How many here have raced (stock for stock) a second generation (88-94) Chevrolet Cavalier? I'm wondering which car holds a faster stock 1/4 mile time and which is a faster "rolling start" car..I have researched this and found nothing, I think the cavi makes 10-15 less HP than the 240, but i'm not sure. Any thoughts?
Modified by titanium240 at 5:35 PM 12/27/2004
'93 240sx faster than '90 Z-24?
-
titanium240
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:17 am
- Car: 1986 Ford Escort
My friend had a older Z24 cavalier. It was pretty quick. It had the 3.1 and it was manual. It had torque down low. I beat it every time top end. Also the 240 has a bigger after market. The 240 will also out handle a cavalier anyday. If you are into swaping the motors the 240 has many good direct swaps and even turboing the stock engine is pretty reliable.
-
titanium240
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:17 am
- Car: 1986 Ford Escort
Re: (574-240sx)
Right, I kind of figured aftermarket parts weren't abundant for the Z like the 240. Has anybody seen a modded "Z"? They look like they would be pretty quick, being a 3.1 V6 and all. Just a thought.
-
slide240slide
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:31 pm
- Car: 1991 Nissan 240SX KA motor 5-speed
Re: (240DRFT)
Cavaliers are throw away sh!tboxes, not good for anything except point A to point B. They don't have nearly the reliablility of the Nissan, and the 240SX has much more potential than the Cavalier plus the engine is designed much betterTiming BELT in the Chevy vs. timing CHAIN in the Nissan, you start modding that chevy and jump a few teeth on that belt and your hurting. plus i hate seeing "Import" style parts on a domestic. Im not dissing domestic vehicles either because i own a 1971 Dodge Challenger with a built 440, shaved, dropped and rolling on 20's. I just don't like mixing domestics with imports it's like kissing cousins, it's just Gross!
-
lovenismo
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:49 pm
- Car: 1989 240sx Coupe - Stolen and Totaled (R.I.P.)
Re: (slide240slide)
I just don't like mixing domestics with imports it's like kissing cousins, it's just Gross! [/QUOTE]
I hear that.
I hear that.
-
lovenismo
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:49 pm
- Car: 1989 240sx Coupe - Stolen and Totaled (R.I.P.)
Re: (slide240slide)
I just don't like mixing domestics with imports it's like kissing cousins, it's just Gross!
I hear that.
I hear that.
-
fullthrtl_tech
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:29 am
- Car: 93 240sx
Re: (slide240slide)
Try again?slide240slide wrote:Cavaliers are throw away sh!tboxes, not good for anything except point A to point B. They don't have nearly the reliablility of the Nissan, and the 240SX has much more potential than the Cavalier plus the engine is designed much betterTiming BELT in the Chevy vs. timing CHAIN in the Nissan, you start modding that chevy and jump a few teeth on that belt and your hurting. plus i hate seeing "Import" style parts on a domestic. Im not dissing domestic vehicles either because i own a 1971 Dodge Challenger with a built 440, shaved, dropped and rolling on 20's. I just don't like mixing domestics with imports it's like kissing cousins, it's just Gross!
The 2.4 quad 4 uses a timing chain and so did the 2.3 quad four. Even the 3.1's use chains IIRC.
I have a 96 grand am "show car" (www.cardomain.com/ktownaed/) that had the 2.4 Q4 in it...and it only runs around 3 tenths slower in the 1/8th than my 240 SOHC 5spd and it the track time it had was on bald tires, bad 02 sensor, needed alignment, bad coil packs, and an assortment of other small things. But not because it wasnt reliable...just because after so long i stopped performing routine maintenance on it like i should.
The Q4 2.4 cavalier 5speed should run right there with, or beat a S13 5spd (SOHC or DOHC) but the aftermarket (and yes reliability) are fairly better than the cavalier. Not to mention the cavalier has no direct engine swaps.
although you can put the 3.4 or 3.5 OHV engines into the 3.1 equipped cavvys for a decent HP and tons of TQ gain.
I do remember that the Chevy Quad4's were pretty nice engines. GM doesn't seem to put out many good 4 cylinder engines, but the Quad4 was a definite exception.
Correct me if I am wrong ktownS13, but didn't the Q4 get something around 170hp? I think if it came down to a choice I would rather have a Chevy with a Q4 than a 3.1 V6. I am also pretty sure that the Q4 used a distributor-less multiple coil ignition.
Correct me if I am wrong ktownS13, but didn't the Q4 get something around 170hp? I think if it came down to a choice I would rather have a Chevy with a Q4 than a 3.1 V6. I am also pretty sure that the Q4 used a distributor-less multiple coil ignition.
Re: (dfw240_EE)
Your mostly right.dfw240_EE wrote:I do remember that the Chevy Quad4's were pretty nice engines. GM doesn't seem to put out many good 4 cylinder engines, but the Quad4 was a definite exception.
Correct me if I am wrong ktownS13, but didn't the Q4 get something around 170hp? I think if it came down to a choice I would rather have a Chevy with a Q4 than a 3.1 V6. I am also pretty sure that the Q4 used a distributor-less multiple coil ignition.
