whitegoose wrote:but as soon as you put the 2.4L crank in there to give the 2.3L a longer stroke and more displacement you've essentially taken away from how (for lack of a better term) rev happy that motor is. one of the benfits stated earlier in this thread was that it reved up to peak power faster than a 2.4L, and now the only thing it has going for it towards that s the lack of balance shafts.
the balance shafts were added to bring the noise and @!#$ down so the motor could operate with less vibrations. granted for a purpose built track car, vibrations reduction isnt exactly a priority. for a daily driven car that sees some track time though (like mine) comfort is still some what of a consideration.
Again, read the post I mentioned earlier about the rev's. It's NOT all about revs, it's about TQ. Revs mean nothing. A longer stroke will give you a nice high torque curve, cams to match the goal would flatten out the torque curve bringing down your max # but extending it across your gearing. <That is how you win road course races. With that said a LD9 would be a more logical starting point...then given education on the modifications required to make the LD9 really competitive would give the torch back to the LG0 and just increase the stroke.
This all boils down to saying the LG0 is a better starting point from a cost effective aspect, nobody could argue that unless they are an accomplished machinist, machines, and time to waste. Even then, I think I'd rather spend that time align boring an LG0's mains and drop a LD9 crank...so........LG0+stroke FTW
EDIT: If it were about revs.... How in the hell would diesel drags be knocking on the door of gas motor times with half the revs and HP? -Torque for the win.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:20 AM
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
^^ im confused on how your post deems that the LG0 would have an advantage over the LD9. maybe i just dont see it..
1997 Cavalier Z24
Bomz Short Ram Intake
Vibrant Cat-Back
KYB GR2 Struts
Goldline 1.75" Springs
RK Sport Upper Insert
RK Sport Lower Dogbone
Custom Tune by Shane @
innovativetuning@rogers.com
15.647 @ 88.02 MPH
The advantage I'd give to the LG0 as a starting point, among a few others that doesn't speak as loud, would be due to the impressive oiling system and valvetrain. As that is the first $1.5k your going to drop into an LD9 to use the same parts that the LG0 starts with.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:26 AM
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
My personal preference is the LG0 even though I own two LD9s.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:24 AM
Joshua Dearman wrote:The advantage I'd give to the LG0 as a starting point, among a few others that doesn't speak as loud, would be due to the impressive oiling system and valvetrain. As that is the first $1.5k your going to drop into an LD9 to use the same parts that the LG0 starts with.
see i thats probably it. i just dont understand why everyone swaps to LG0 parts in their LD9...
1997 Cavalier Z24
Bomz Short Ram Intake
Vibrant Cat-Back
KYB GR2 Struts
Goldline 1.75" Springs
RK Sport Upper Insert
RK Sport Lower Dogbone
Custom Tune by Shane @
innovativetuning@rogers.com
15.647 @ 88.02 MPH
whitegoose wrote:Joshua Dearman wrote:The advantage I'd give to the LG0 as a starting point, among a few others that doesn't speak as loud, would be due to the impressive oiling system and valvetrain. As that is the first $1.5k your going to drop into an LD9 to use the same parts that the LG0 starts with.
see i thats probably it. i just dont understand why everyone swaps to LG0 parts in their LD9...
Exactly, just swap in the whole LG0!!!!
Jason
99 Z24 Supercharged
157hp/171tq - NA
190hp/170tq @ 6psi
LG0/LD9 for Life
they do it because the parts are relatively cheap and the ld9's aftermarket parts availability is less than sub-par.
that and if you think about it... its pretty much all we have. we're not ecotecs with 10 trillion companies out there with everything under the sun as far as go fast goodies as concerned.
Needing 2.3 oil pump stuff? PM me...
^ehh....I'm not saying start stright with an LG0 and call it done. MY personal argument would be LG0 + LD9 crank OR LD9 with LG0 top end. Personally I used the LD9 since that's what I already had, but in my eyes either way to get "the best" Quad4 is a combination of the two motors...thats it. One way or the other.
