Andrew Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 yeah the HO is 180hp, 160ft/lbs. did well in the smaller N-body, would be ok for the W. and yes i believe the 94+ switched to the isuzu 5-speeds, not sure on the AT. :edit: yes it was the TH125. good job manic. the 4t40 came in later years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkton Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Correction, I used to own a 1991 Cutlass with the 2.3l Quad4. When it worked, it was a great engine. It took off fairly quick, mid range sucked but top end was pretty good. I always liked it while it worked right. I got rid of it about two weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 i dont remember you telling us that! now you gotta change your sig mister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1138 Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 I have a pic of a '90 or so GP LE with the 2.3L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManicMechanic Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 I have a pic of a '90 or so GP LE with the 2.3L. Like the CS, the GP only received the LO Q4 in 1990-91. Not sure if it was just sedans or coupes too as the CS could have a LO Q4 in a coupe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy K Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 I have a pic of a '90 or so GP LE with the 2.3L. Like the CS, the GP only received the LO Q4 in 1990-91. Not sure if it was just sedans or coupes too as the CS could have a LO Q4 in a coupe. my yard's CS is a 90 coupe...with a 2.3 cyl. and floor shift!!! They once had a white GP sedan with the 2.3 I want to say 91, but I don't recall the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boulevard Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Shit, you guys should of seen the '92 Lumina I used to drive. It was a 4-banger and had about 160hp. It drove really well with AC/Delco Rapidfires. I never complained about power issues. I loved the MPG. I miss that car. It was so big and roomy. God I love first generation Luminas. My wife has a '98 Lumina 4-dr. I hate hate hate this F'in car. No leg room up front. I wish I could take a saws-all to the dash. The damn thing sticks out about 6"s from the door jamb. I've gotten bruises on my legs from trying to get into the car too fast. I end hitting myself and swearing like a damn trucker. Did I mention that I hate hate hate that car!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Shit, you guys should of seen the '92 Lumina I used to drive. It was a 4-banger and had about 160hp. which lumina four banger was putting out 160hp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 These cars are underpowered with a 6banger ( 2.8 3.1 3100 ) why in the world would you want a 4 in one of these? because the HO Quad is quicker then all three of the V6s you listed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euro Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 These cars are underpowered with a 6banger ( 2.8 3.1 3100 ) why in the world would you want a 4 in one of these? because the HO Quad is quicker then all three of the V6s you listed QFT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1979lee Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Shit, you guys should of seen the '92 Lumina I used to drive. It was a 4-banger and had about 160hp. It drove really well with AC/Delco Rapidfires. I never complained about power issues. I loved the MPG. I miss that car. It was so big and roomy. God I love first generation Luminas. My wife has a '98 Lumina 4-dr. I hate hate hate this F'in car. No leg room up front. I wish I could take a saws-all to the dash. The damn thing sticks out about 6"s from the door jamb. I've gotten bruises on my legs from trying to get into the car too fast. I end hitting myself and swearing like a damn trucker. Did I mention that I hate hate hate that car!? i currently own a base 98 lumina , i agree with you complety , i,ve broken the passenger side a/c vent twice in a year of ownership, hit my head , gotten poked by the pointy door edgees, and door hinge, 1.5 gen luminas. what mpg did the 4bangers get in the w's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boulevard Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Shit, you guys should of seen the '92 Lumina I used to drive. It was a 4-banger and had about 160hp. It drove really well with AC/Delco Rapidfires. I never complained about power issues. I loved the MPG. I miss that car. It was so big and roomy. God I love first generation Luminas. My wife has a '98 Lumina 4-dr. I hate hate hate this F'in car. No leg room up front. I wish I could take a saws-all to the dash. The damn thing sticks out about 6"s from the door jamb. I've gotten bruises on my legs from trying to get into the car too fast. I end hitting myself and swearing like a damn trucker. Did I mention that I hate hate hate that car!? i currently own a base 98 lumina , i agree with you complety , i,ve broken the passenger side a/c vent twice in a year of ownership, hit my head , gotten poked by the pointy door edgees, and door hinge, 1.5 gen luminas. what mpg did the 4bangers get in the w's? Theres one thing I find funny in all this, I broke the passenger side vent the very first time I got into her car. Her mom owned it then when I was still in high school. The damn thing was brand new. As soon as I got in *smash* broke that piece and every time I go the junkyard, that vent and the cup holders are all broken. WTF? The '92 Lumina 4-banger I drove was 160hp. It's listed as that at the autoparts store, dont think a dynoed it. Who even gives a crap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 The '92 Lumina 4-banger I drove was 160hp. It's listed as that at the autoparts store, dont think a dynoed it. Who even gives a crap? I don't really care, but they didn't make a lumina 4 cyl that produced 160hp... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCGUY112887 Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Why in the world would GM make a 4cyl used in the most basic of models more powerful than the higher optioned V6 models? Simple, they wouldn't. Heck I can't even find any specs on Google saying a 92 Lumnia got a 4cyl, it shows all trim levels getting the 3.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManicMechanic Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Why in the world would GM make a 4cyl used in the most basic of models more powerful than the higher optioned V6 models? Simple, they wouldn't. Heck I can't even find any specs on Google saying a 92 Lumnia got a 4cyl, it shows all trim levels getting the 3.1 Funny, I found plenty of sources saying the Lumina's base engine was the 105 hp 2.5 L4 through 1992. 1992 Lumina VVV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManicMechanic Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Want a head scratcher? Pontiac Trans Sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy K Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 is that a european model????????? with a stick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManicMechanic Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy K Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Yeah. hella yeah!!!! my yard has that 90 4 cylinder CS. What is different between the regualr and HO engines? should I downgrade??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManicMechanic Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Cams are different, I think... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badassoldspower Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Has anyone actually ever seen a 2.2L Lumina? Fuck that would be slow as fuck. I don't think I've seen a 2.2 lumina I might've and gotten it mistaken for a 2.5. I've actually seen many 4cyl lumi's at the JY. The funny thing is this car was on Ebay when I first turned 16 in Virginia. Got out to Nebraska or something, then 94CutlassSLCoupe's dad bought it! I just verified this is the car I used to work on, my Dads friend, the shop in the backround is our shop, and to let all know My dads friend and I lined up my auto 3100 and that 5spd quad 4 and i hot my ass spanked like i was parked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutlassdude96 Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Yeah. hella yeah!!!! my yard has that 90 4 cylinder CS. What is different between the regualr and HO engines? should I downgrade??? heads are different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Yeah. hella yeah!!!! my yard has that 90 4 cylinder CS. What is different between the regualr and HO engines? should I downgrade??? and cams, and exhaust manifolds. intake manifold too IIRC. heads are different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stargazer7467 Posted September 27, 2007 Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 Heads arent different, most quads of the early 90 got an 086 head casting which was the best flowing head available but was prone to cracking between the valve seats, it was reaplaced with a 753 casting with 1mm smaller valve and revised exhaust ports. The differences between the LO (vin D) and HO (vin A) quads was the camshafts, intake manifolds, and compression ratios. HOs got 10:1 nearly flat top pistons and the LO got the more dished 9.5:1 pistons. HO camshafts were also larger in lift and duration: LO- something around .375 lift HO- .410 lift @ 212 degrees And if you can find them the W41 camshafts which were .410 @ 218 duration. They also add a factory lope to the idle that scares the ricers. HOs also got better fuel and spark maps burnt into the chips. Those of you with quads powered Ws can get the chip burnt with the HO and w41 profiles. HO redlines at 6800rpm if i remember correctly and the w41 reaches 7450rpm with the quickness. If any of you do engine swap or anything dont mess with anything older than 1990, the 88-89 head casting was garbage and so were the manifolds. Block can be used but dont use the crank, it has a zero degree crank trigger where all the others used a 10 degree BTDC trigger. Both camsets come alive in the upper RPM ranges but i can vouch for the w41s personally, i have a built 90 model HO quad4 modified to w41 specs installed into my 95 Pontiac Sunfire. Hard for me to find the right eprom for it since it has the OBD 1.5 system. oh yeah HP numbers Quad4 LO (D)- 150hp Quad4 HO (A)- 180hp Quad4 W41 (A)- 190hp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.