The 2.3 quad 4 was the late 80s/early 90s version of the quad series, it came in the following configs.
89-92 High Output 180hp89-92 W41 High Output 190hp93 High Output 175hp94 High Output 170 hp89-95 DOHC LO 155hp89-95 SOHC LO 115 hp96-01 2.4l "Twin Cam" 150hp
It changed a ton over the years....but was a solid and stout engine. I surprised many people with my grand am.
oh and yes, it uses a dsitrubutorless coil ignition system
Re: (dfw240_EE)
True.dfw240_EE wrote:Though over the summer I drove a Grand Am with an Ecotec as a rental. Ok, I guess. I think the body has outgrown the engine
the ecotec replaced the quad 4 series and it is underpowered for a car as heavy as a grand am....although they were right at home in the newer cavaliers and sunfires. As well as the new cobalt SS which is 225hp (underrated, probly more like 240) which is an ecotec S/C. They are capable of high 14s......or about the same a as a bone stock SR swap.
Re: (Chingon)
You would be correct with that info. Also the Cobalt SS is just a Saturn Ion Redline with a different body.Chingon wrote:HUH? I just read on motor trend that the cobalt ss 2005 is 205 hp 2.0 ltr..and that yeah it runs 14.5 qtr mile...so am I missing something?
Re: (Chingon)
GM changes the official numbers all the time.....so maybe they are saying 205 now...Chingon wrote:HUH? I just read on motor trend that the cobalt ss 2005 is 205 hp 2.0 ltr..and that yeah it runs 14.5 qtr mile...so am I missing something?
either way its underrated....because i see it constantly dyno (different states, different dynos, different people/companies) 190-210 to the wheels compeltely stock.
Which should still be only good for a high 14/low 15.....pretty similar to a stock GST eclipse or stock SR swapped S13
-
Vkoslak
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 11:20 am
- Car: 1992 240SX SE rb26dett, 2004 Subaru Forester
- Location: Pflugerville, TX
- Contact:
I've owned a 91' z24 with the 3.1 v6, a 99 z24 with the 2.4 dohc engine, and now have a 98 240sx se.
91 z24 was fun, better built and more comfortable than the 99. but the 99 was much lighter and much faster. You could probably modify the 91 to reach some nice numbers, but its still going to be a cavlier. The 91 was an understeer monster. 140 hp stock I think.
99 cavalier z24 was very light and nimble. 155hp stock. I went to River City Raceway in my 300zx 2+2 automatic and got a 15.75, but was still beat by a kid in a 99 style z24 with some mods.One of the things that lead to me trading the 2+2 for a twin turbo! From 2000 on the hp droped due to the "ecotec" engine.
The 240sx is faster than the 91 style z24, and probably very close in performance to the 99 style z24 as far as outright acceleration goes. The 99 z24 style DOHC 2.4 engine is fairly reliable and very simular to the ka24de in power delivery. I sold the 99 I had to my brother and he still drives it. Only problems have been a cracked washer fluid resivoir and a cracked dash (replaced under warranty). Should be noted that the right hand drive version of the cavalier was sold as a Toyota. I'm pretty sure they made the transmission for it.
The 240sx out classes the cavaliers on interior quality and comfort, and also with better handling. My family used to have an 85 200sx xe hatch. It only had 100hp, but it was a blast to drive and could carve up mountain roads much better than either of those cavaliers. The s14 seems to have a softer suspension from the factory than the s13 or s12, but will still out perform the cavalier in handling.
To sum up, the cavalier z24 series is not a bad choice for cheap sporty fun to drive if your on a very tight budget. Repairs and replacement parts are dirt cheap and with the number of cavaliers made, every junkyard out there will have some cavalier parts in it. If youre going to "soup up" your car though, start with a better car like the 240sx. I see adding aftermarket parts to a cavalier a lot like adding aftermarket parts to a civic. No matter what you do to it, it will still be a cavalier.
As far as the cobalt ss goes, a 2 liter supercharged engine isn't a bad thing. Although I would have rather seen them use a turbo for that kind of displacement. Interior quality is much better than the cavalier, but they still like to use plastic moulding and not cover it with some nice vynil. Finally they have went to 4 wheel disc brakes! No independant rear suspenion though. Maybe in another 20 years. The silvia's got independant rear suspension and 4 wheel disc brakes in 85. Biggest drawback to the Cobalt SS (other than FWD) is the $25k sticker price. For that much they should at least steal the subaru's awd like they did with saab. It does look a hell of a lot better than the older cavaliers though. At least theyre moving in the right direction. I think I'll stick with my 10 year old nissans though. Unfortuneatly, getting financing is hard for 10 year old nissans. Most people dont have $10k saved up to drop on a car. I know I didnt when I got my first real job.
Anyhow, I've dumped more than enough info on cavaliers. Id rather have a 85 turbo 200sx than any cavalier (or cobalt).
91 z24 was fun, better built and more comfortable than the 99. but the 99 was much lighter and much faster. You could probably modify the 91 to reach some nice numbers, but its still going to be a cavlier. The 91 was an understeer monster. 140 hp stock I think.
