Go Back   The Quad4Forums > Engine Specific Discussion > Quad 4/Twin Cam General Discussion > 2.3l Quad 4 General Discussion
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-13-2005, 11:33 PM
99sunfiregt's Avatar
99sunfiregt is offline
99sunfiregt
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Regina, Sask
Posts: 8
Make: Pontiac
Model: Sunfire GT
Engine: 2.4L Twin Cam
quad 4 intake manifold differences

Now, since I'm ne to this whole scene, and have no exerience whatsoever with the 2.4 Twin Cam, I was wondering what are the different manifolds that were installed on a quad 4? I have seen the log type on a 95 sunfire gt, and numerous other quad 4 cars, and I saw one on a quad ohc (sohc), then I saw a couple other cars with an equal length tubular intake manifold too. What are the differences? tuned for different power bands? I'm not sure. I have seen a fair share of 2.4's with the h.o. intake swap, but I haven't seen any with the tubular intake on it. I like the looks of the tubulat one better, plus it look like it fits easier than the h.o. piece. Any opinions? I know that I can get a complete tubular manifold with TB for like $30, and the HO with tb for $100. I'd much rather use the cheaper manifold, but if they don't show any gains then I don't think it's woth my time to swap it over. I'm just looking at my options right now.

Later,
__________________
Steve Z
1967 Austin Mini
2001 Sunfire GT
2005 Nissan Altima SE-R
  #2  
Old 03-14-2005, 12:41 AM
gOoIe B's Avatar
gOoIe B is offline
gOoIe B
Send a message via AIM to gOoIe B scrumsnubbin ****tledeedo
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Cave
Posts: 6,516
Make: Pontiac/Ducati
Model: Trans Am WS6/Monster
Engine: LT1/803cc 2-valve desmo
i'm not sure if the tubular quad4 intake manifold would show gains over the stock twincam manifold. however i would certainly go with the H.O. manifold, considering it flows more air and the 2.4 block displaces more air.
  #3  
Old 03-14-2005, 01:13 AM
urweak's Avatar
urweak is offline
urweak
Send a message via AIM to urweak Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,098
Make: Pontiac
Model: Grand AM
Engine: 2.4L 5spd
Well i picked up an HO manifold and TB for 55 shipped to my door, you can do the same ive seen them go on ebay for 20-50 for the manifold and 20-50 for the TB and some auctions with both tb and manifold for 20-50, you just have to keep and eye out for them and you will get a price well under 100 bucks.
__________________


"I wish my grass was emo, so it would cut itself."
  #4  
Old 03-14-2005, 01:14 AM
stang&2Birds's Avatar
stang&2Birds is offline
stang&2Birds
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: CT/MA
Posts: 65
Make: Olds
Model: 92 & 94 Achieva
Engine: 92-2.3SOHC 94-2.3 HO
The tuned port tubular intake is better for low-end and mid-range. That is, REAL world driving. But, Max HP sells cars - that's a simple fact. Also, the tubular intake is VERY $$$ to make compared to the cast HO intake.

The tubular intake also sits higher in the engine. So, there _may_ be clearance issues if a car has a low hood line.

The cast iron is a classic high-rpm oriented design with the big common area (plenum) and wide and short (as possible) runners leading to the common plenum.

The tuned port tubular intake is a classic low-end to mid-range design. The ports are "tuned/equal" length, no "huge" common plenum, often "more separate" air flow per cylinder, and the runners are not "over-sized".

With all of that said, you're still looking at maybe only a ??5-10hp?? difference between the two at a specific rpm. But, at the low-end, that ~3hp gain is a bigger percentage.

Ford did something similar with the 5.0 EFI engines. In 86, the engines had more low-end. Those car (stock to stock) will beat the later stangs in the 1/8 mile. But, in 87, Ford went to an intake that was more oriented for the high-end. So, those cars win the quarter-mile over an 86. On an ENGINE dyno, the low-end difference is apparent. Also, the vast number of people can tell the difference in the low-end power of an 86 to 87-93 stang when they drive both cars.

BTW: When GM went to the cast iron HO intake, they redid the gear ratio of HO manual trannys because of the reduced low-end HP.

I once had a GM ENGINE dyno graph of both versions.
__________________
Joe -- 94 Olds Achieva Quad 4 HO ; 92 Olds Achieva Quad 4 SOHC; '69 Firebird 350 ; '77 Olds Cutlass (Yes, I have *4* GM cars. ). 86 TBird & 86 Mustang GT with Cobra brakes & ABS.
FREE Pace Calculator program for running/walking/etc
  #5  
Old 03-14-2005, 02:44 AM
99sunfiregt's Avatar
99sunfiregt is offline
99sunfiregt
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Regina, Sask
Posts: 8
Make: Pontiac
Model: Sunfire GT
Engine: 2.4L Twin Cam
I think I will go with the tubular manifold, as it's cheaper, and alot easier to find in canada. The HO intakes are rare to find in j/y's, but the 90+ LO one is alot more common. If I can pick up a couple hp, and maybe even some more torque low down, it'll be great, as thats where I spend most of my time, under 4k.