But if you wanted to stay on topic with the thread: "LG0 vs. LD9" I'd be forced buy #'s alone to say LG0
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:26 PM
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
If were gonna talk LG0 why not bring The W41 into the game? That is a 190hp motor right there
W41 is a LG0 with a different MEMCAL and an extra 6* duration.
fact of the matter is...the only REAL advantage the ld9 has on the quad4 was the stroke...change the crank in the lgo and the advantage is gone completely...yes it will not be as revhappy...but were still talking about a stronger engine...one thing i dont think you realize is the ld9 crank is lighter than the quad crank...so adding the ld9 crank not only lengthens the stroke, but lightens the drive train as well...helping it remain revhappy...ive got both in my garage right now..and after you turn down the mains on the 2.4 its about a 10lb difference
so basically deleting the balance shaft rotating weight via 2.3 oil pump swap on an LD9 makes the rotating assembly actually lighter than that of an LG0. thus making the engine 'rev happy'.
Needing 2.3 oil pump stuff? PM me...
scott (section8cav) wrote:fact of the matter is...the only REAL advantage the ld9 has on the quad4 was the stroke...change the crank in the lgo and the advantage is gone completely...yes it will not be as revhappy...but were still talking about a stronger engine...one thing i dont think you realize is the ld9 crank is lighter than the quad crank...so adding the ld9 crank not only lengthens the stroke, but lightens the drive train as well...helping it remain revhappy...ive got both in my garage right now..and after you turn down the mains on the 2.4 its about a 10lb difference
True, but now the same argument against the LD9 applies to the LG0...it's no longer an LG0...you gotta stay consistent. It's now a hybrid, not one single design. That's why I said, the only way to get the best is going to be a hybrid of the two, pick your road...it leads to the same place.
The title of this thread should read...LG0 vs. LD9 vs. Hybrid. -> Hybrid>LG0>LD9 <-IMO
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:18 PM
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
SweetnessGT wrote:Am I the ONLY guy not running LGO internals with a big build? The only part I have really is the intake manifold... and even then it has a venom intake manifold flange on it lol...
564 whp out of an LGO... I honestly think an LD9 without LGO internals can hit that mark. I wouldn't be pushing myself to keep going if that wasn't the case.
Honestly... potential wise I think the LGO wins. It was built more heavy-duty, has the potential to run much larger cams than the LD9, no balance shafts for a beautiful redline, and the head flows like a complete beast.
It took all the hogging out in the world to get my head to *almost* flow what a H.O head can flow... and even then it didn't match up. Now lets add-up the fact the LGO can run much bigger cams...
Yeah Potential-wise LGO FTW.
BUT... I think a non LGO-internalled LD9 can hit that mark with the right turbo, setup, and tuning. It just takes a lot more money, time, and ingenuity than the LGO.
Final verdict from me - LGO > LD9.
-Chris-
All this talk of the bottom end and only Chris mentions the head. All 4 versions of the 2.3 head flow better than the 2.4. You need to do a lot of work to a 2.4 head to make it flow as well as a stock "086" head.
Jason
99 Z24 Supercharged
157hp/171tq - NA
190hp/170tq @ 6psi
LG0/LD9 for Life
^Umm....sorry, I thought the head was included in all the talk about "LG0 parts" -is it not?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:37 PM
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
Actually you can find a "086" head on a LO engine, therefore there is no specific LG0 only head. The same can be said about teh intake and exhaust manifolds, rare but can be found on LO engines.
^Yes, but when the discussion is LG0 vs. LD9....It follows logic that anything that's NOT LD9, would be LG0 or at least in more relation to it than the LD9. I'm pretty sure we could consider this binar. Either it's LD9 or it's not. Either it's a LD9 or a hybrid. -Binary. I don't see any other way to see it.
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
By your logic a LD2 cam would be a LG0 part since it is not a LD9 part. I was just pointing out that there is no single specific LG0 head.
My LD9 with LG0/LD2 "HO/LO Parts" put down more WHP then a W41 equipped LG0.
My LD9 Head had smaller valves and ports then a '086 LG0 head.
My LD9 had smaller cylinder bores then a LG0/LD2.
My LD9 had less compression then a LG0.
My LD9 had the same or lower rev limit then a W41 equipped LG0.
My LD9 did have a larger T/B then a LG0.
