2.0t LTG Crate Engine

[CheapFuneral]

You will still have a trans issue with the 1.8. It will also still be fwd which is far inferior to rwd and awd. Also your talking about a start point of half the othe engine still. So u could build the 1.8 with hold sub 300 hp but why not build a 2.0 to be 300+ horse power?


If I die, bury me in my truck, because it's never been in a hole it can't get out of!

 

[mitdr774]

Drive layout superiority is a matter of opinion. If you dislike FWD so much, why do you drive a FWD car?

Why would I want to buy a $9k engine just to rip it apart and spend another $4500 rebuilding it? My power goal is about what the 2.0 is putting out. I see no reason to worry about building a 2.0 after spending a lot of money on it that I dont need to.

 

[ChrisJ]

You are right you didnt say drop in replacement. It could be implied it would be easy though with this statement. "The 2.0T is a drop in solution with no headaches once it's mounted."

The warranty part could also be implied by the wording.

Once again, not keeping stock internals to make the same kind of power. If the internals put into the 1.8 are more than up to the task I see no reason it should not hold together. An extra 0.2L of displacement does not magically make it able to handle twice the power. The 1.8 left the factory with parts designed for 138 hp. Replacing those parts with ones designed for 300+ would allow it to survive just fine for a long time at sub 300 levels. They use large low RPM diesel engines due to the low end power they deliver. Completely different application all together and not even related to this discussion.

Once again, if the internals are replaced with stronger ones it wont be an issue if its driven in the same manner. For now though the 1.4s seem to be surviving with about the same failure rates as completely stock vehicles are.

Popcorn with salt and butter is delicious. Can I have some as well??

Well,
That's why I said "once it's mounted". Obviously mounting it is a nitemare, but I have to assume far easier than trying to make a SBC work.

At this point I've got no where to go other than the typical internet childish insults and I'm not going to bother going there.

 

[CheapFuneral]

Drive layout superiority is a matter of opinion. If you dislike FWD so much, why do you drive a FWD car?

Why would I want to buy a $9k engine just to rip it apart and spend another $4500 rebuilding it? My power goal is about what the 2.0 is putting out. I see no reason to worry about building a 2.0 after spending a lot of money on it that I dont need to.

I drive the sonic because of economy, cheap to buy cheap to drive. I drive 50+ miles each way to work, my lt1 camaro wasn't cutting it anymore and broke down to much. Eventually when I get a new job closer to me I'll trade in the sonic or do something ridiculous like this too it.

It's actually not a matter of opinion, have u ever noticed how higher priced sports carts aren't fwd. They don't corner as well and they don't straight line as well. It's just a fact. Physics are a bitch to fwd cars. As you accelerate in straight line, the front lifts and causes loss of traction. As you corner if u lose traction you can't swing the car around and because your drive wheels are your steering wheels you get under steer.

No one is saying you have to buy this engine, we're just saying this is a very viable option especially for a rwd conversion. And like I said they can be had cheaper than 9 that's just gm msrp. While 275hp is a nice number, I'd rather sit at 350.


If I die, bury me in my truck, because it's never been in a hole it can't get out of!

 

[ChrisJ]

I drive the sonic because of economy, cheap to buy cheap to drive. I drive 50+ miles each way to work, my lt1 camaro wasn't cutting it anymore and broke down to much. Eventually when I get a new job closer to me I'll trade in the sonic or do something ridiculous like this too it.

It's actually not a matter of opinion, have u ever noticed how higher priced sports carts aren't fwd. They don't corner as well and they don't straight line as well. It's just a fact. Physics are a bitch to fwd cars. As you accelerate in straight line, the front lifts and causes loss of traction. As you corner if u lose traction you can't swing the car around and because your drive wheels are your steering wheels you get under steer.

No one is saying you have to buy this engine, we're just saying this is a very viable option especially for a rwd conversion. And like I said they can be had cheaper than 9 that's just gm msrp. While 275hp is a nice number, I'd rather sit at 350.


If I die, bury me in my truck, because it's never been in a hole it can't get out of!

My opinion is such.

FWD = Best all around solution for a normal car. Gets you the best traction under most conditions while remaining cheap and getting best gas mileage.

RWD = Best cheap performance solution but terrible as a daily driver

AWD + Best of the best but most expensive and worst gas mileage and tire wear.

