Ecotec

[Colt]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LTVibe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray H:
This decrepit old horse is dead - bury it and let it rest in peace.

---

I'd love to own one of these decrepit old horses

:

---

Good engine but the Hemi in 2006 is no big deal with today's engine technology.
Hemi does sound cool and Chryler is making a lot of $$$ on the gimmick.

My son has a '06 Cobalt LT coupe.
Decent car with decent power.
Could use a bit more fuel economy.

 

[mikemc]

We really like our Ecotec powered '03 Cavalier. Its very reliable, gets good fuel economy and has surprisingly good performance and road manners for an econobox. We plan on keeping it for many more years, but when its time to replace it a Cobalt will be at the top of the list.

 

[Cutehumor]

When we were looking to buy a GM vehicle, I searched through the UOA reports and was impressed with the UOAs for this engine. Especially with reports of no oil consumption. If we didn't own a sunfire with the 2.2L ohv for ten years 132k reliable miles (piston slapper though), we would have bought a cobalt with the ecotech; My wife said no though because she said it would be like driving the same car. so we got a Vibe; with high gas prices, only 4 cylinders for us.

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

OHC engines work great for max HP, but at low-mid RPMs they don't have an advantage.

---

The DOHC Duratec 3L and 2.5L V6 engines put out 70% of their peak torque at 1500RPM.

Not all DOHC engines are gutless at low speeds.

 

[T-Keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray H:
Who else besides American auto manufacturers (discounting the possible exception of the Russians) still beats the half-century old OHV drum for automotive use. The saddest part are the number of otherwise knowledgeable people who willingly buy into the "romance" of float-prone overhead valves actuated by long, high inertia shafts tamed by wear-inducing high tension valve springs. This decrepit old horse is dead - bury it and let it rest in peace.

---

Half century old? Buick started the valve in head engine 100 years ago. All modern engine use it. OHC is just as old as OHV engines.

OHC engines work great for max HP, but at low-mid RPMs they don't have an advantage. Considering most automobiles spend 99% of their life in low-mid rpms, and even when they do reach their peak HP it is only for a split second, OHC is rediculous for an automotive application. Peak power isn't everything and that's why OHV engines continue to do BETTER then OHC engines. GM's OHV V6s rival Toyota and Honda's four cylinders for economy despite having tons more usable power.

I love it when the OHC guys pull out the old "it's old" argument to try and save themselves. It's got to be embarising when you are constantly outdone by "old" technology.

-T

 

[JHZR2]

The ecotec is a great engine... I have the ecotec block (not much else because saab redesigned the rest) in my 04 9-3. It is probably the best engine Ive ever driven for everyday use... 195 lb-ft of torque just off of fast idle, and I can tickle 40 MPG if I drive it right (keep it 60-65)... Ive nicely beaten the EPA estimates of 34 MPG highway over my 20k mile tenure.

A testament to saab engneering, but in reality, how much can really differ? An ecotec based engine in ANY form/ application is quite excellent. IIRC labman claims 35 MPG in his cavalier doing 75 MPH and with wife and lab equipment filling the trunk. Not too shabby.

Its just the mystique that the GM product has going against it... not much concrete stuff, as far as the drivetrain goes at least.

JMH

 

[cousincletus]

Actually IMO GM has made good 4 cylinder engines for years. The 2.5L "Iron Duke" lasted a long time, 2.2 OHV Cavalier (gets almost 40 mpg highway and can leave it in high gear pulling any mountain on I-64 in WV). I never liked the quad 4 though because it was difficult to work on.

 

[Papa Bear]

I read a book a while ago about the North American auto industry, I think it was called: "Boom, Bust, Echo".
Is that why they called it an Ecotec ??
P.B.

 

[brianl703]

I think it's from ECOnomical.

Or maybe ECOlogy.

 

[ekpolk]

From brief rental experience, the Ecotec is a nice engine -- sounds/feels good and delivers good performance. That said, in a Cobalt, it delivers the fuel economy performance of an I-4 Camry or Accord (mid-sized cars), while the Civic and Corolla get substantially better mileage. I realize that the Cobalt is ever so slightly larger than these cars, and the Ecotec is a 2.2, but I still wonder why GM isn't fielding a more economical "economy" car. I mean, if I'm going to settle for "only" 34 mpg highway, why wouldn't I go for a Malibu or Camry or Accord?

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray H:
Who else besides American auto manufacturers (discounting the possible exception of the Russians) still beats the half-century old OHV drum for automotive use. The saddest part are the number of otherwise knowledgeable people who willingly buy into the "romance" of float-prone overhead valves actuated by long, high inertia shafts tamed by wear-inducing high tension valve springs. This decrepit old horse is dead - bury it and let it rest in peace.

---

Ray:

I've got to agree with T-Keith on this one. There's plenty of good and less good in each type of design. Both designs are ancient and both have been used for various reasons throughout automotive history. You've overlooked one huge advantage enjoyed by the pushrod engines: they're much more compact than comparable displacement OHC designs. The head structure on a pushrod engine may be a couple inches shorter than that on a similar displ OHC engine. You mention higher tension valve springs, but don't recognize that a "modern" DOHC engine must constantly overcome the friction and intertia from four cam shafts and their associated hardware, whereas that "old" GM engine only has one camshaft worth of parasitic losses. Toyota recently built a new racing engine -- a V-8 that has, you guessed it -- a set of pushrods!

