info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
GM Quad4 (2.3L DOHC I4) :How durable is it?
1,247 views
Skip to first unread message
Oriana Y. Reyes
Dec 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/1/98
to
Greetings everyone;
I was wondering if anyone had any experiences with this engine. Mine is
the High Output variety (180 HP) that came stock in my 94 Olds Achieva SC.
It now has 108K miles on it, and I'm curious how much longer it will last.
Specifically, I am beginning to worry about the valvetrain and cam chains. I
had an 86 Olds 98 Regency which had the old 3.8L V6 in it, and it lost the
timing chain at around 150K, which I understand is pretty average. The Quad4
uses dual chains (at least in the 94 model) to drive the cams, so this might
improve the reliability. All the same, I'd like to know if anyone has had
any major problems with their Quad4 motor. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Also, if any of the more technical people here would like to crush my
pipe dreams : I was wondering about the feasability of bolting on an Eaton
Roots type supercharger to said Quad4. Yes, I have a 2,400 lb car being
moved by 180 horses, and that's still not enough. I've seen prototype
Sunfires and Cavaliers with this supercharger mated to the 2.4L TwinCam
motor, which is a close cousin and descendant from the Quad4. Seems to me if
that setup works, then it ought to work with my engine.
I was wondering if anyone had any experiences with this engine. Mine is
the High Output variety (180 HP) that came stock in my 94 Olds Achieva SC.
It now has 108K miles on it, and I'm curious how much longer it will last.
Specifically, I am beginning to worry about the valvetrain and cam chains. I
had an 86 Olds 98 Regency which had the old 3.8L V6 in it, and it lost the
timing chain at around 150K, which I understand is pretty average. The Quad4
uses dual chains (at least in the 94 model) to drive the cams, so this might
improve the reliability. All the same, I'd like to know if anyone has had
any major problems with their Quad4 motor. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Also, if any of the more technical people here would like to crush my
pipe dreams : I was wondering about the feasability of bolting on an Eaton
Roots type supercharger to said Quad4. Yes, I have a 2,400 lb car being
moved by 180 horses, and that's still not enough. I've seen prototype
Sunfires and Cavaliers with this supercharger mated to the 2.4L TwinCam
motor, which is a close cousin and descendant from the Quad4. Seems to me if
that setup works, then it ought to work with my engine.
Thanks for any input!
- Ben
BowlHead19
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to
the 2.3l quad 4, particularly the high output version is considered by GM
mechanics as a regular source of income. If you haven't had to put head
gaskets on in yet better start saving you will. The high output version also
has a habit of cracking heads this is an expensive proposition to repair. As
far as the supercharger idea, it would work but i wouldn'yt waste my time or
money on that engine
mechanics as a regular source of income. If you haven't had to put head
gaskets on in yet better start saving you will. The high output version also
has a habit of cracking heads this is an expensive proposition to repair. As
far as the supercharger idea, it would work but i wouldn'yt waste my time or
money on that engine
Nu...@whyme.com
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
well I beg to differ on your opinion of the 2.3L DOHC/Quad 4, I subscribe
to a j-body mailing list and have never heard of any problems with
headgaskets, I would like to see some facts to back up the comment on
headgasket problems. Actually I feel that the Quad is one of the best four
cylinder engine designs out there, first thing I have to say is that
oldsmobile had a twin turbo version of this motor putting out about 800+
twin turbo'ed horsepower. Second of all, as far as durability is concerned
a timing chain will outlast a belt anyday I would much rather have steel
connecting my cams and crank than a piece of rubber. This engine has been
seriously detuned by GM, to supposedly give a broader power band, and to
make it less peaky.
to a j-body mailing list and have never heard of any problems with
headgaskets, I would like to see some facts to back up the comment on
headgasket problems. Actually I feel that the Quad is one of the best four
cylinder engine designs out there, first thing I have to say is that
oldsmobile had a twin turbo version of this motor putting out about 800+
twin turbo'ed horsepower. Second of all, as far as durability is concerned
a timing chain will outlast a belt anyday I would much rather have steel
connecting my cams and crank than a piece of rubber. This engine has been
seriously detuned by GM, to supposedly give a broader power band, and to
make it less peaky.