That said, my first 3 vehicles were RWD and I didn't get my first FWD vehicle until I was 29 years old. I'll never go back to a RWD vehicle as my primary vehicle. In fact, I consider a RWD to be a toy only to be used only on perfect days. If I wanted a performance vehicle as a daily driver it would have to be AWD.

 

[CheapFuneral]

I disagree, I guess it depends on where u live. I don't have to deal with snow and rwd cars are fun in the rain. I also don't think fwd cars are better for gas mileage, just that it's less economical to build a rwd car and the people who spend more don't want small engines. Awd gets the best traction but is also much heavier and takes more power to move.


If I die, bury me in my truck, because it's never been in a hole it can't get out of!

 

[ChrisJ]

I disagree, I guess it depends on where u live. I don't have to deal with snow and rwd cars are fun in the rain. I also don't think fwd cars are better for gas mileage, just that it's less economical to build a rwd car and the people who spend more don't want small engines. Awd gets the best traction but is also much heavier and takes more power to move.


If I die, bury me in my truck, because it's never been in a hole it can't get out of!

I don't think RWD is worse than FWD in regards to gas mileage, but AWD is.
RWD blows in the rain, I got over "having fun" years ago. I have places to see and people to do, no time for having fun while driving my daily.

 

[Eric Smit]

FWD is most economical and fuel efficient just based on drivetrain losses and cost to manufacture.

 

[Sonny@bnr]

Just some little info the 2.0t ltg is blowing up stock. Head on over to the cadillac forums. There having piston issues left and right.

 

[CheapFuneral]

Just some little info the 2.0t ltg is blowing up stock. Head on over to the cadillac forums. There having piston issues left and right.

Without tunes? I'm sure GM will work it out.


If I die, bury me in my truck, because it's never been in a hole it can't get out of!

 

[ChrisJ]

Just some little info the 2.0t ltg is blowing up stock. Head on over to the cadillac forums. There having piston issues left and right.

I thought the 2.0 was an inline design?
:banana:


Oh and, * They're.

 

[$ub$onic]

Just some little info the 2.0t ltg is blowing up stock. Head on over to the cadillac forums. There having piston issues left and right.

Similar to the issues the 1.4 had in the early days?

 

[CheapFuneral]

Similar to the issues the 1.4 had in the early days?

No, I read up on it. It seems there are lots of good early 2.0t, and just recently they started blowing up. Most of the cars before 5k miles. It seems to be a bad group of Pistons most commonly piston 3 for some reason.


If I die, bury me in my truck, because it's never been in a hole it can't get out of!

 

[Sonny@bnr]

2014s are blowing engines as well hopefully the problem is fixed for the 2015s

 

[CheapFuneral]

2014s are blowing engines as well hopefully the problem is fixed for the 2015s

From what I have read looks like they are all 14's but I could be wrong.


If I die, bury me in my truck, because it's never been in a hole it can't get out of!

 

[mja]

I had heard you must meet the emissions of the vehicle or the new engine, whichever was more strict.

Meaning installing an LS1 into a 1968 Camaro meant that 1968 car all of a sudden had to meet 2000s emissions requirements.

Not sure if that's B.S. or not but it sounds pleasurable.

EDIT : Plausible!

Yes, this is correct. Getting the 2.0 to match the emissions of the 1.4 is the first priority. Would likely need some type of de-tuning to pass emissions. Unless no emissions in that area.

2cents.

LS1 in a '68 camaro sounds pleasurable, no need to edit. But here's my edit - most states have some type of grandfather clause where if the vehicle is over 25-40 years old it doesn't need to be emissions tested.

 

[EzekeiL]

So....all this blabbering about emissions...will the engine physical mount up without any problems? Anyone know? I'm thinking about doing this once I have another car and some more to waste cause no kne else will xD

 

[EzekeiL]

Btw this engine is being put in the 2015 Malibu and cts. It will be much cheaper to source one from a wreck or something in a couple years!

 

[CheapFuneral]

So....all this blabbering about emissions...will the engine physical mount up without any problems? Anyone know? I'm thinking about doing this once I have another car and some more to waste cause no kne else will xD

It's been done. There is a sonic race car that is awd with this motor. That being said I'm sure it's not a drop in solution.


**** you auto correct!

 

[EzekeiL]

Highly doubtful it's drop in, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done! For science!...ha