because comparatively with most other engines, cam swaps dont add anywhere near as much horsepower for us as they do other motors.

Hell, go look up Area's cam comparisons with the LSJ...he didnt gain **** with his different cams. IIRC his best ain was with the stock profile using adjustable gears.

should someone going all out ignore cams? no...but you cant think of them as the huge power adder they are for, say, the LSx motors.. Its only going to help a little bit.

 

he gained nothing, the cams just moved the powerband around haha

And you're right, adjustable cam gears made way more of a difference. GM actually never ran their cams for the LSJ, and just went to adjustable gears.

 

did he match the cams to the engine though?



bigger cams need more flow to see net gains -> which means that if the same casting head is used you MUST port it to flow more air in order to see gains from the cams.

the most common error people make on hopping up any engine is over caming...

 

Buying a better platform

 

^ lulz

 

you can't match what doesn't exist... haha.

this isn't a SBC, or a 5.0, there aren't a hundred different aftermarket cylinder head choices, and next to no cam options.

These engines don't like added lift, and that's a large part of what a performance cam does. The stock setup is about as good as it's going to get without RADICAL modifications.

 

BAH-HA-HA!!!

awesome reply!



but seriously, this "why isn't my engine supported" is already covered ground;

two great ones to look up from the last 20 or so years;
Chevrolet 2.8L V6 - for a short time you could buy a TON of stuff for them, then they were kicked to the curb... for a spell this little V6 was heralded as the "next small block"...
Oldsmobile 2.3L DOHC 4cyl* - for nearly a decade there were parts available, but now nearly nothing is to be found, and this engine pretty much get zero respect.
(* = for those of you who know me yous should have been expecting it)

Does anyone know what these engine's intake or exhaust ports will flow?
(keep in mind we're speaking n/a here)

 

i know the LSJ head flow numbers are around. It's pretty sad. somewhere in the mid/high 100's for exhaust

Intake matters not, it's supercharged.

 

wow I hit 168whp fully bolted on my L61

 

My current set-up is just a SRI and exhaust. But I've also had a Shift Plus as well as a header/dp combo and a full cai and the car takes to mods very well. But my computer doesn't like them (especially the part controlling my tranny). But I'd assume a tune will help alot. i'm gonna get HPT here probably next month, then likely header/dp again. Then possibly the ZZP M62 kit.

Overall, I like my car alot. I wish I could've gotten it in stick, but it's all good. I've done alot to it, it always gets looks, and it's a solid overall performer. Could it be faster? Yes. Look better? Yes. Handle better? Yes. But it's a Cobalt. lol

I like the LE5 motor alot, personally. I wouldn't let any lack of support of parts keep you down. Just make the best of it and keep building it. I am.

I will also be the first 2.4 with Brembos tomorrow I believe.. lol

 

that doesn't sound so hot...
you still need ot have a head that flows more on the intake side ~ there are ideal ratios, which is why intake valves are always larger than exhaust valves...

please allow me to refer back to the Quad4 (hey I know this stuff, I've been messing with it for the past decade!!);
the first casting head ('955) which is rejected as garbage by most of the community in bone stock trim flows these kinds of numbers:
inches lift = measured cfm flow

Intake
.100" = 96.7
.200" = 164.8
.300" = 230.2
.350" = 234.2
.400" = 239.3
.450" = 240.0
.500" = ---

Exhaust
.100" = 68.2
.200" = 127.7
.300" = 149.5
.350" = 151.9
.400" = 153.8
.450" = 160.0
.500" = 170.8

The second casting head ('086) is generally deemed as the best one to use;

Intake
.100" = 73.3
.200" = 149.2
.300" = 221.7
.350" = 250.8
.400" = 267.0
.450" = 274.6
.500" = ---

Exhaust
.100" = 57.1
.200" = 125.1
.300" = 167.7
.350" = 176.2
.400" = 180.3
.450" = 183.2
.500" = 205.6

And yes, these are bone stock flow numbers.