As far as putting a supercharger on it. it really wouldn't take much to
fabricate an intake manifold and mounting setup for it, the hard part would
be getting the extra fuel into the engine along with timing curve changes
that may be needed. You would have to either buy a completely new
programmable engine management system or have one of the numerous chip
makers/ computer upgraders to totally redo a computer for you. Also, you
would not be able to use alot of extra boost due to the high compression
ratio of the stock motor, which would mean digging into the block to install
lower compression pistons that may have to be custom made. Just a few of
the things you need to think about before beginning something as major as
adding a supercharger to this engine.
d.white
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
Nu...@whyme.com wrote in message ...
We own and operate a machine shop in the mid west and find that the quad 4
has a gasket problem. Also with cracked heads. My wife owns a 90 grand am
with a quad 4. We replaced the head gasket at 60 thousand mi. GMC replaced
it free...on extended warranty because of problems. I think once the gasket
is replaced (with a quality gasket) end of problem. Like the way the engine
runs.
dw
>
Hmetal1
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
I had a SOHC 92 Quad 4 for 125,000 miles. The gasket went on it once, and that
was when things started going to hell. But first a few explanations. I am an
autocross racer and a very inexperienced mechanic. I think that if I hadn't
driven the car asa hard as I did, especially autocrossing it with over 90,000
miles on it, it would have been fine. A friend of mine gave me the necessary
pieces to convert it into a DOHC version. I had the head checked out, and it
was in good shape. I had to get four new valves, and otherwise completley
re-equip the springs, keepers, etc. because the timing chain had been thrown,
and the valves killed themselves on one of the cylinders (or the other way
around, I'm not sure which). But once I installed the head (and purchased
several new sensors and a new PROM), the thing ran terrble. I think I just did
some work incorrectly, and my coworkers agreed with me. About a month after I
did this, (I did not try to take it back apart and rebuild it) the transmission
(TH125C, 3-speed auto) died. I really messed up on the installation of that,
and decided to get rid of it. I got a semi-decent price, and made sure the new
owner knew about all the problems before he even saw the car. If I could, I
would like to purchase a 92 Achieva SCX, as I like that body the best of the
N-cars, and would really enjoy the full performance version of the Quad 4 wioth
a 5-speed. If you're looking to try to avoid the head gasket problem, just put
in a lower-temp thermostat or an oil cooler. Either way would keep the entire
engine cooler, and so help to avoid the problem of differences of expansion
present in iron and aluminum, which is most probably the main source of all
troubles with that engine.-
was when things started going to hell. But first a few explanations. I am an
autocross racer and a very inexperienced mechanic. I think that if I hadn't
driven the car asa hard as I did, especially autocrossing it with over 90,000
miles on it, it would have been fine. A friend of mine gave me the necessary
pieces to convert it into a DOHC version. I had the head checked out, and it
was in good shape. I had to get four new valves, and otherwise completley
re-equip the springs, keepers, etc. because the timing chain had been thrown,
and the valves killed themselves on one of the cylinders (or the other way
around, I'm not sure which). But once I installed the head (and purchased
several new sensors and a new PROM), the thing ran terrble. I think I just did
some work incorrectly, and my coworkers agreed with me. About a month after I
did this, (I did not try to take it back apart and rebuild it) the transmission
(TH125C, 3-speed auto) died. I really messed up on the installation of that,
and decided to get rid of it. I got a semi-decent price, and made sure the new
owner knew about all the problems before he even saw the car. If I could, I
would like to purchase a 92 Achieva SCX, as I like that body the best of the
N-cars, and would really enjoy the full performance version of the Quad 4 wioth
a 5-speed. If you're looking to try to avoid the head gasket problem, just put
in a lower-temp thermostat or an oil cooler. Either way would keep the entire
engine cooler, and so help to avoid the problem of differences of expansion
present in iron and aluminum, which is most probably the main source of all
troubles with that engine.-
Scott Klein
Ben Thompson
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
The head gasket / cylinder head problem is one I've heard of before. I
have also been told that this problem is less of a factor for '94 onwards
engines (which mine is).
