Oldsmobile Quad 4 questions

[moparguy]

First of all, do the Quad 4s have many issues? Reason I ask is a 1961 MGA is on the auction block at a Kruse auction in my area in a couple of weeks with the Quad 4 engine and 5spd.



I've had a deep burning need for another sports car for the past few years and have been considering a Japanese 2. 0 or so engine from the early 80s as the powerplant for a older English car, Triumph TR3, ideally.



Any first hand knowledge is really appreciated.



Thanks, RR

 

[SGibson]

A longtime friend of mine runs his own auto repair shop,he is a dyed in the wool gm man and he despises the q4, it's not mech. friendly and it has a cam chain tensioner that relies on oil pressure to keep tension, if oil press is not up to par the chain can jump, they are an interference motor so it's a forgone conclusion what happens next. I know they do run well when right.

 

[JoshPeters]

They do have headgasket issues as well. What I have been told, and read is this... .



The head and block are dissimilar metals, and the design of the water jackets makes the coolant aquire a static electricty charge. At that point they start to arc between the head and block eating away the headgasket.



Change the coolant every 6 months and you'll be just fine.



I had one when I was 16 in a Grand Am with a 5spd. That car SCREAMED! I had a scan tool on it for a while and if someone was riding passenger they would read the TACH reading... . I touched 8,000rpm with that car multiple times, and it took it like a champ.



Josh

 

[MMeier]

Josh, Josh, 8,000 RPM ? Come on now !! :-laf

 

[Dual EE]

My wife's old car was a 1988(?)Grand Am w/a quad 4 engine auto trans. The car ran very well. Great gas milage-37 freeway and had lots of power. I think it was rated at 180 hp.



The only problem we had w/it (engine wise) was a oil check valve in the block. The dummy oil light came on signaling no oil pressure. Well the lower end had oil pressure, but the top end had none. I spent many hours taking taking the lower and top end apart. I'll be dammed if I could find a reason the top end lost oil pressure. Went down to the GM dealer to see if they had ever heard or dealt w/the problem. They just happened to have another quad 4 engine doing the same thing. They replaced the oil check valve and it solved the problem. Well this check valve was not even mentioned in my manual. So a $10 check valve and 150 bucks for a top end gasket set and the problem was fixed.



Now the car had other issues. It seems that the computers go out in them a lot. We replaced ours when we bought it and it started acting up again just before we sold it. We enjoyed the car enough to look for another. It seemed that every car w/the quad 4 motor also had computer problems. So we did not buy another.



Now, I knew nothing about a dual overhead cam engine before we bought that car, but did not find it that difficult to work on. The only thing that would scare me from buying another would be the computer, not the motor. I really liked the performance of a quad 4 motor.

 

[JoshPeters]

Josh, Josh, 8,000 RPM ? Come on now !! :-laf

Like I said I was 16 at the time. I'll put it this way, 5spd car, and I'd burry the 85mph speedo in 3rd gear on a regular basis!



I honestly don't know how that car held together! :-laf



Josh

 

[HoleshotHolset]

I honestly don't know how that car held together! :-laf

Did that car 'sweat horsepower' like your Dodge/Cummins? :-laf



The GM Quad-4 was/is an ill attempt GM made at producing a very modern powerplant using all the latest and greatest technologies. A friend of mine back in high school had an Olds Achieva SCX with the 200(?)hp Quad-4... that little engine was absolutely astonishing. But, when it broke... so was he. When I worked at an auto parts store... I remember not having much in stock for the Quad-4's... and everything we did have was a LOT of money.



If you're looking at repowering an older sports car - use a 2. 0L turbo'd 4-banger (200hp/200ft-lbs) out of a '90-'95 Toyota MR2. They're pretty light, tough as nails and make really good power per dollar spent. The aftermarket support is also really good for this engine. Don't buy one of the supercharged models - they're a waste of time.



Nissan SR20DET's are also very much respected little turbo'd 4-bangers.



OR - step up to the big leagues and install a Toyota 2JZ-GTE or Nissan RB26DETT. Those are two of the most badass engines ever made.



Matt

 

[moparguy]

Thanks for all the replys. The car with the Quad 4 is a complete conversion that has supposedly been restored.



From my net research I've learned that the Quad 4 went through several changes. Horsepower went from a high of 180hp down to 120hp. Seems the engines after 96 with the balance shafts might be the more civilized units with the earlier versions being more ballsy.



