2004 Saturn Ion Red Line

[Mike3800]

Originally Posted by AmIGrand

People like to complain that GM isn't playing ball in the compact scene, now they bitch and whine when it gets here. Seriously, what's up here?

Great to hear a different opinon!!

I think most of us that were/are die hard fans are dissapointed that they are .... LOSING the ball game in the compact market even if they are finally playing.

I know you know the history of the Quad very well, better than me I am sure.. downtune after downtune... and then the ultimate... punch it to a 2.4 and it was the weakest Quad engine ever!!! It used to be 160crank HP for the base Quad 4.

Now... the replacment.. a 2.2 in NA form with only 140HP? THAT'S PATHETIC and I think you know it... oh but it's "smooth".... so if it had 30 more HP in NA form they are not cappable of making it remain smooth? BS...

I KNOW they could do better and they could stomp the competition... but some moron in there won't let the engineers build.... it's all about cutting costs anymore....


GM's larger vehicles are impressive... their smaller ones anymore leave alot to be desired.


Either way... I might go test drive this thing... after hearing your impression of it, it sounds interesting.

[VTECSiGAH8R]

They upgraded to the ecotec for economy reasons, it is more efficient whether people claim it is or not, it was designed that way. Also, people bitched forever about how old the Quad 4 was, and reliability was never a strong point for that engine either. That's why they introduced the Ecotec, not because they wanted a smoother engine. By many accounts it seems more strung out at high RPMs. But at the same time, this engine offers excellent base hp for the cars it goes into, much more than the competition really. Problem is they don't have a more powerful variant of it as an upgrade like most of competition....yet. When the 170 hp 2.4 Ecotec becomes an option that problem will be solved too, not to mention the versions they are offering with a supercharger that puts out more power than it's rated.

And like said before, there are people that can drive the GTO in the 1/4 in a 14.5 and those that can pull low 13s. Same goes with any car. If you base specs on one review where the people can't drive for ****, then yes you will think the car is a crappy attempt.

As for the power being inferior to the SRT-4, w/e, if it handles good and is a pleasant ride and people that drive it think it is a great value that's all that matters. And those that think because the SRT-4 is a turbo and the Red Line is supercharged the Red Line is inferior, a reality check is easily found with the Endyn supercharged Civic. With a 1.6 L engine destroked to like 1.5L (a D series engine BTW, for those that don't know that is the weakly built Honda L4) and a damn good custom redone EM M-62 supercharger, he pulled 487 whp. With a 1.5L weakly built engine modified for boost, that is not bad at all. Imagine the possibilities with a 2.0L Ecotec built for boost...basically mod the S/C to be more efficient and power will increase A LOT, just like doing different mods for the SRT-4.

Hell the stock Ecotec engine didn't break until like 400 whp I think the engineers claimed? The Red Line engine has beefier connecting rods, a lower compression ratio, forged pistons, and a stronger crank. I think the engine should be able to reliably push about what the SRT-4 can push.

Either way, I think this is a good attempt by GM and if you look at the market, it only really is slower than the SRT-4. The pricetag is still nice for everything you get.

[Mike3800]

Originally Posted by VTECSiGAH8R

They upgraded to the ecotec for economy reasons, it is more efficient whether people claim it is or not, it was designed that way. Also, people bitched forever about how old the Quad 4 was, and reliability was never a strong point for that engine either. That's why they introduced the Ecotec, not because they wanted a smoother engine. By many accounts it seems more strung out at high RPMs. But at the same time, this engine offers excellent base hp for the cars it goes into, much more than the competition really. Problem is they don't have a more powerful variant of it as an upgrade like most of competition....yet. When the 170 hp 2.4 Ecotec becomes an option that problem will be solved too, not to mention the versions they are offering with a supercharger that puts out more power than it's rated.

And like said before, there are people that can drive the GTO in the 1/4 in a 14.5 and those that can pull low 13s. Same goes with any car. If you base specs on one review where the people can't drive for ****, then yes you will think the car is a crappy attempt.

