181 CID 4 CYL. goes to?
stan carson
this type of engine went in? Easier to get auto parts than hunt for
marine parts...
Thanks, Stan
n1...@yahoo.com
er...@pacbell.net
D J Mann
>Chevy Chevette
Uhh, 181 cubic inches works out to just under 3 litres. The Chevette had a
1.8 litre engine if memory serves me correctly.
er...@pacbell.net
Mann) wrote:
>In article <39fc64be...@news.pacbell.net>, er...@pacbell.net wrote:
>>Chevy Chevette
>
>Uhh, 181 cubic inches works out to just under 3 litres. The Chevette had a
>1.8 litre engine if memory serves me correctly.
>>
O.K........How about Pontiac Fiero?
Anonymous
no, that was the 2.8 V6.
if you don't know, just don't guess. sorry, but i don't like spreading lies
or bad leads. it doesn't help and actually hampers progress.
as far as i know, gm has the 2.2 cav engine, 2.4 dohc quad-4 based and 2.3
quad 4. all other l4's were smaller, i think. the 2.4 is about 155 ci? i
don't know of any gm 4 bigger than the 2.4, as 2.4 is pretty big for a
4-banger.
yofa - yof...@hotmail.com
D J Mann
The old Tempest from 61 through 63 offered a "slant 4" which had a
displacement of app[roximately 194.5 cubic inches, which works out to about
3.18 litres. It was half of a Pontiac 389, made with the same tooling. They
offered it with a 1 barrel carburtetor and about an 8 to one compression
ratio, and with a four barrel and about 10.25 to one compression ratio. We
had one in our 62 Tempest convertible.
I know of no other GM 4-cylinder in that size range, but then again I am not
much of an authority on GM engines.
Curtis Walker
GM also had the Iron Duke, which was 2.5 liters. It was used in the
S-10 Pickups, the Fiero, and several other cars.
Curtis
91' Turbo Z24
http://www.turboz24.com
GuyS
Pontiac. Maybe just a number misread? They had an oddly-shaped valve
cover, distributor on the passenger-side (car, not boat). Used in
Monzas, Skyhawks, Fieros, Firebirds (don't laugh)... Back in the late
70's-early 80's.
Guy
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:38:11 -0500, stan carson
<n1...@bangornews.infi.net> wrote:
er...@pacbell.net
wrote:
>> O.K........How about Pontiac Fiero?
>
>no, that was the 2.8 V6.
>
>if you don't know, just don't guess. sorry, but i don't like spreading lies
>or bad leads. it doesn't help and actually hampers progress.
>
Pull yer head out and learn something here you mollycoddled little
do-gooder...
..THE FIERO HAD A 2.5 as a base engine, the 2.8 didn't even become
available until the second year. <shesh!>
The fiero had the 2.5 Iron Duke that was replaced after a couple
of years with the 2.5 Tech IV..........
>as far as i know, gm has the 2.2 cav engine, 2.4 dohc quad-4 based and 2.3
>quad 4. all other l4's were smaller, i think.
And you call ME a guesser?
> the 2.4 is about 155 ci?
And you call ME a guesser?
>i
>don't know of any gm 4 bigger than the 2.4, as 2.4 is pretty big for a
>4-banger.
And you blame ME for spreading incorrect information???
>
>yofa - yof...@hotmail.com
>
>
Neal
Anaheim,CA
Anonymous
> >
> >no, that was the 2.8 V6.
> >
> >if you don't know, just don't guess. sorry, but i don't like spreading
lies
> >or bad leads. it doesn't help and actually hampers progress.
notice i apologized for sounding offensive. i did not mean to sound
offensive, but like i said, i don't like to mislead people.
> >
> Pull yer head out and learn something here you mollycoddled little
> do-gooder...
> ..THE FIERO HAD A 2.5 as a base engine, the 2.8 didn't even become
> available until the second year. <shesh!>
> The fiero had the 2.5 Iron Duke that was replaced after a couple
> of years with the 2.5 Tech IV..........
>
> >as far as i know, gm has the 2.2 cav engine, 2.4 dohc quad-4 based and
2.3
> >quad 4. all other l4's were smaller, i think.
>
> And you call ME a guesser?
>
> > the 2.4 is about 155 ci?
>
> And you call ME a guesser?
>
> >i
> >don't know of any gm 4 bigger than the 2.4, as 2.4 is pretty big for a
> >4-banger.
>
> And you blame ME for spreading incorrect information???
i was trying to help by offering information that i did know. i did not
know the 2.5 iron duke was the base fiero engine, but now i obviously do.
although i did guess the 155 ci, it was not far off from the true 146 cid
that is the 2.4 litre twin cam. as mentioned in another post, and this was
the point i was making, a 2.5 is 151 ci. that means that a 181 ci 4-banger
would have to be much bigger.
using a conversion table, you'll find that 181 ci is equal to 2.97 litres
(bigger than that 2.8 fiero v6). i never used any absolutes like "there was
no 4-cylinder bigger than 2.4." i clearly said i did not know of any.
thus, i do not believe i was spreading incorrect information.
and now, to update, i do not know of any 4-cylinder gm bigger than the 2.5,
151 ci iron duke.
yofa - yof...@hotmail.com
DW
"GuyS" <gsouthe...@NOSPAMpon.net> wrote in message
news:39fdb325...@news.sonic.net...
D J Mann
>Also used by American Motors in the CJ's.
And in post-79 AMC Concordes, Spirits, and such.
er...@pacbell.net
wrote:
Yofa,
'Sorry for getting all huffy. Me thinks the original poster does
have a 151cid onboard, if you look both your keyboard's upper row of
#'s and the numerical keypad (10 key) you can easily see how an input
error could occur.
Neal
Anaheim,CA
Jeff G.
It is a ford, but half of a 460 block. Uses regular car heads, but nothing
else interchanges.
DW
"D J Mann" <jacobusN...@value.net> wrote in message
news:8tl7p4$ap0$1...@news.value.net...
dondenning
vans. Have not looked at the source for several years but it was from
a "Motors Manual" which covered vehicles in that time period
"Jeff G." <jges...@hillmachineryco.com> wrote in message
news:39FEB738...@hillmachineryco.com...
Bob Leggott
from 61 thru 63.
dondenning <donde...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ecv0cj5QAHA.319@cpmsnbbsa09...
dondenning
Both in boats and sold by Mercruiser. The 470 Mercruiser is a strange
engine and I think a previous poster is correct.
"Bob Leggott" <r.le...@home.com> wrote in message
news:llOL5.556712$8u4.7...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Mark Schooley
Don't know what this engine originally came out of, but how many I4 did GM
make in the displacement range of 3L? Also, no one has asked what, if any,
the block casting number is. Seems to me that it would be easier to
determine when the engine was made and what it's original use was.
Just my 2 cents.
-Mark
dondenning <donde...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ODF8d8#QAHA.323@cpmsnbbsa09...
DW
auto L4's. Marine engines are a totally different breed. In many cases these
blocks are machined by GM then shipped to somebody like Mercury Marine,
where they are assembled according to their specs rather than GM Corporate.
Often times, GM produces spares/parts by contract, but does not include them
as part of Service Parts Operations.
"Mark Schooley" <scho...@mwr.is> wrote in message
news:3a00...@proxy.mwr.is...