Still,
1) If my engine shows no signs of leaking oil or coolant from the
cylinder head, or anywhere else for that matter, should I still be expecting
a potential blow out, or is it more like if it hasn't happened yet (at
108,000 very hard driven miles), then it's not likely to happen soon?
2) In reference to my initial question about supercharging the engine,
would it be a simpler deal to turbo this engine, rather than adding a
supercharger ? Olds sold a version of the Cutlass Supreme convertible which
had a turbo Quad4, built to the same specs as the Indy Pace Car version. Or
will both projects pose the same problems of possibly having to re-engineer
the engine for lower compression, and the fuel management, etc... The high
stock compression ratio was one of the things I was concerned about. If I
can do either one without having to totally rebuild the engine, that would
be preferrable.
3) Finally, does anyone know what engine swaps are available for the
N-body cars? I know they had everything from the 2.5l OHV, to a 3.3L OHV-V6
under that hood. I was wondering if anyone knew if it was possible to maybe
cram a 3800 v6 in there (it might t\be tight, but it'd be really cool to
have that thing attached to the 5speed gearbox.)...
Oh, and I have to agree with Scott Klein, the Achieva looks the best out
of that batch of N-body cars. Let me clarify that, the 2 door SC models
looked the best. I've never been all that thrilled about any of the N-Body 4
doors. The new Alero and Grand Am, however, those are both really sharp
either as a coupe or a sedan!
That's my other 2 cents worth...
have also been told that this problem is less of a factor for '94 onwards
engines (which mine is).
Still,
1) If my engine shows no signs of leaking oil or coolant from the
cylinder head, or anywhere else for that matter, should I still be expecting
a potential blow out, or is it more like if it hasn't happened yet (at
108,000 very hard driven miles), then it's not likely to happen soon?
2) In reference to my initial question about supercharging the engine,
would it be a simpler deal to turbo this engine, rather than adding a
supercharger ? Olds sold a version of the Cutlass Supreme convertible which
had a turbo Quad4, built to the same specs as the Indy Pace Car version. Or
will both projects pose the same problems of possibly having to re-engineer
the engine for lower compression, and the fuel management, etc... The high
stock compression ratio was one of the things I was concerned about. If I
can do either one without having to totally rebuild the engine, that would
be preferrable.
3) Finally, does anyone know what engine swaps are available for the
N-body cars? I know they had everything from the 2.5l OHV, to a 3.3L OHV-V6
under that hood. I was wondering if anyone knew if it was possible to maybe
cram a 3800 v6 in there (it might t\be tight, but it'd be really cool to
have that thing attached to the 5speed gearbox.)...
Oh, and I have to agree with Scott Klein, the Achieva looks the best out
of that batch of N-body cars. Let me clarify that, the 2 door SC models
looked the best. I've never been all that thrilled about any of the N-Body 4
doors. The new Alero and Grand Am, however, those are both really sharp
either as a coupe or a sedan!
That's my other 2 cents worth...
- Ben
thom...@home.com
Tina Aikens
Dec 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/6/98
to
> well I beg to differ on your opinion of the 2.3L DOHC/Quad 4, I subscribe
>to a j-body mailing list and have never heard of any problems with
>headgaskets, I would like to see some facts to back up the comment on
>headgasket problems
>to a j-body mailing list and have never heard of any problems with
>headgaskets, I would like to see some facts to back up the comment on
>headgasket problems
I used to be a tech for GM and have seen numerous head and headgasket
sealing problems with the quad 4. It was a good idea
but needs some sorting out, if you want serious HP gains. Only
one other note ,while a chain is mechanically stronger, a timing belt
is inherently more accurate and does not transfer harmonic vibrations
of the crank to the cam and valvetrain. Good luck tweaking your quad
it ought to be a blast
corey
ARCTZR
Dec 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/6/98
to
IF YOU HAVENT REPLACED THE CYLINDER HEAD GASKET OR HEAD YOU BETTER BROOM IT .