As for the power being inferior to the SRT-4, w/e, if it handles good and is a pleasant ride and people that drive it think it is a great value that's all that matters. And those that think because the SRT-4 is a turbo and the Red Line is supercharged the Red Line is inferior, a reality check is easily found with the Endyn supercharged Civic. With a 1.6 L engine destroked to like 1.5L (a D series engine BTW, for those that don't know that is the weakly built Honda L4) and a damn good custom redone EM M-62 supercharger, he pulled 487 whp. With a 1.5L weakly built engine modified for boost, that is not bad at all. Imagine the possibilities with a 2.0L Ecotec built for boost...basically mod the S/C to be more efficient and power will increase A LOT, just like doing different mods for the SRT-4.

Hell the stock Ecotec engine didn't break until like 400 whp I think the engineers claimed? The Red Line engine has beefier connecting rods, a lower compression ratio, forged pistons, and a stronger crank. I think the engine should be able to reliably push about what the SRT-4 can push.

Either way, I think this is a good attempt by GM and if you look at the market, it only really is slower than the SRT-4. The pricetag is still nice for everything you get.

I understand all what you are saying... and I agree with it to a point...


GM still could have made the Ecotec with more power... not a pathetic downtunde small replacment for the Quad4. Back when the Quad4 was available with 160,180 and 190HP... it was a slap in the face to all of the 4cyl competition.

About 14 years have gone by since then... honestly they didn't have to make it weak to make it reliable OR economical. Their engineeers are no dummies. Their hands are tied. That last statement is just a theory.

[jake3217]

Originally Posted by Mike3800

GM still could have made the Ecotec with more power

True, but GM could have made the 3400 with more power, Honda could have made the I-VTEC with more power, etc. How much power is enough?

I couldn't be happier with the current Ecotec. With 140 hp, 150 torque, and a power curve as flat as Kansas, it's no slouch. Runs like a champ, has more than enough power for some quick acceleration, and with the 30 combined MPG I'm getting, I couldn't be happier.

[Mike3800]

Originally Posted by jake3217

True, but GM could have made the 3400 with more power, Honda could have made the I-VTEC with more power, etc. How much power is enough?

When GM comes out on top as they always used to.

Originally Posted by jake3217

I couldn't be happier with the current Ecotec.

I don't have one so when it really comes down to it... I don't care.

Originally Posted by jake3217

With 140 hp, 150 torque, and a power curve as flat as Kansas, it's no slouch.

Not impressed... Quad4 used to have more peak torque and HP with a similar flat torqueband. Matching/beating a 5.0 V8 (at the time) with a N/A 2.3 4cyl was more impressive than a 2.2 with 140HP and a flat torqueband. Crap... a Nissan Sentra with a 2.0 has 145HP. Big deal. Not saying anything abd about your car, it's nicer than mine... just being honest.

Originally Posted by jake3217

Runs like a champ, has more than enough power for some quick acceleration, and with the 30 combined MPG I'm getting, I couldn't be happier.

Great... glad you are satisfied with it. There are those of us that know they could do better... same or better MPG, reliability and smoothness, but with more power.

They need to STAND OUT above the competition... not match it etc... They could do it, cause they did it in the past. Now that everyone raised the bar for performance... they should step back out front again.

[WOLF]

I take it this is the usual, we finally have a little tuner of our own but its not good enough for me becuase its not #1 even though its better than the other 10 you can pick from crap I aways seem to stumble upon. Lets face it, it doesn't matter what the hell it is and how perfect it could be your still going to complain about it, right? You will find that little stupid thing to nit-pic like "I don't think the stereo is good enough or the tails are a bit strange so I don't like it".

Maybe this is why Gm hesitates to build things like this because they know people like us are just going to whine about it no matter how good it is j/k

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

And if you gave me a choice between a old Quad4 and the new Eco, I would take the Eco since I've driven both and my memories of my Quad is an engine that had #'s but when you ran it hard it just caughed and weesed, I've ran the crap out of a blown Eco that my friend owns and that thing just keeps dishing it out no matter how hard you run it. Sure the Quad was good at the time but it was a loud clunky unrelible from my experence and most others that owned it bit of metal. Otherwise this motor would still be around like the 3.8L V-6.

And for the power thing, most buyers don't go for that. Its the 5% of us that love that figure and only 5% of us buy those cars in the first place. Don't you think its wise to gun after the 95% rather than the 5%, its all about creature comforts, price, build quality and gas mileage now.