Now, anyone know how to tell the year of the engine when it's not in the original car? On Mopar engines you can read the manufacture date on the side of the block (at least on the older engines). Anything like that on the GM engines?



Thanks, RR

 

[Todd G]

Depending on the HP level of the Quad 4, you may be overpowering a MGA. Remember, part of the frame is made of wood on a MGA! I have a MGB that I've been considering repowering, but your options are pretty limited. The Old's 215 V-8's are popular converions, but only have 150HP or so, but that's about all these old British cars can take.

 

[Stake Man]

If I were to do one, I would use the Toyota 4AGE. It a 1. 6L DOHC that can be had with 160hp stock(20v versions) from Japan. There are a bunch of go fast goodies for them and they are dead reliable. And cheap to work on too. The 20v motor shares the same block as the Supercharged version. It also has stronger internals than the US market 16v. With a header, cams and a good tune, the 20v will sustain 200hp all day long. The nice thing about the 4A is that you don't have to run fuel injection. You could slap some webers on them and go. For the 20v, add a rpm trigger to activate the high cam.



The 3SGTE is a good motor, but adding the extra weight of it and then the turbo and supplies makes it too heavy in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I like that motor too, but not in a lightweight car.



The other option would be the 2ZZ engine out of the last gen GTS Celica. Its quite light being its all aluminum(3S and 4A are Iron/Aluminum) and 180hp stock. But being as they were only a fwd motor, converting to rwd would take some work.



I have had thoughts of putting a 4AGE(20v) into my 65 MGB, but being as its all origional, I will wait for the motor to blow before I cut anything up. Its either the 4AGE or a 13b Rotary.

 

[Todd G]

If only I could find a totaled Honda S2000... ...

 

[HoleshotHolset]

No turbo? Awww.. . the weight isn't that bad - 'twould weigh quite a bit less than a V8, that's for sure. Turbo/intercooler/pipes might add 50 pounds to the package over a NA setup. It's not like we're bolting on a 50 pound HT3B and a huge IC... yet.

The nice thing about the 4A is that you don't have to run fuel injection. You could slap some webers on them and go. ... Its either the 4AGE or a 13b Rotary.

IMHO, electronic fuel injection is the only way to fly with a gasser. You'd probably spend more time machining adapters to bolt on a set of carbs than it would take to make the EFI run. (wishful thinking... . )



Would you run that twin-rotor 13B with EFI? Based on their track record of being VERY sensitive to A/F ratios being too rich/lean... I'd think that this would be one application where you don't want to mess up and wipe out a set of apex seals. TDR member "mazdarotary" is a freak (in a good way!) when it comes to the Mazda-built Wankels.



Matt

 

[Todd G]

The Old's 215 V-8 is 40lbs lighter than a 4 cyl MGB motor!

 

[HoleshotHolset]

The Old's 215 V-8 is 40lbs lighter than a 4 cyl MGB motor!

I keep forgetting that those things had anemic little tractor motors in them...



Matt

 

[Stake Man]

IMHO, electronic fuel injection is the only way to fly with a gasser. You'd probably spend more time machining adapters to bolt on a set of carbs than it would take to make the EFI run. (wishful thinking... . )



Would you run that twin-rotor 13B with EFI? Based on their track record of being VERY sensitive to A/F ratios being too rich/lean... I'd think that this would be one application where you don't want to mess up and wipe out a set of apex seals. TDR member "mazdarotary" is a freak (in a good way!) when it comes to the Mazda-built Wankels.



Matt

EFI is good, and the 4AGE 20v has ITB's But for simplicity sake, carbs can be run quite efficently. The 13b is a toss up, a 650 DP 4barrel will make just as much power as the EFI will. And the N/A rotaries are not near as sensitive to knock as the turbo ones are. An outfit in Buttonwillow, CA has a Spec GT1 race car(3rd gen body on a tube frame) powered be a 12a with a 48IDA(??) Weber that puts out 280hp. About as reliable as a Peripheral ported motor can be(lol not very).



I personally would go EFI all the way. But I also have the stand alone EMS that I could swap between vehicles whenever I needed. But the hassel of wiring the whole thing from scratch leaves some people dishearted about projects. Its always nice to know that there is the possibility to fall back on the old carb system.