THIS REPAIR IS ALMOST INEVITABLE.B.M ASE MASTER
THIS REPAIR IS ALMOST INEVITABLE.B.M ASE MASTER
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Dec 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/7/98
to
Nu...@whyme.com wrote:
>
> well I beg to differ on your opinion of the 2.3L DOHC/Quad 4, I subscribe
> to a j-body mailing list and have never heard of any problems with
> headgaskets, I would like to see some facts to back up the comment on
> headgasket problems.>
> well I beg to differ on your opinion of the 2.3L DOHC/Quad 4, I subscribe
> to a j-body mailing list and have never heard of any problems with
> headgaskets, I would like to see some facts to back up the comment on
My friend's '90 Grand Am blew went through two cylinder heads. The first
was repaired under warranty by GM. The second went last year and he
just junked the car. Besides my friend's sob story, there have been
numerous other posts on this newsgroup about the Quad 4 eating headgaskets
over the last few years.
Jeff
babey...@gmail.com
Oct 30, 2014, 12:10:52 PM10/30/14
to
On Friday, December 4, 1998 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Nu...@whyme.com wrote:
> well I beg to differ on your opinion of the 2.3L DOHC/Quad 4, I subscribe
> to a j-body mailing list and have never heard of any problems with
> headgaskets, I would like to see some facts to back up the comment on
> well I beg to differ on your opinion of the 2.3L DOHC/Quad 4, I subscribe
> to a j-body mailing list and have never heard of any problems with
> headgaskets, I would like to see some facts to back up the comment on
> headgasket problems. Actually I feel that the Quad is one of the best four
> cylinder engine designs out there, first thing I have to say is that
> oldsmobile had a twin turbo version of this motor putting out about 800+
> twin turbo'ed horsepower. Second of all, as far as durability is concerned
> a timing chain will outlast a belt anyday I would much rather have steel
> connecting my cams and crank than a piece of rubber. This engine has been
> seriously detuned by GM, to supposedly give a broader power band, and to
> make it less peaky.
>
> As far as putting a supercharger on it. it really wouldn't take much to
> fabricate an intake manifold and mounting setup for it, the hard part would
> be getting the extra fuel into the engine along with timing curve changes
> that may be needed. You would have to either buy a completely new
> programmable engine management system or have one of the numerous chip
> makers/ computer upgraders to totally redo a computer for you. Also, you
> would not be able to use alot of extra boost due to the high compression
> ratio of the stock motor, which would mean digging into the block to install
> lower compression pistons that may have to be custom made. Just a few of
> the things you need to think about before beginning something as major as
> adding a supercharger to this engine.
Being a mechanic with far more experience than I care to with the Quad 4... I have to say that one in particular has had the headgasket go out 4 times. That's been less than 10k miles. This has been over 4 years. Twice in the last year. I personally have done the gasket in this vehicle twice. A mechanic at this same shop has done it also twice. The vehicle never leaves the county and is only driven about 5 miles a day 5 days a week. The head has been replaced and the last time we sent the head off to be checked and checked the block once more only to find that everything was dead flat.
> cylinder engine designs out there, first thing I have to say is that
> oldsmobile had a twin turbo version of this motor putting out about 800+
> twin turbo'ed horsepower. Second of all, as far as durability is concerned
> a timing chain will outlast a belt anyday I would much rather have steel
> connecting my cams and crank than a piece of rubber. This engine has been
> seriously detuned by GM, to supposedly give a broader power band, and to
> make it less peaky.