Hey, I like the Red Line, I'm glad we finally have a car like this and if you don't like the Red Line wait for the Colbalt SS like I am. Just being happy we have some cars like this now and that GM is finally turning it around with adding RWD cars, sporty small 2 seaters and a car that has better build quality than a Camry and little turner cars like this one. Better than the 90's I think.

[Mike3800]

Originally Posted by WOLF

I take it this is the usual, we finally have a little tuner of our own but its not good enough for me becuase its not #1 even though its better than the other 10 you can pick from crap I aways seem to stumble upon. Lets face it, it doesn't matter what the hell it is and how perfect it could be your still going to complain about it, right? You will find that little stupid thing to nit-pic like "I don't think the stereo is good enough or the tails are a bit strange so I don't like it".

Maybe this is why Gm hesitates to build things like this because they know people like us are just going to whine about it no matter how good it is j/k

Perhaps that's why Toyota took over 1st place from GM for car sales, they listened to what their customers and the general public wanted and complied. Not kidding.

Originally Posted by WOLF

And if you gave me a choice between a old Quad4 and the new Eco, I would take the Eco since I've driven both and my memories of my Quad is an engine that had #'s but when you ran it hard it just caughed and weesed, I've ran the crap out of a blown Eco that my friend owns and that thing just keeps dishing it out no matter how hard you run it. Sure the Quad was good at the time but it was a loud clunky unrelible from my experence and most others that owned it bit of metal.

I've driven both brand new (not the supercharged Eco... but the base). I would rather have the newer engine as a daily driver as well but only because it's newer.

You are saying GM engineers are not cappable of making a normally aspirated 4cyl engine like te Quad4 but smooth, refined and reliable as well? It's been about 15 years now. What... are they all a bunch of rednecks standing around looking at the engine saying "crap... they want more than 140 out of a 2.2... how are we going to do that? I reckon it aint possible, not and have it be smooth, reliable and efficient n all" NO!! they can do it.... I say their hands are tied by some group of stupid people that want to continue to lose car sales and lose the performance car war going on right now.

Originally Posted by WOLF

Better than the 90's I think.

In the 90's GM sold more cars than anyone else and now they don't... isn't that their goal? Sales?

Sure it's better than the 90's... but every car maker produces better cars now than a decade ago. It would only make sense...

BTW... "build quality better than Camry?" Sure..., inital build quality is better just like Sonota is... overall reliability is a different story!

[AmIGrand]

WOLF - you know I'm on your side, but I love to play devils advocate, too, and Mike is right in a lot of ways. The amount of developement that went into this car makes the few glaring issues really unforgiveable. Yes, it's better than a lot of what can be had for the money, but it really could - and SHOULD - be the class leader. The tach issues I mentioned are just basic. It is unfathomable to me that performance engineers and test drivers could drive this car around the Nuhrburgring and not hate the tach location and slow response. It seems strange that they would take a perfetly good turbocharged engine, take the time and effort to switch to a blower, and not take the effort to make the gearing and power curve match - a little time with a calculator and a dyno and anybody with basic car skills can do that. While my drive didn't indicate that an LSD is entirely necessary, the fct is that the current "class leader" has it as standard equipment, and the less powerful Mazdaspeed Protege also offers it standard. I love this car. I also wish they would have made the few basic adjustments necessary to make it great, rather than good.

The Quad IS still with us - it's the EcoTec, . They changed the dimensions, upgraded the technology a bit, and went with all aluminum. I consider the LS6 to be a small block Chevy, and I consider the EcoTec to be a Quad4. The upcoming VVT 2.4 version should lay a lot of doubts to rest as to it's potential to be botrh powerful and smooth. Now, as for why they haven't built a performance version of the regular 2.2 - couldn't tell ya, . For the Redline, I understand the thinking - the boosted 2.0 is already there. But a factory built engine takinf advantage of the Eco's substantial potential hasn't come down in production yet, and that's just weird. Time will tell....

