PDA

View Full Version : z24


403Gemini
04-09-2003, 11:48 AM
is it the 90-94 that had the v6? i know the newer ones dont
Ben
04-09-2003, 11:51 AM
yeah, 3.1

horrid motors,

Very distinctive sound.

Not one of their best inventions.

Engine Description (LHO) 3.1L 60 degree V6
Horsepower 140@4800 - 140@4200
Torque (ft-lbs) 180@3600 - 185@3200
Block Cast Iron
Heads Aluminum
Valves 12
Displacement 3.1L (3100cc, 192ci)
Cylinders 6, V formation, opposed 60 degrees
Bore 89mm (3.503")
Stroke 84mm (3.3122")
Compression Ratio 8.9:1
Fuel Management MPFI (Multi Port Fuel Injection). Electronic, controlled by ECM
VIN code T


2.8L V6 Engine Specifications
Engine Description (LB6) 2.8L 60 degree V6
Horsepower 130
Torque (ft-lbs) 160
Block Cast Iron
Heads Aluminum
Valves 12
Displacement 2.8L (2800cc, 173ci)
Cylinders 6, V formation, opposed 60 degrees
Bore 89mm (3.503")
Stroke 76mm (2.992")
Compression Ratio 8.9:1
Fuel Management MPFI (Multi Port Fuel Injection). Electronic, controlled by ECM
VIN code W
Type Gen II
T5_X
04-09-2003, 01:24 PM
The 3.1 and 2.8s are not horrible motors, for thier time they were actually quite good. Brought out before ford's 3.0, they were superior in fuel mileage and torque, not as reliable though.

The 3.1 is still used, as is the 3.0 for Ford. They are very outdated now though.
RiceCake
04-09-2003, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Ben
yeah, 3.1

horrid motors,

Very distinctive sound.

Not one of their best inventions.

2.8L V6 Engine Specifications
Engine Description (LB6) 2.8L 60 degree V6
Horsepower 130
Torque (ft-lbs) 160
Block Cast Iron
Heads Aluminum
Valves 12
Displacement 2.8L (2800cc, 173ci)
Cylinders 6, V formation, opposed 60 degrees
Bore 89mm (3.503")
Stroke 76mm (2.992")
Compression Ratio 8.9:1
Fuel Management MPFI (Multi Port Fuel Injection). Electronic, controlled by ECM
VIN code W
Type Gen II

Pontiac Powa!!!

Hahaha:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Not very reliable and yeah it doesn't sound great either..
Davetronz
04-10-2003, 12:12 AM
Hahaha wheres Jeff when you need him!
Weapon_R
04-10-2003, 12:34 AM
Actually both the 3.1L and the 2.8L were both pretty good engines. They have a very distinctive rumble (sounds pretty good imo) but they are generally reliable engines.

Torque was excellent, especially in the 3.1's. Good engine and used in THOUSANDS of GM's. Z24, 6000, Celebrity, Lumina, etc.
crazy_one
04-10-2003, 02:20 AM
THOSE CARS ARE SWEET GOOD TORQUE. I LIKE THOSE CARS WAY BETTER THAN THE NEW ONES... SPECIALY THE 1992 RUNS PRETY GOOD. AND SOME OF THE 1990 CAME OUT WITH THE 3.1 TURBO 205 HP 225 FT-LBS...
RiceCake
04-10-2003, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by crazy_one
THOSE CARS ARE SWEET GOOD TORQUE. I LIKE THOSE CARS WAY BETTER THAN THE NEW ONES... SPECIALY THE 1992 RUNS PRETY GOOD. AND SOME OF THE 1990 CAME OUT WITH THE 3.1 TURBO 205 HP 225 FT-LBS...

Dude what's with you and typing in all CAPS???!!!

Ben, plse post the CAPS LOCK pic!
Ben
04-10-2003, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by RiceCake


Dude what's with you and typing in all CAPS???!!!

Ben, plse post the CAPS LOCK pic!

What, this one? :D

http://www.psylence.com/capslock.gif
GTS Jeff
04-10-2003, 09:42 AM
id have to say that the 3.1L engine is at least respectable...but the 2.8 is ass
Audi Kid
04-10-2003, 01:30 PM
3.1 turbo? for real? i know the 2.8 turbo in the sunbird.......haha fuckin sunbirds...
T5_X
04-10-2003, 02:00 PM
I have never heard of a turbo V6 sunbird. The turbo 4 cyl made 165 HP
Scott
04-10-2003, 05:01 PM
Yeah, you guys got lost there LOL, No way did GM ever turbo a V6. The 4cyl turbo in the sunbird was a piece of shite.

