1993 2.4 Twin Cam GTZ. Project misewell...

[SummitBalt08]

Did you get that Garnet one? .. if you did.. I hope you realise that its one of the rarest Berettas to exist. A 93 Quad (originally a Quad car) GTZ is HARD TO FIND... then theres Garnet red which is impossible to find.

On the Beretta FB group there was a long discussion about that car. I hope you can save it.

[DanteGTZ]

The car in question is the same car. When I first saw the Craigslist ad for it months ago I figured someone simply swapped the IDI covers, but I'm very surprised to hear that they actually swapped a 2.4... Blown away in fact - A 25hp LOSS (between the 2.3 HO and 2.4 TwinCam) and having to rewire certain things to make it work just sounds dumb. I wonder how they got the crank pickup to work properly.........

As Shawn stated, this 1993 GARNET GTZ is quite rare. According to Compnine, I discovered that there were just 50 1993 QUAD4 Garnet GTZs made. For comparison, the total number of Quad4 powered 1993 GTZs was just 691. More comparison - There were 141 1993 Quad4 Quasar GTZs made...

Anyhoo - The best treatment of this car would be to get a true High Output Quad4 back in there. Most of the time the 96+ Twin Cam guys want to swap in 2.3 head/cams - Not the other way around. LOL.

Either way, post up some pics when you can. I'd be interested to see this car with a bit more detail than what Craigslist showed.

[DanteGTZ]

Anyone with a Q4 GTZ care to take a pic of the connections at your alternator? I'm curious to know what an unmolested version looks like.

I'll try to snap a pic of my 93 GTZ's today.

Ripped the carpet out in the trunk tonight, past what GM thought was a good idea to glue to the sheetmetal. Terrible, stupid idea, gluing in "removable" carpeted panels. Only GM, I swear. Anyway, much to my dismay, I've found more rot, this time in the rear shock towers. Yay.

Which honestly brings me to a cross road, as to whether or not I should continue this project, or to cut my losses and liquidate all of the parts that I have, and scrap the car.

Meh. Rough night. Back to the drawing board tomorrow.

Take some pics of that rot, in all areas. If you scrap the project, I'd hope you'd give the B.net group dibs at buying the entire car first. I'm not excited about rust, but I'd consider messing with another 93 GTZ.

[Rettax3]

A 25hp LOSS (between the 2.3 HO and 2.4 TwinCam) and having to rewire certain things to make it work just sounds dumb. I wonder how they got the crank pickup to work properly.........
Anyhoo - The best treatment of this car would be to get a true High Output Quad4 back in there. Most of the time the 96+ Twin Cam guys want to swap in 2.3 head/cams - Not the other way around. LOL.

My '97 Z-24 Cavvy had a grenaded engine when I bought it for $120 -original 5-speed car with zero rust, manual windows, and power sun-roof. Everything I would have ordered if I had bought it brand new, except for the color (pull-me-over red, with light grey interior ). I had a 2.3 block with a warped head and absurdly high miles to throw into the car, and later found that, aside from two valves that cost ~$6 each from NAPA, the 2.4 head was good. A little modification, and the 2.4 head fits the Quad block just fine, although it felt like compression went down a bunch (turbo ready! ). Here are some notes I can remember off of the top of my head from that build:
-The Quad alternator will NOT bolt onto the 2.4 block -use the ignition control module's pink or pink/black wire (or any other ignition-hot-only wire) to power the alternator's field coils (small red or brown wire to alternator) and find a battery hot-at-all-times large gauge wire for alternator power, it will work fine.
-IIRC, the Quad's A/C compressor also will not bolt on to the 2.4.
-The 2.4's power steering pump is 20 times better than the after-thought half-baked crap design with the pulley used on the Quad, be thankful for direct-drive!
-25HP loss sucks, but the 2.4 has better mid-range torque, so not a terrible trade off. I would take the 2.3 personally though...
-The 2.4's crank trigger is indeed located in a different spot in the block, but the 2.4's crank has the notches cut into it in different spots too -so long as you keep the 2.4 crank in the 2.4 block, it is all good, no mystery there. The issue arises when swapping the 2.4 crank into the bigger-bored 2.3 block to achieve a 2.5 "Twin-Cam Quad", or bigger if further bored and/or stroked.
-The worst part about the 2.4 is the water-pump. On the Quads, they used an intermediate shaft with its own bearing to run the splined water pump from the toothed timing-chain-driven sprocket. By the time the Twin Cam rolled out, some penny-pinching bean-counting pencil-pushing @$$-O realized they could save .20 cents per car if they did away with the intermediate drive component and drive the water-pump directly off of the timing chain. The downfall? On the Quads, it takes ~35 minutes to replace the water pump, and the pump could be made a little cheaper with less wasted material because it didn't have a sprocket on the end of it. On the 2.4, you have to break into the timing case (which means removing the engine mount, supporting the engine, and possibly re-timing the cams, and messing around with the nightmare tensioner). Now it takes half a day.

And my Z-24? I eventually lost the oil-pump on that engine, replaced it with a newer ('01, with higher compression and no EGR, from the factory ) 2.4 Twin Cam, and a little IHI turbo and top-mount intercooler. The car can't keep traction through the first few gears if I lay into it hard... 2.4s have a lot of potential too...
Congrats on the car, it looks great. Fix the rust and save her!

[DanteGTZ]

Any news on this car? What happened to it?