[Mike3800]

Originally Posted by AmIGrand

WOLF - you know I'm on your side, but I love to play devils advocate, too, and Mike is right in a lot of ways. The amount of developement that went into this car makes the few glaring issues really unforgiveable. Yes, it's better than a lot of what can be had for the money, but it really could - and SHOULD - be the class leader..

See... I'm not "against" anyone... no "sides" in my eyes. I like GM as much as you and Wolf but I an not going to pretend and be all postive when that's not how I really feel.

Did they steal the 2.4 from Toyota (like the 1.8 in the Vibe) or is it their own thing? If it's their own thing... bout damn time! Still... hate to still nit pick but... 190HP was gained out of a 2.3, a 2.4 with 170HP is getting back on track... that should be a BASE 2.4...

Lastly... you suck for having a W41 Quad 4 engine in your possesion since I don't have one too.

[thehemi]

The Quad 4 is much different than my '96 2.4 DOHC motor?
The 2.4 in my GASE is only 150-hp, but it pulls pretty good.

[AmIGrand]

Well, I don't really have it anymore, that car has been 80% parted out. If I ever find the guy that sold me this POS alone in a dark alley....

The TwinCam 2.4 (LD9) was the next generation Quad after the 2.3's. Although it is a very different motor in a lot of ways, many of the parts are interchangeable with a little work. Come see us over at www.quad4forums.com and do some learnin', . And yes, it does pull very hard - a properly driven manual 2.4 car can hang with cars rated at much higher output. When I raced my '98 GAGT sedan with that engine, I held my own (completely stock) against 3rd and 4th gen Preludes - much to their surprise, . Really, the same goes for the EcoTec - although rated ata "mere" 140 ponies, it has a stupid amount of power under the curve for a non variable cam or intake engine. Although the upcoming 2.4 will have "only" 170 hp, it will have a VERY broad torque curve, making 170 lb ft across a much wider band than the imports. I expect a littel headwork and an aftermarket cam could make really stupid power.

[Mike3800]

Originally Posted by AmIGrand

Well, I don't really have it anymore, that car has been 80% parted out. If I ever find the guy that sold me this POS alone in a dark alley....

sorry to hear that.

Originally Posted by AmIGrand

The TwinCam 2.4 (LD9) was the next generation Quad after the 2.3's. Although it is a very different motor in a lot of ways, many of the parts are interchangeable with a little work.

.... I did know that... I was asking about the new 2.4...

Originally Posted by AmIGrand

a properly driven manual 2.4 car can hang with cars rated at much higher output.

Back in 90 I test drove a brand new BASE Cutlass Calais with the 160HP 2.3 and an AUTOMATIC.... and the front tires broke loose.... I know the deal with those engines! Why do you think I'm all uptite about Ecotec? Yeah... I know what it is cappable of, and it is fairly impressive... but... Nissans 2.5 has 175HP now... that bugs me to death 1. since the 4cyl is bigger and 2. since it has more of a broad torque curve and more peak HP and torque. This should NOT be... It's WRONG I say!!! To further the insult they dropped it into the SENTRA!!! So... who quit GM and moved to Nissan? Afterall that's GM's thinking... big engine.. little car.

They (GM) should cut the BS... throw the 2.2 140HP Eco into the AVEO for the Aveo "Extreme" (have to do something with the engine)... and the base engine in the Cobalt/ION should be the 170HP new 2.4. Then... beef up the internals, lower the compression slightly and throw a blower on THAT and that would make for one mean Ion Redline and SS Cobalt. Don't ya think? It would have sounded SO much better... the 240HP Ion Redline. Imagine putting a smaller SC pulley on THAT!! THEN we'd be talkin'

[AmIGrand]

Actually, I was talking to you and thehemi at the same time, didn't mean to insult anyones knoweledge, . Yeah, I feel ya' on that.....

[Mike3800]

Originally Posted by AmIGrand

Actually, I was talking to you and thehemi at the same time, didn't mean to insult anyones knoweledge, . Yeah, I feel ya' on that.....

No prob I don't claim to be that "knowledgeable" anyway.

[VTECSiGAH8R]

Originally Posted by Mike3800

sorry to hear that.



.... I did know that... I was asking about the new 2.4...





