A 4 cylander?!?!
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,601
From: Mentor, Ohio
GM I don't think will EVER release an engine with the Quad4 name on it again.
I'm not a huge follower of the Quad4, but I agree, when it ran, it would MOVE! Gm supposedly fixed the big issues in it and later re-released it with the name "TwinCam" (to try and ward off the stigma the Quad4 had).
I know there are enthusiasts of that engine and it would not surprise me if those enthusiasts have a formula for making it a reliable engine.
But for me... I'll stick with my v6 platforms..... for now.....
I'm not a huge follower of the Quad4, but I agree, when it ran, it would MOVE! Gm supposedly fixed the big issues in it and later re-released it with the name "TwinCam" (to try and ward off the stigma the Quad4 had).
I know there are enthusiasts of that engine and it would not surprise me if those enthusiasts have a formula for making it a reliable engine.
But for me... I'll stick with my v6 platforms..... for now.....
I hear ya Jason! I prefer a Big N/A V6 or a Small Block to any 4Banger out there. But as I said in another post, it was the best 4banger I ever had and the only problem I had with it was the head gasket. But I was only into the car I had back then. That was before my IRoc 350 opened my eyes to the wonder that is Cars!
I wonder, did the Twin Cam perform the same? Guess it doesn't matter, YelloJAC gives me everything I want in a car including versatility and lots of aftermarket goodies. No Honda shall stand inmy way! Hee Hee Hee!
I wonder, did the Twin Cam perform the same? Guess it doesn't matter, YelloJAC gives me everything I want in a car including versatility and lots of aftermarket goodies. No Honda shall stand inmy way! Hee Hee Hee!
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,601
From: Mentor, Ohio
From what I understood the TwinCam did perform like the Quad4 (other then the writing on the top they visually looked the same). I think it did not get a following because the beating GM took over the Quad4. I speculate too many people recognized it and just were not comfortable taking the risk if it would be a great engine or a headache.
Again, I speculate with some of that.
My dad had an early 90's Grand Prix with a Quad4. He quickly regretted it. I don't recall what he had to do, but he had to do work around the timing chain on two different times, issues with the power steering and a bunch of other odd ball things. He got everything running right, resolved all the issue he knew about and sold it. About a week after he sold it, the new owner called asking if he ever had a problem with it going in reverse (apparently the trans then went bad on it).
I agree JC, just like you there are some people that owned a Quad4 and never had issues with them. From what I understand, those people are fewer then those who had problems.
Clearly, GM has data about that engine. Who knows, perhaps some of that history is used in newer 4-cylinder cars from GM. Hard to say.....
Again, I speculate with some of that.
My dad had an early 90's Grand Prix with a Quad4. He quickly regretted it. I don't recall what he had to do, but he had to do work around the timing chain on two different times, issues with the power steering and a bunch of other odd ball things. He got everything running right, resolved all the issue he knew about and sold it. About a week after he sold it, the new owner called asking if he ever had a problem with it going in reverse (apparently the trans then went bad on it).
I agree JC, just like you there are some people that owned a Quad4 and never had issues with them. From what I understand, those people are fewer then those who had problems.
Clearly, GM has data about that engine. Who knows, perhaps some of that history is used in newer 4-cylinder cars from GM. Hard to say.....