99 cavalier z24 was very light and nimble. 155hp stock. I went to River City Raceway in my 300zx 2+2 automatic and got a 15.75, but was still beat by a kid in a 99 style z24 with some mods.One of the things that lead to me trading the 2+2 for a twin turbo! From 2000 on the hp droped due to the "ecotec" engine.
The 240sx is faster than the 91 style z24, and probably very close in performance to the 99 style z24 as far as outright acceleration goes. The 99 z24 style DOHC 2.4 engine is fairly reliable and very simular to the ka24de in power delivery. I sold the 99 I had to my brother and he still drives it. Only problems have been a cracked washer fluid resivoir and a cracked dash (replaced under warranty). Should be noted that the right hand drive version of the cavalier was sold as a Toyota. I'm pretty sure they made the transmission for it.
The 240sx out classes the cavaliers on interior quality and comfort, and also with better handling. My family used to have an 85 200sx xe hatch. It only had 100hp, but it was a blast to drive and could carve up mountain roads much better than either of those cavaliers. The s14 seems to have a softer suspension from the factory than the s13 or s12, but will still out perform the cavalier in handling.
To sum up, the cavalier z24 series is not a bad choice for cheap sporty fun to drive if your on a very tight budget. Repairs and replacement parts are dirt cheap and with the number of cavaliers made, every junkyard out there will have some cavalier parts in it. If youre going to "soup up" your car though, start with a better car like the 240sx. I see adding aftermarket parts to a cavalier a lot like adding aftermarket parts to a civic. No matter what you do to it, it will still be a cavalier.
As far as the cobalt ss goes, a 2 liter supercharged engine isn't a bad thing. Although I would have rather seen them use a turbo for that kind of displacement. Interior quality is much better than the cavalier, but they still like to use plastic moulding and not cover it with some nice vynil. Finally they have went to 4 wheel disc brakes! No independant rear suspenion though. Maybe in another 20 years. The silvia's got independant rear suspension and 4 wheel disc brakes in 85. Biggest drawback to the Cobalt SS (other than FWD) is the $25k sticker price. For that much they should at least steal the subaru's awd like they did with saab. It does look a hell of a lot better than the older cavaliers though. At least theyre moving in the right direction. I think I'll stick with my 10 year old nissans though. Unfortuneatly, getting financing is hard for 10 year old nissans. Most people dont have $10k saved up to drop on a car. I know I didnt when I got my first real job.
Anyhow, I've dumped more than enough info on cavaliers. Id rather have a 85 turbo 200sx than any cavalier (or cobalt).
Re: (titanium240)
can u say cammed bored and 3 side draft webberstitanium240 wrote:Right, I kind of figured aftermarket parts weren't abundant for the Z like the 240. Has anybody seen a modded "Z"? They look like they would be pretty quick, being a 3.1 V6 and all. Just a thought.
Re: (Vkoslak)
Your right Vkoslak, the suspensions on the Jbodies and Nbodies (hell most lower model GM's) are pretty lackluster....
Imagine the crappiness of the Jdboy suspension held over to the N bodies (Grand am, malibu, alero) that have 400~ lbs more on them.....it was the opposite of handling in my mind...it slid EVERYwhere.
The 2.4 Twin Cam has a hell of a TQ curve though.....flat as a 12 year old.
Imagine the crappiness of the Jdboy suspension held over to the N bodies (Grand am, malibu, alero) that have 400~ lbs more on them.....it was the opposite of handling in my mind...it slid EVERYwhere.
The 2.4 Twin Cam has a hell of a TQ curve though.....flat as a 12 year old.
-
ETTInnov04
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:38 am
- Car: 1989 Nissan 240sx fastback
Re: (ktownS13)
If anyone still cares...93 cav z24: 0-60: 8.3/ 1/4 mile: 17.293 240SX: 0-60: 8.4/ 1/4 mile: 16.3(stock vs. stock) Now go ahead and add to your kill list **Stats are from http://www.car-stats.com**You can usually find any stats you want there, they compile them from Motor trend, car & driver and the like.
-
ETTInnov04
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:38 am
- Car: 1989 Nissan 240sx fastback
Re: (ETTInnov04)
Yes and no. On the street yes, at the strip not really. Street races are usually that 0-60 deal.With almost a second over the cav' in the 1/4 you'd really have to mess up.
I cant believe I just read this thread. Unless you're getting an expensive car from GM, its going to be mostly junk. Although I am impressed with their new line up. RWD V8 Monte Carlo SS, a V8 in the Impala SS (I think RWD)... and of course the GTO and Z06. Not impressed with that cobalt thing though. Kinda fugly and cheaply built IMO. I'll take a Z06 though, fuel injected 427... and an aftermarket supercharger. But a Cavalier up against a 240?? C'mon, it MIGHT be close at the strip, but try an autocross... or any corner for that matter. Z24 = owned in curve.
Re: (Kr0n1k)
Unless GM just came out with brand new models of each there both Front Wheel Drive V6's.Kr0n1k wrote:I cant believe I just read this thread. Unless you're getting an expensive car from GM, its going to be mostly junk. Although I am impressed with their new line up. RWD V8 Monte Carlo SS, a V8 in the Impala SS (I think RWD)