Beretta.net

Barry wrote:P/S pump off the cam is bad? I feel no difference in steering between 3 third gen cavaliers that I have driven (2.2OHC, 2.4twin cam, Eco)

Quads are cool motors I would defiantly own one if I had the chance

It could be because I have the Eibach Pro Kit. It just feels like the pump is fighting the engine at low RPM out of a turn.
The Pro Kit makes the car level. I did feel a change in the brakes too.
Anyway I'm not happy with my Eco at all. I tried to catch up to a girl that cut me off on the highway and couldn't do it. I was at WOT and she wasn't trying. It's not like she had a powerful car or anything.

havent you been through 2-3 quad cars speedy?

no, i bought the quad 4 z26 back in 2008, was the second owner of it, ran it for 2 years and the head cracked, while on the jackstands during engine removal, the car shifted while i wasnt around, fell onto the jack stand and bent the floor up on the passenger side just behind the subframe, easy fix just bend it down right? but reality is its a structure point for the subframe and in a hard frontal collision it will give like tin foil possibly injuring a passenger. im not taking that chance so it became a parts car, no i have penfolds old 91 gtz wich was illusions at one time, the motor went 200 miles after i bought it so im currently building a bad ass quad for in it, i have most of the parts so it should be wicked but id prefer a 92+ car for the engine rather then the 91- due to motor mounts ect. so to answer your question, one got wrecked, and the other is still in my backyard awaiting either an engine or sale if i find a donar 92+ shell.

the 2.4 tc was a decent motor as well, GM's revision of the quad at that point in time. they have decent power and economy, but still have their own set of issues... but didn't need headgaskets around every 60k miles, and possibly a new/repaired head put on due to cracks. they just are high maintenance motors. i agree if taken care of they can be a great motor. and many improvements can be made.