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papa Bear:
I read a book a while ago about the North American auto industry, I think it was called: "Boom, Bust, Echo".
Is that why they called it an Ecotec ??
P.B.

---

Gee, what did you think they were going to call it -- a Bust-o-Tech??? I'm no marketing expert, but I don't think that sends the right message. . .

 

[Win]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray H:
The saddest part are the number of otherwise knowledgeable people who willingly buy into the "romance" of float-prone overhead valves actuated by long, high inertia shafts tamed by wear-inducing high tension valve springs. This decrepit old horse is dead - bury it and let it rest in peace.

---

I don't agree with that at all. There is still plenty of vitality left in the pushrod engines.

The LS1 in my 2004 GTO is a very good engine - docile around town and gobs of torque on demand, in a compact, lightweight package. I don't lack from exposure to modern high tech engines for comparison, either - I have a 2004 Jaguar with a 4.2 quad cam 4 valve V8 with all the variable stuff on it, another Jaguar with a SOHC V12, and have had plenty of DOHC 4 valve inline 6's.

To dismiss a contemporary pushrod engine as a dead horse tells me that you have not recently owned one.

 

[Matt_S]

I've driven a 2.4L Ecotec in a Chevy HHR. I was really surprised at how quiet and smooth the engine was, even at high RPM. I'm glad to hear that it's just as quiet in other cars.

The new turbocharged VVT Ecotec in the '07 Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky will be direct injected, by the way. I think it's really cool to see this technology coming out, especially on a reasonably priced car (even if not a practical one). This engine makes 260 hp and 260 ft lbs out of 2.0 liters (130 hp per liter). That's a helluva lot of power for the size and should be a helluva lot of fun to drive.

As a side note, the Chevy Classic was produced in '05 for fleet sales only and was essentially exactly the same as the '04 Malibu, as was pointed out above. That generation Malibu was a very popular rental car, so they continued to produce it along side the new Malibu for one year only, calling it the Classic as a reference to the old Malibu Classic (my dad had a '79, which was the station wagon version of the Malibu sedan). I drove a previous gen Malibu as a rental once and was impressed by the speed adjusted volume control. That was the first car I drove that had that feature.

 

[dailydriver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray H:
Who else besides American auto manufacturers (discounting the possible exception of the Russians) still beats the half-century old OHV drum for automotive use. The saddest part are the number of otherwise knowledgeable people who willingly buy into the "romance" of float-prone overhead valves actuated by long, high inertia shafts tamed by wear-inducing high tension valve springs. This decrepit old horse is dead - bury it and let it rest in peace.

---

WOW! 16 posts in for the GM/domestic bashers to make a showing! That must be a world record for this site!!! Come on, where are all you domestic haters/Nippon lovers?? I know you're out there. Let's hear all of your rationale as to why OHV is lousy, low tech, and dead . Don't forget to try and explain why the Nippon OHCs must be superior to anything GM or the domestics can come up with.

I personally would not give up my LS1 for any Nippon powerplant, maybe not even for most Euro engines!

 

[brianl703]

The Classic was actually produced in both 2004 and 2005 for fleet sales. The Epsilon-body Malibu came out in 2004.

The Lansing, Michigan assembly plant that produced the Classic was shut down last year when the production of the Classic stopped.

 

[OriginHacker21]

I really like the Ecotec. My 2004 Pontiac Sunfire 5spd manual (getrag) is an entry level car but I get a consistent 35MPG @ 70mph up the 210 and 15 freeway here in SoCal. With 140HP I've recorded a 6.9 0-60mph and beat a Scion @ 7.2 0-60mph to prove it to a friend. In Iowa going 55mph I got a constant average of 44mpg on blacktops for 7 months. You can see my UOAs in the UOA section. This engine rocks!

 

[cousincletus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dailydriver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray H:
Who else besides American auto manufacturers (discounting the possible exception of the Russians) still beats the half-century old OHV drum for automotive use. The saddest part are the number of otherwise knowledgeable people who willingly buy into the "romance" of float-prone overhead valves actuated by long, high inertia shafts tamed by wear-inducing high tension valve springs. This decrepit old horse is dead - bury it and let it rest in peace.

---

WOW! 16 posts in for the GM/domestic bashers to make a showing! That must be a world record for this site!!! Come on, where are all you domestic haters/Nippon lovers?? I know you're out there. Let's hear all of your rationale as to why OHV is lousy, low tech, and dead . Don't forget to try and explain why the Nippon OHCs must be superior to anything GM or the domestics can come up with.

I personally would not give up my LS1 for any Nippon powerplant, maybe not even for most Euro engines!

---

It's hard to reason with the American haters/GM bashers. They need to justify sending their money overseas and paying more for an import car somehow.

 

[Racerjk]

I've driven my mom's HHR with the Ecotec in it. It seemed to be pretty smooth and had decent power too. It didn't seem to be very noisy either.

 

[dailydriver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cousincletus:
It's hard to reason with the American haters/GM bashers. They need to justify sending their money overseas and paying more for an import car somehow.

---

Sad, but true.

Then they will try to justify by saying they were built here, or the content was from here. Doesn't matter. What they forget is that the excessive profits and money STILL go OVERTHERE!!