Or rust.
http://www.autoweek.com/article/2014021 ... dailydrive
Quad 4 rises from the ashes
Re: Quad 4 rises from the ashes
For any real Z24 enthusiasts, this article is a little misleading (and offensive!!!).
The Cavalier Z24 didn't get one of these until 1995 - 99. And these were rated at 150 hp / 155 lb·ft pretty far from the 190 hp max.
Previous to this, Z-24s had either the 2.8 or 3.1 6 cylinders.
If you say Z-24 to anybody that knows the Z-24 from the cult following days, they are going to think 2.8 or 3.1.
Now these sound pretty bad:
1985–1989 — 2.8 L OHV MPFI V6, 120-130 horsepower (125 in 1985, 120 in 1986, 130 in 1987, 125 in 1988, and 130 in 1989) (I had an 89, 2.8)
1990–1994 — 2.8 L OHV MPFI V6, 130 horsepower (Mexico and Venezuela only, *Colombia used a version of 116 hp.
1990–1994 — 3.1 L OHV MPFI V6, 140 horsepower (100 kW)
But the regular cavalier at these times only had:
1983–1989 — 2.0 L OHV TBI inline-4, 86 horsepower (1983–1984), 88 horsepower (1985–1986), 90 horsepower (1987–89)
1990–1991 — 2.2 L OHV TBI inline-4, 95 horsepower (71 kW)
So.... 86 hp to 140 is a big difference in such a small car, also at this time the Monte SS had 180 hp so the Z-24 isn't looking that bad...
Curb weight of Z-24 vs Monte:
2,558 lb (1,160 kg) (Z24 coupe) - 3,239 pounds (1,469 kg) (SS)
Monte Carlo SS weighed 700 lbs more and had 40 hp more.
I am sure that torque is a different story. (The Monte is a great car, not putting it down. Just saying for the Z-24 haters...)
Ok I kind of found the torque story:
it is approximately 170 in the Z-24 to 240 lb·ft in the Monte.
The Camaro and Firebird had basically this same engine but in longitudinal form, without the Z-24 aluminum heads.
Curb Weight: 3100-3500 lbs
This is why a Camaro with a six cylinder isn't taken seriously. The cavalier was probably faster with the same engine. Not the case against today's six cylinder Camaro.
Previous to this, Z-24s had either the 2.8 or 3.1 6 cylinders.
If you say Z-24 to anybody that knows the Z-24 from the cult following days, they are going to think 2.8 or 3.1.
Now these sound pretty bad:
1985–1989 — 2.8 L OHV MPFI V6, 120-130 horsepower (125 in 1985, 120 in 1986, 130 in 1987, 125 in 1988, and 130 in 1989) (I had an 89, 2.8)
1990–1994 — 2.8 L OHV MPFI V6, 130 horsepower (Mexico and Venezuela only, *Colombia used a version of 116 hp.
1990–1994 — 3.1 L OHV MPFI V6, 140 horsepower (100 kW)
But the regular cavalier at these times only had:
1983–1989 — 2.0 L OHV TBI inline-4, 86 horsepower (1983–1984), 88 horsepower (1985–1986), 90 horsepower (1987–89)
1990–1991 — 2.2 L OHV TBI inline-4, 95 horsepower (71 kW)
So.... 86 hp to 140 is a big difference in such a small car, also at this time the Monte SS had 180 hp so the Z-24 isn't looking that bad...
Curb weight of Z-24 vs Monte:
2,558 lb (1,160 kg) (Z24 coupe) - 3,239 pounds (1,469 kg) (SS)
Monte Carlo SS weighed 700 lbs more and had 40 hp more.
I am sure that torque is a different story. (The Monte is a great car, not putting it down. Just saying for the Z-24 haters...)
Ok I kind of found the torque story:
it is approximately 170 in the Z-24 to 240 lb·ft in the Monte.
The Camaro and Firebird had basically this same engine but in longitudinal form, without the Z-24 aluminum heads.
Curb Weight: 3100-3500 lbs
This is why a Camaro with a six cylinder isn't taken seriously. The cavalier was probably faster with the same engine. Not the case against today's six cylinder Camaro.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Quad 4 rises from the ashes
You can see why that Quad-4 was so impressive for the time. In reality, a car with the 2.8 or 3.1 was probably preferable due to torque, particularly with an automatic.
Re: Quad 4 rises from the ashes
To take this a step into the present...
If GM decided to do this again:
Cavalier model with same engine as base Camaro
It would be a 2 door Cruze with 310 HP in the low 20K range (I doubt the Z-24 was more than a base Camaro) with sport suspension.
It would also have sport ground effects and slightly more agressive exterior styling. Maybe a convertable option for people that like that (Not me)
Maybe they could make it AWD or a RWD version.
I might have to consider something like that if it was available.
The current 138 hp turbo 1.4 doesn't really cut it. It does look like you can get a model with upgraded suspension and an rs package.
2014 Cruze 2LT Automatic w/rs package and handling package(2LT): Price $23,200
Problem is that to repeat history, it would need to be 2 door, and 310 hp instead of 138.
If GM decided to do this again:
Cavalier model with same engine as base Camaro
It would be a 2 door Cruze with 310 HP in the low 20K range (I doubt the Z-24 was more than a base Camaro) with sport suspension.
It would also have sport ground effects and slightly more agressive exterior styling. Maybe a convertable option for people that like that (Not me)
Maybe they could make it AWD or a RWD version.
I might have to consider something like that if it was available.
The current 138 hp turbo 1.4 doesn't really cut it. It does look like you can get a model with upgraded suspension and an rs package.
2014 Cruze 2LT Automatic w/rs package and handling package(2LT): Price $23,200
Problem is that to repeat history, it would need to be 2 door, and 310 hp instead of 138.