Grand Am 4cylinder engine 1999 ????????????
03-02-2007, 10:42 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Bonneville94V688
Wrong. These are the 2.4: Twin Cam. Nothing like the old Quad4'*. They have balance shafts, better heads, and are fairly reliable.
There were revisions over the years, but the 2.4 Twin cam was nothing but an improved Quad 4...
And in the earlier years you could have had a SOHC or DOHC Quad 4 Not to be at all confused with the Tech 4
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
03-02-2007, 10:45 PM
#12
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jr's3800
Originally Posted by Bonneville94V688
Wrong. These are the 2.4: Twin Cam. Nothing like the old Quad4'*. They have balance shafts, better heads, and are fairly reliable.
There were revisions over the years, but the 2.4 Twin cam was nothing but an improved Quad 4...
And in the earlier years you could have had a SOHC or DOHC Quad 4 Not to be at all confused with the Tech 4
Oh no no no no. I was just explaining the difference between the older Quad4'* and the newer ones, by the new ones having balance shafts, and better oiling performance. MInd ya, I love the older Quad4'*
03-02-2007, 10:47 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Grand Am 4cylinder engine 1999 ????????????
Originally Posted by 92BonneSE
One question - reliable?? Any problems
If you get a Grand AM, I would recommend a 3400 Powered GA, but make sure to replace the lower intake gaskets...
I like the quads for what they have done for performance in the past, and for a 4 cylinder it sure did make good power... But personally, I wouldn't own one
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
03-02-2007, 10:53 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Bonneville94V688
Originally Posted by jr's3800
Originally Posted by Bonneville94V688
Wrong. These are the 2.4: Twin Cam. Nothing like the old Quad4'*. They have balance shafts, better heads, and are fairly reliable.
There were revisions over the years, but the 2.4 Twin cam was nothing but an improved Quad 4...
And in the earlier years you could have had a SOHC or DOHC Quad 4 Not to be at all confused with the Tech 4
Oh no no no no. I was just explaining the difference between the older Quad4'* and the newer ones, by the new ones having balance shafts, and better oiling performance. MInd ya, I love the older Quad4'*
After working on a few of them and trying to do a water pump, having to go through a nightmare due to bad head gaskets( My buddy did 5 of them in 2 months ) I said I'd never have one... But they were all in the 110000-260k range... But could be a major headache if you can't work on it... The dealership will be singing a tune, thats for sure..
Its easy to do a water pump on a 3400, easy to do the alt if it fails.. And in the 99+ GA, the 3400 actually gets good milage... Intake gaskets suck tho.. But I would still recommend the 3400 over the quad
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
03-03-2007, 11:40 AM
#15
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Starbuck, Manitoba Drving the Batmobile
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a 99 grand am 2.4 twin cam, it was an alright car, the only problem is they suck in snow, and if anything does happen to the engine very few smaller mechanics will fix it. The engine isn't built like the bonne'* engines. The body styling was pretty good to.
DSC01303.jpg
IMG_0940.jpg
DSC01303.jpg
IMG_0940.jpg
03-03-2007, 12:23 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have a buddy with a 99 Malibu with the same motor.... Been an expensive car to say the least
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
19bonnie95
General GM Chat
46
11-17-2006 11:27 AM
killer_cr80r
Lounge
1
09-01-2004 08:02 PM