Thank you for your help.
  #6  
Old 03-14-2005, 03:49 AM
90BerettaGTZ's Avatar
90BerettaGTZ is offline
90BerettaGTZ
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,566
Classifieds Rating 100% (1)
Make: Olds
Model: Calais I-Series
Engine: The Mighty Quad 4
all quad4 engines from 90-92 used the same intake manifold.


the tubular design is pre 90. it makes _slightly_ more midrange torque, but there is a catch. when you add a HO intake and the better injectors, and a HO manifold [ all 90-92 LO cars ], youll gain about 10hp and keep the exact same torque curve until 5000rpm and then youll gain a bit over the LO. the reason GM stopped making the tubular deisgn was production costs. it served its purpose well, but adding a few parts from the HO helped bring costs down, bump up hp, and keep the mpg the same. win/win situation.


the LO intake mani sits about 3 inches higher at the TB than the HO. it still doesnt come above the head or the power steering pump. unless the front end of your car ends AT the manifold, there will be no clearance issues with either mani. if anything, you may have issues with the HO mani if youre swapping the quad4 into a bay that it wasnt meant for, as the HO mani is actually longer than the LO and sits past the power steering pump where as the LO mani terminates at the end of the head.


the pre 90 manifolds fall completely on thier face past 5000rpm on modified engines. comparing HO and LO dynos side by side, youll notice that both engines has nearly identical torque values. ive seen plenty of LO and HO dyno plots, and if you overlay them they are all very close to each other. the HO intake seems to hold the torque past 5000 much better than the LO mani does. at 6000rpm, there is about a 20ft lbs advantage over the LO. most of that is due to the cams though.


the only ratio that changed from 89-90 was 5th gear. it went from .72 to .81. i spoke with Kevin Davis at great length about this. he has a tranny the has a low low 5th gear. his tranny swapped I-Series will run 70mph at 2500 rpm, where as my stock tranny I-Series runs about 2800rpm at 70mph. my GTZ ran in the same range as my I-Series. Kevin told me that his tranny came out of a pre 90 LO [ i think ] car. he also has a 90 442, which runs about the rpm as the rest of the cars. adding to this, LO and HO engines all used the same 5 speed, so if the gears changed, all 5 speed cars were effected, not just HO cars.


a little further about the LO intake mani. even if it were worth swapping for a street app, the only way youd actually get the benefit from the mani would be if you had a 5 speed car. the earlier auto cars came with a 3 speed lock up tranny that had a 3000rpm stall converter in it. the stall completely negated the low rpm intake manifold advantages. the lock up solenoid didnt engage until around 38mph, and it will instantly unlock under any kind of load at that speed. it wont stay fully locked up with load until around 45. then, itll take a bit before the converter unlocks.

BTW: no Quad4 on earth ever had a cast iron intake manifold. theyre all aluminum.
__________________
93 Olds Achieva SC(X) - no interior, 6 point roll cage, sheet metal dash, tons of other stuff, just ask. SOLD

92 GA GT Quad4 - 11:1 forged Ross pistons, Eagle rods, 226/.410 cams, W41 chip, titanium retainers, Lightweight Flywheel, Spec stage III clutch.

90 Calais I-Series - W41 Chip, 2.5" exhaust - GONE

90 Beretta GTZ - 2.5" Exhaust - timing chain broke at 144,000 miles - RIP

89 Calias S - LO car - stock - 198k miles GONE
  #7  
Old 03-14-2005, 05:00 AM
darkfox's Avatar
darkfox is offline
darkfox
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,269
Make: Holdiac
Model: GTO
Engine: LS2
I would honestly stick with the stock 2.4 intake manifold unless you do a lot more mods.

The 2.4 manifold is a tubular design with a plenum smaller than the HO or LO models but larger than the old tubular manifolds. Its designed to compliment the stock cams and heads. the cams and heads are crap above 6000+ anyway. I think you'd need to focus on that before bolting on any other mods that supported high rpm power.

The HO manifold flows more air and supports higher RPM power but you have to consider that the 2.4 doesn't rev very high and its cams/head isn't designed to make high-end power like the earlier quad 4's were. You might see some gains but the mod would be a lot more worthwhile if you had other mods to support it... like different cams and headwork.