I love both engines, but I'd build a LD9 block over a LG0 block anyday (unless building a stroker, then I'd use the LG0 block).
SPD RCR Z -
'02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT -
'04 GTO 305whp
W41 BOI -
'78 Buick Opel Isuzu W41 Swap
Compare an LD9 with the same parts as an LG0 has
same cams (H.O. or W41 ), same piston bore, same oil pump, same head (086), same exhaust, etc......THEN tune both and then tell me what's better.
What we are comparing is what's better a FULL High Output "hybrid" LD9 or a straight High Output LG0?
Of coarse stock for stock the LG0 is better then the LD9...so there's no comparing there.
GMR has got nothing on this
SpeedRacerZ wrote:My LD9 with LG0/LD2 "HO/LO Parts" put down more WHP then a W41 equipped LG0.
My LD9 Head had smaller valves and ports then a '086 LG0 head.
My LD9 had smaller cylinder bores then a LG0/LD2.
My LD9 had less compression then a LG0.
My LD9 had the same or lower rev limit then a W41 equipped LG0.
My LD9 did have a larger T/B then a LG0.
I love both engines, but I'd build a LD9 block over a LG0 block anyday (unless building a stroker, then I'd use the LG0 block).
Yet runs the same times as a W41?
I think you built a equivalent to a LG0\W41, but not a "better" one Brian. I know I'm going to catch hell for this.
Now that said. the one thing that baffles me is the lower compression... that's is, I feel that the intake\ext flow of the engine where the same, (Ported LD9 VS stock 086)
Moving on.
As I stated earlier To make the MOST out of either Engine, you must mix and match parts from BOTH.
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:SpeedRacerZ wrote:My LD9 with LG0/LD2 "HO/LO Parts" put down more WHP then a W41 equipped LG0.
My LD9 Head had smaller valves and ports then a '086 LG0 head.
My LD9 had smaller cylinder bores then a LG0/LD2.
My LD9 had less compression then a LG0.
My LD9 had the same or lower rev limit then a W41 equipped LG0.
My LD9 did have a larger T/B then a LG0.
I love both engines, but I'd build a LD9 block over a LG0 block anyday (unless building a stroker, then I'd use the LG0 block).
Yet runs the same times as a W41?
I think you built a equivalent to a LG0\W41, but not a "better" one Brian. I know I'm going to catch hell for this.
Now that said. the one thing that baffles me is the lower compression... that's is, I feel that the intake\ext flow of the engine where the same, (Ported LD9 VS stock 086)
Moving on.
As I stated earlier To make the MOST out of either Engine, you must mix and match parts from BOTH.
Chris
How so?
My Cams where smaller (LO Intake, HO exhaust) then W41 cams.
My Valves where a lot smaller compared to '086 valves.
My the ports in my LD9 head were ported no where near as large as a STOCK '086 head.
My compression was 9.3:1 vs 10:1.
I had a HO intake manifold with a larger T/B, a Pacesetter header with stock catback exhaust.
I put down just over 170hp to the wheels. The W41 was rated at 190 @ to the crank. (from what I remember, 160-165 was about the norm for a stock 442 or SCX to put down)
My tune was probably no better then a stock W41 tune.
LD9 - 14.648@96.01mph vs
LG0 (W41 Clone) - 14.681@93.89
Looks like the LD9 was faster, and carried more MPH into the traps.
I didn't say my Engine was "better", just said it put out the same (or slightly more) HP then an 2.3 with a better head, cams, and compression................
Being that both engines are from the same "Family", and just about anything from one will work on the other (with some modification)....... The debate here is a MOOT one! Their both better then a Eco!!!!
SPD RCR Z -
'02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT -
'04 GTO 305whp
W41 BOI -
'78 Buick Opel Isuzu W41 Swap
And traction had nothing to do with it?
how heavy was that fly wheel?
lots of factors here.
But, the end statements are correct.
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
SpeedRacerZ wrote:Their both better then a Eco!!!!
woot!!!
Needing 2.3 oil pump stuff? PM me...
^LOL...yup. I have no doubt in my mind if the aftermarket had the same love for either iron block as it does for the eco......the iron would DOMINATE!
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