>
> As far as putting a supercharger on it. it really wouldn't take much to
> fabricate an intake manifold and mounting setup for it, the hard part would
> be getting the extra fuel into the engine along with timing curve changes
> that may be needed. You would have to either buy a completely new
> programmable engine management system or have one of the numerous chip
> makers/ computer upgraders to totally redo a computer for you. Also, you
> would not be able to use alot of extra boost due to the high compression
> ratio of the stock motor, which would mean digging into the block to install
> lower compression pistons that may have to be custom made. Just a few of
> the things you need to think about before beginning something as major as
> adding a supercharger to this engine.
My advice, if the vehicle is still running, get rid of it BEFORE you have a problem. It's just not worth the headache of spending any money on. You will likely not find many high performance parts for this engine in any case.
babey...@gmail.com
Oct 30, 2014, 12:13:31 PM10/30/14
to
On Tuesday, December 1, 1998 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Oriana Y. Reyes wrote:
> Greetings everyone;
Don't bother. I am a mechanic and have seen more problems with these motors than I care to. Seriously. Don't try to add anything to this motor. If you have made it to 100k without a headgasket, count yourself lucky and get rid of it before you run into that. The 2.4 twin cam was also a different design head and block. Your best bet, don't waste any money on upgrades to a vehicle that has a known problem with heads and headgaskets.
> Greetings everyone;
Paul in Houston TX
Oct 30, 2014, 7:19:05 PM10/30/14
to
babey...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 1998 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Oriana Y. Reyes wrote:
>> Greetings everyone;
>>
> On Tuesday, December 1, 1998 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Oriana Y. Reyes wrote:
>> Greetings everyone;
>>
>> Thanks for any input!
>> - Ben
>>
>> thom...@home.com
>
> Don't bother. I am a mechanic and have seen more problems with these motors than I care to. Seriously. Don't try to add anything to this motor. If you have made it to 100k without a headgasket, count yourself lucky and get rid of it before you run into that. The 2.4 twin cam was also a different design head and block. Your best bet, don't waste any money on upgrades to a vehicle that has a known problem with heads and headgaskets.
That was posted 16 years ago.
>> - Ben
>>
>> thom...@home.com
>
> Don't bother. I am a mechanic and have seen more problems with these motors than I care to. Seriously. Don't try to add anything to this motor. If you have made it to 100k without a headgasket, count yourself lucky and get rid of it before you run into that. The 2.4 twin cam was also a different design head and block. Your best bet, don't waste any money on upgrades to a vehicle that has a known problem with heads and headgaskets.
Why do you answer now?
dadu...@gmail.com
Dec 8, 2016, 9:06:45 AM12/8/16
to
The quad..2.3 and 2.4 modles do not like thermocycling... the head gasket and head especially, they like to crack around 150,000 miles... so if tou havent had to do any of that yet id save for it... also if you have the means start saving for a waterpump also...thats a 8 hour job... as for the cams and valves...i havent heard of really any problems with those, bit if you're gona save for a head may as well save to have the valves done plus a port and Polish.
dadu...@gmail.com
Dec 8, 2016, 9:07:00 AM12/8/16
to
dadu...@gmail.com
Dec 8, 2016, 9:07:17 AM12/8/16
to
Paul in Houston TX
Dec 8, 2016, 11:22:07 PM12/8/16
to
The last of them were melted down for scrap about 20 years ago.
james.pe...@gmail.com
Apr 20, 2019, 4:44:09 PM4/20/19
to
On Tuesday, December 1, 1998 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-7, Oriana Y. Reyes wrote:
> Greetings everyone;
> Greetings everyone;
> I was wondering if anyone had any experiences with this engine. Mine is
> the High Output variety (180 HP) that came stock in my 94 Olds Achieva SC.
> It now has 108K miles on it, and I'm curious how much longer it will last.