BTW you can get manifolds/tb's for a lot cheaper than what you listed...
__________________
2005 Pontiac GTO LS2/T56 - 11.7 @ 120

2004 Pontiac GTO LS1/T56 - a 3100 grand am could beat it.
  #8  
Old 03-14-2005, 09:47 AM
Mr.H.O's Avatar
Mr.H.O is offline
Mr.H.O
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,746
Make: Pontiac
Model: Grand Am GT
Engine: H.O Quad 4
To bad G.M never invested in research for a variable length runner manifold system.
__________________
14.849@94.33mph
New personal best
life is good when you drive a Quad.



  #9  
Old 03-14-2005, 10:09 AM
bbechtel16's Avatar
bbechtel16 is offline
bbechtel16
Send a message via AIM to bbechtel16 Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Mechanicsburg, PA
Posts: 671
Make: '94 Pontiac
Model: Grand Am GT Coupe
Engine: 2.3L Quad4 HO
Yeah, something else to go wrong with these cars and give them a worse rap.

Variable length runners are for pansies.
  #10  
Old 03-25-2005, 03:56 PM
SpdRcrZ's Avatar
SpdRcrZ is offline
SpdRcrZ
Send a message via AIM to SpdRcrZ Team GREEN Performance
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 411
Make: Pontiac
Model: GTO
Engine: LG0, LD9, W41, LS1
Quote:
Originally posted by darkfox

The HO manifold flows more air and supports higher RPM power but you have to consider that the 2.4 doesn't rev very high and its cams/head isn't designed to make high-end power like the earlier quad 4's were. You might see some gains but the mod would be a lot more worthwhile if you had other mods to support it... like different cams and headwork.
Easy fix for that on a 2.4...... Swap in the 95 2.3 intake cam and a 90-94 2.3 HO exhaust cam. Just looking at the head, you can tell the Intake ports are larger then the Exhaust ports. The intake cam will open up the intake some, and the longer duration of the exhaust cam will help those little ports pass more air. Add the HO intake and a nice header, and BAM....... you have Air Flow. As for the Rev. limiter........ there should be away around that soon, and as long as you keep your oil level up to par, you should be able to rev to 7-7200 easy.
__________________
Brian
SpeedRacerZ
'95 Z24 HO SOLD
'96 Z24 T/G Drag car No Engine or Trans
'97 Z24 Automatic SOLD
'98 Z24 W41
'01 Z24 SOLD
'02 Z24 Built LD9 w/ GT35R 420hp/350trq Totaled

'04 GTO SLO GOAT
'80 Chevette Quad4 Swap
  #11  
Old 03-25-2005, 04:44 PM
Fbod383's Avatar
Fbod383 is offline
Fbod383
Send a message via ICQ to Fbod383 Send a message via Yahoo to Fbod383 Bow to me
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: DSM, Ia
Posts: 2,711
Make: Chevrolet
Model: Silverado
Engine: 5.3
The tubular manifolds are junk. plain and simple.
If you want an HO manifold, get one. Dont get a tubular one. You will feel the difference.
__________________
90 Notchback, 6.8 twin turbo V10, T56 mag
  #12  
Old 03-31-2005, 01:34 AM
99sunfiregt's Avatar
99sunfiregt is offline
99sunfiregt
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Regina, Sask
Posts: 8
Make: Pontiac
Model: Sunfire GT
Engine: 2.4L Twin Cam
What about the manifold from a 90+ quad ohc. thats the only 1 log style intake I can find right now. will it fit the same as the dohc one? either way I'm gonna swap the intakes. not unless someone has a cheap h.o. intake they want to sell me. I don't need the TB as I will use my stock one with the stock cable/and cruise hopefully.
  #13  
Old 03-31-2005, 09:42 AM
90BerettaGTZ's Avatar
90BerettaGTZ is offline
90BerettaGTZ
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,566
Classifieds Rating 100% (1)
Make: Olds
Model: Calais I-Series
Engine: The Mighty Quad 4
the only one worth using is the HO intake.
  #14  
Old 11-04-2005, 08:38 PM
chevydirt's Avatar
chevydirt is offline
chevydirt
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canad, Ontario, Ottawa
Posts: 1
Make: chevy
Model: 98 cavalier z24
Engine: 2.4
it seems like alot of work to put it on, i have one coming to me in the mail and im afraid to put it on alone. i do have mechanical abilities but if something goes wrong im screwed out of my daily driver. the porting is going to take awhile i think
__________________
dam i cant do anything right
  #15  
Old 11-04-2005, 08:50 PM
SpdRcrZ's Avatar
SpdRcrZ is offline
SpdRcrZ
Send a message via AIM to SpdRcrZ Team GREEN Performance
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 411
Make: Pontiac
Model: GTO
Engine: LG0, LD9, W41, LS1
the LO intake showed a 11hp gain on a dyno....... at least thats the claim from the JBO.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Tags
differences, intake, manifold, quad



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (C) quad4forums.com