Back in 90 I test drove a brand new BASE Cutlass Calais with the 160HP 2.3 and an AUTOMATIC.... and the front tires broke loose.... I know the deal with those engines! Why do you think I'm all uptite about Ecotec? Yeah... I know what it is cappable of, and it is fairly impressive... but... Nissans 2.5 has 175HP now... that bugs me to death 1. since the 4cyl is bigger and 2. since it has more of a broad torque curve and more peak HP and torque. This should NOT be... It's WRONG I say!!! To further the insult they dropped it into the SENTRA!!! So... who quit GM and moved to Nissan? Afterall that's GM's thinking... big engine.. little car.

They (GM) should cut the BS... throw the 2.2 140HP Eco into the AVEO for the Aveo "Extreme" (have to do something with the engine)... and the base engine in the Cobalt/ION should be the 170HP new 2.4. Then... beef up the internals, lower the compression slightly and throw a blower on THAT and that would make for one mean Ion Redline and SS Cobalt. Don't ya think? It would have sounded SO much better... the 240HP Ion Redline. Imagine putting a smaller SC pulley on THAT!! THEN we'd be talkin'

Hell yeah!! Up the factory ratings so the customers pay way more on insurance and barely get better performance. If Red Line's are dynoing 197-200 whp, that's around 230 hp at the crank, way more than the stock 205 it's rated at, something GM is also famous for with their performance engines, underrating them. I don't have a problem with them rating an engine at 205 if it still puts out 230.

[Mike3800]

Originally Posted by VTECSiGAH8R

Hell yeah!! Up the factory ratings so the customers pay way more on insurance and barely get better performance.

so... insurance for aa Neon SRT4 is really going to be more than an ION? Hmm.... 30 CRANK hp difference... Yeah... I am sure the turbo Neon insurance is higher than the supercharged ION

Exuses excuses... they need to step up to the plate end of story.

[AmIGrand]

Actually, Saturns are usually the cheapest ars on the road to insure for any given model year. Though the Ion isn't as dramatic difdference as the S series was, would be very surprised to find that the Red Line wasn't noteably cheaper to insure than the SRT-4. Especially since most insurance companies consider it a 4 door.

[VTECSiGAH8R]

I'm saying Red Line to Red Line, yes rating it at 85% of actual power is going to make a difference on the insurance of the car. It has nothing to do w/ Red Line vs. SRT-4, I never said that. Would you rather them say it's 230 hp and give you the same power? They'd technically be correct but then you might have to pay more on insurance for a car that performs the same. You might not have to, but why risk it? Who cares as long as the power is there?

Some companies *cough*Mazda and Hyundai*cough* like underrating their cars.

I'm not saying anything about Red Line being a hit over the SRT-4 or whatever. I can see each car has good points, and I think both are marvelous ideas. The basic differences between them now is that the SRT-4 has been out longer and has more OEM support, as well as aftermarket, and it performs better. As to which is a better car, I couldn't tell you. I really like the ideas of both cars. I fail to see how the nonlinear power delivery of the turbo in the stock SRT-4 is preferable to the instant torque Red Line w/ linear power delivery, but I haven't driven either so I can't say which is better. The "feeling" that you're going faster by the turbo is nice, until that "feeling" causes wheelspin all of the sudden at higher speed w/ more boost. But either car is awesome, and yeah GM coulda and shoulda done better.

[AmIGrand]

Mike raised the srt-4 insurance question, so my reply was probably directed towards him.

[AMRAAM4]

Originally Posted by jake3217

True, but GM could have made the 3400 with more power, Honda could have made the I-VTEC with more power, etc. How much power is enough?

I couldn't be happier with the current Ecotec. With 140 hp, 150 torque, and a power curve as flat as Kansas, it's no slouch. Runs like a champ, has more than enough power for some quick acceleration, and with the 30 combined MPG I'm getting, I couldn't be happier.

uhh, your 17 and have a very limited driving experience with cars. That Ecotech with the numbers you displayed is slower than dog p1ss. In fact, the 3400 is doggier than crap as well. Neither of them, especially the Ecotech, offer me a 100% feeling of safety when needing the power unless I have lots and lots of room. If you think your '02 SE is pretty peppy then God help you behind the wheel of a V8 or turbocharged tuner car.