> Specifically, I am beginning to worry about the valvetrain and cam chains. I
> had an 86 Olds 98 Regency which had the old 3.8L V6 in it, and it lost the
> timing chain at around 150K, which I understand is pretty average. The Quad4
> uses dual chains (at least in the 94 model) to drive the cams, so this might
> improve the reliability. All the same, I'd like to know if anyone has had
> any major problems with their Quad4 motor. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
> Also, if any of the more technical people here would like to crush my
> pipe dreams : I was wondering about the feasability of bolting on an Eaton
> Roots type supercharger to said Quad4. Yes, I have a 2,400 lb car being
> moved by 180 horses, and that's still not enough. I've seen prototype
> Sunfires and Cavaliers with this supercharger mated to the 2.4L TwinCam
> motor, which is a close cousin and descendant from the Quad4. Seems to me if
> that setup works, then it ought to work with my engine.
>
2001 Pointiac Grand AM Quad 4 SOHV - 80,000 KM. Synthetic Oil changes every 5K. And it Head cracked. GM Knew this was a problem but is also hoping the owners would go way licking their wounds. I complained to GM. Got a take to to our dealer... who quoted me $3500 to fix with the exact same parts that failed. Went to an idenpendant engine rebuild shop. They put on a re-engineered head re-enforced where the hot and cool jackets sit to stop future leaking. Got absolutly no help from GM. It was my first and last GM I will ever own. So... Frankly my family and I will never buy another GM Product. Looking forward to their Chapter 11.
> the High Output variety (180 HP) that came stock in my 94 Olds Achieva SC.
> It now has 108K miles on it, and I'm curious how much longer it will last.
> Specifically, I am beginning to worry about the valvetrain and cam chains. I
> had an 86 Olds 98 Regency which had the old 3.8L V6 in it, and it lost the
> timing chain at around 150K, which I understand is pretty average. The Quad4
> uses dual chains (at least in the 94 model) to drive the cams, so this might
> improve the reliability. All the same, I'd like to know if anyone has had
> any major problems with their Quad4 motor. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
> Also, if any of the more technical people here would like to crush my
> pipe dreams : I was wondering about the feasability of bolting on an Eaton
> Roots type supercharger to said Quad4. Yes, I have a 2,400 lb car being
> moved by 180 horses, and that's still not enough. I've seen prototype
> Sunfires and Cavaliers with this supercharger mated to the 2.4L TwinCam
> motor, which is a close cousin and descendant from the Quad4. Seems to me if
> that setup works, then it ought to work with my engine.
>
dsi1
Apr 20, 2019, 5:32:09 PM4/20/19
to
Scott Dorsey
Apr 20, 2019, 9:33:52 PM4/20/19
to
dsi1 <dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>The good news is that kind of thing won't happen when we're all driving/rid=
>ing electric cars because there's no head. If the motor fails, you just bol=
less to go wrong. A simpler mechanism is easier to repair as well.
But, once GM gets their hands on the design, all bets are off. I am sure
the same people that designed Oldsmobile diesel engines that exploded at
30,000 miles and Chevy ECUs that crashed when nearby truckers keyed up their
CB radio will figure out some way to make electric vehicles that fail
prematurely and are difficult to repair.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
>The good news is that kind of thing won't happen when we're all driving/rid=
>ing electric cars because there's no head. If the motor fails, you just bol=
>t on another one and rebuild the old one. Life will be good again.
Having all-electric vehicles makes for much simpler drive trains and a lot
less to go wrong. A simpler mechanism is easier to repair as well.
But, once GM gets their hands on the design, all bets are off. I am sure
the same people that designed Oldsmobile diesel engines that exploded at
30,000 miles and Chevy ECUs that crashed when nearby truckers keyed up their
CB radio will figure out some way to make electric vehicles that fail
prematurely and are difficult to repair.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
allise...@gmail.com
Apr 27, 2019, 10:28:18 AM4/27/19
to
0 new messages