Does anyone have flow numbers posted for eco heads?
(since I'm trying to help this thread out, I'm not ging to scour for the info if it's posted.)

 

for the LSJ:

76 intake 73 exhaust @ .100 lift
152 intake 139 exhaust @ .200 lift
217 intake 156 exhaust @ .300 lift
232 intake 159 exhaust @ .350 lift
242 intake 161 exhaust @ .400 lift
247 intake 163 exhaust @ .450 lift

all the ecotec heads flow very similar numbers FYI. Castings dont vary by much

 

So what is the main gain of the 2.4 motor overall vs the 2.2 and 2.0's, minus the boost in the 2.0's obviously. Just engine I mean..

 

what d you mean main gain?

the pro side of having an LE5?

 

Yes. As in, the advantages of the LE5 motor it's self over the 2.2 or the 2.0's. Internals, heads, etc. I was never really clear, I just knew the FE5 was a solid motor overall, and better than the others. But it was very vague. lol I'm referring to the engine it's self, not including boost or tranny..

 

well, theres no replacement for displacement.
stronger internals were used as well..though i cant remember the specifics off the top of my head.

 

without adding F/I their are alot of better things one can do to the LE5 then add cams.

 

That's so easy, I'm surprised no one spoke up yet;

• higher compression
• bigger cams
• more displacement

 

It also has VVT, which helps flatten the powerband.

 

I knew about the compression, and obviously displacement, but not about the cams.. Anything else?

 

well out family owns a 2.2 automatic and I dont know a tonne about this engine yet as I'm still fairly new to these cars but I know my 2.4 Stick has WAAAYYY more ***** than our families balt lmao!

 

i was 155 with just a 3" exhaust with a CTI header and they say 3" really hurts you too, i ran 16.4 bone stock and 15.2 with those mods.

 

I would think that a 3" exhaust would hurt power;
from what I've gathered a better sized exhaust based on the engine displacement would be no larger than 2.5" ~ and even then without the compression, cams, and (proper) porting - a 2.5" might be a smidge big...

Those don't appear to be bad flow numbers at all by the way ~ are those for a 100% unmodified head?

The flow numbers seem to mirror the latter casting Quad4 head ~ and I know for a fact alot of time when into re-engineering the latter Quad4 head to make it quieter, while retain as much torque as possible in the bottom end;


#456 Intake LSJ
77.0 <.100"> 76
156.2 <.200"> 152
222.6 <.300"> 217
248.7 <.350"> 232
261.4 <.400"> 242
265.0 <.450"> 247
----- <.500"> ---

#456 Exhaust LSJ
67.8 <.100"> 73
135.5 <.200"> 139
164.5 <.300"> 156
168.3 <.350"> 159
170.8 <.400"> 161
172.9 <.450"> 163
197.7 <.500"> ---

(incase anyone cared, the '456 is the 94-95 casting ~ iirc the 96-02 Twin Cam casting flowed nearly identical numbers as this head - I say that because the 2.2 Eco replaced the 96-02 'Twin Cam')

I would almost wager a guess that the variation observed between these two flow samples could be observed between different examples of the same head, or even different ports - they're just that close.

Ok, now to tie this into the original conversation;
in order to make use of larger cams you should see slightly higher flow numbers ~ as in I would think the exhaust ports should be breaking the 200cfm barrier @ .400lift;
then the larger exhaust ect will all be better put to use...

 

Yup, just been proven guys, a 3" exhaust will gain 1.2 seconds in the quarter.

Damn, you can't argue numbers.

 

yeah i saw on here you get good gains with a 3" and a tvs lol only way i would change it if someone wanted to buy it cost me like 7 n change not worth it something i have to live with.....

and a 500 dollar custom CTI header,i'm thinking custom rods and pistons but theres something about a the vis carbon hood thats calling my name. i dont make this **** up i tossed the slips they were building up in the box near the fog light button.