good, strong 4 cylinder??

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bob, to answer your original question YES, the LD9 engine is a re-engineered version of the Oldsmobile Quad-4. It is not a bad engine - still a bit on the noisy side for my tastes and its low end torque is kinda lame (they work SOOOOOO much better with a 4-speed automatic or a manual VS the 3-speed automatic), but if properly maintained I've seen them last 150K plus. The two biggest pains in the butt on the older ones is DIS ignition problems, water pumps and the front engine mounts.

Now onto Steve's assertion that all GM 4-cylinder engines are crap - I beg to disagree and as an example I'll site one GM 4-cylinder that I think is a good one - the 1.8/2.0/2.2L Tonawanda engine, which was used primarily in the "J" body cars and some "S" and "T" series smaller trucks. Not a fancy engine (basic pushrod motor with no balance shaft or turbocharger or any other "hi tech" stuff) but a reliable workhorse. Back in the '80s GM even offered a good amount of hot rod parts for this engine.

Considering the number of those engine produced, their failure rate is quite low and the only chronic problem they have is with water pumps. However, on the Gen I version changing the water pump is an easy job.

Many of you might disagree, but I prefer the 1st Generation of this engine, produced from 1981-1986 (iron block and iron heads). The Gen II version with the aluminum head made more horsepower but is not quite as forgiving about overheating. On the other hand, the later Gen II engines have DIS ignition and sequential port fuel injection, a much better setup than the first year with the computer-controlled 2-barrel carb (those where lame).

I owned one car with the Gen I engine (a 1983 Cadillac Cimarron) and had zero problems with the engine other than a water pump replacement at 73K. My downstairs neighbor owns a 1989 Buick Skyhawk with a Gen II 2.0L with over 240K on the odometer - her only engine problem was again a couple of water pump replacements.

I've done a lot of maintenance work on cars with these engines over the years but VERY seldom did I have to tackle major issues. When it comes to "J" cars I'd take one with the Tonawanda engine over one with the Brazilian OHC engine any day.

I'll totally agree with you on the old Vega engine from the 70s - nice concept but it wasn't quite ready for the real world. The UAW strike in the fall of 1970 saved me from owning on (I'd ordered a loaded Vega GT - after waiting for awhile I cancelled the order and bought a used 1967 Buick Skylark from the same dealer. That Buick turned out to be one really GREAT car)!!

Regards, Bill Bowen Sacramento, CA

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

i will second that

Steve Austin wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was under the impression that the Ecotech fours were decent.

Ed

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe that Ian has said that they are pretty good little engines. Father-in-law has one in his little GMC pickup truck.. It is gutless and sucks gas, but have had no real engine problems at 30,000 miles.

Gets 17-18 mpg.

It has had two alternators go out, body noise will drive you nuts, and a few other things, but at least no head gaskets, manifold gaskets, etc yet.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

wrote in message

I had a Saturn Vue with the 2.2L Ecotech. After my son ran it through the mud (and I mean deep through the mud), we lost a coil pack, but otherwise the engine was trouble free. I wish I could have said the same about the transmission. When the car had around 40K miles I traded it in because I didn't want to worry about needing another new transmission.

Ed

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Steve...let's assume you were going to build up a kit car or special, using a four banger.. What would be your engine of choice? If you wanted to turbocharge it, would your choice change?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, the question I have is good for which application.

It's certainly good enough for the cars it is found in. I'm not sure which "issues" you are talking about but the LD9 really represents the final stage of evolution for the quad 4 engine.

I can only guess as to why you are asking. If you are looking for a car with a really good and unbelievably smooth 4 cylinder engine then look at late model Toyota.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.