EDIT: Grand National obviously doesnt count:D
Ajay
04-10-2003, 05:22 PM
The 3.1L wasn't that bad of an engine. I used to have a 90 Z24 (first year the 3.1L was used in a Z24) and that was probably the only good thing in my car...the rest of it was DEFINETLY not reliable. In three years of owning that car not once did I have a motor problem....has problems with clutch, water pump, brake lines, tranny....everything else but the motor!

Only thing I miss about that car is it did have some decent jam cause it was a torquey mo fugga...still prefer my hatchie over it any day though!
benyl
04-10-2003, 05:22 PM
The 2.8 was the biggest piece of shite... It was waaaaaaaay under powered for the vehicles it was put in... Even consumer reports says to stay away from anything with the GM 2.8
jdmakkord
04-10-2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Weapon_R
Actually both the 3.1L and the 2.8L were both pretty good engines. They have a very distinctive rumble (sounds pretty good imo) but they are generally reliable engines.

Torque was excellent, especially in the 3.1's. Good engine and used in THOUSANDS of GM's. Z24, 6000, Celebrity, Lumina, etc.


hmmm the "knocking valves from the factory" sound. Sure is distinctive. Especially when retards put glass pack mufflers on them to amplify this wonderful effect.
RCBVtec
04-11-2003, 11:50 AM
Before I had the lude I had a 90 Z24, great car! I had just the regular maintenace requirements as problems... never had any problems with the tranny, clutch or motor itself... and imo it sounded great from the factory.
RCBVtec
04-11-2003, 11:51 AM
Before I had the lude I had a 90 Z24, great car! I had just the regular maintenace requirements as problems... never had any problems with the tranny, clutch or motor itself... and imo it sounded great from the factory. I sold it with 225 K on it and it ran as good as the day I got it.
crazy_one
04-15-2003, 01:35 AM
those people do not believe me there some v6 3.1 turbo. pls check this site...www.v6z24.com. and click on the spec bla bla...damn i forget to caps lock again.......
theken
04-15-2003, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Scott
Yeah, you guys got lost there LOL, No way did GM ever turbo a V6. The 4cyl turbo in the sunbird was a piece of shite.

EDIT: Grand National obviously doesnt count:D
how about the 4.3 turbo in the syclones and typhoons?? (and that is not a grand national engine)
KoRnJD
04-15-2003, 08:17 AM
Well,

I'm not a huge fan of GM, but I had a 1989 Cavalier RS with the 2.8 5-sp, and it was definitely torquey. I loved beating on it...

The Cav didn't have any problems with it that were its own fault... ha ha ha

My .02 :D
Redlyne_mr2
04-15-2003, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by crazy_one
those people do not believe me there some v6 3.1 turbo. pls check this site...www.v6z24.com.
That site is what nightmares are made of..not sure how you figure that engine was available in a J-body: Unfortunately, this engine never made it into a J-body. It was only used for two years, in the 1989 and 1990 Pontiac Grand Prix TGP. Another unfortunate thing is that they only made about 1000 of these cars each year, so they are quite rare and hard to find. If you can get ahold of one, the engine will be pretty much a direct swap into your 2nd gen J-Body. I have been trying to find one for quite a while now with no luck :(
Scott
04-15-2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by theken

how about the 4.3 turbo in the syclones and typhoons?? (and that is not a grand national engine)

Oh yeah..... forgot about those.

Well, what i was trying to say was that there was a better chance of NASA shooting a cav in to space then there was to buy a turbo V6 in a j body.
redline_13000
04-15-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by theken

how about the 4.3 turbo in the syclones and typhoons?? (and that is not a grand national engine)

:drool: :drool:
benyl
04-15-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by theken

how about the 4.3 turbo in the syclones and typhoons?? (and that is not a grand national engine)

Didn't those things go 0-60 faster than a Ferrari?
T5_X
04-15-2003, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by theken

how about the 4.3 turbo in the syclones and typhoons?? (and that is not a grand national engine)

And turbo trans ams! :burnout:


Didn't those things go 0-60 faster than a Ferrari?

LOL, well you obviously have to specify the model of ferrari! :rofl:

And yes, a Syclone will hit 60 in under 6 seconds