# So I was trying to prove a point... **URL:** \ **Category:** PittSpeed Off Topic\ **Created:** [October 18, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735 "2005-10-18T22:15:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![grandamld9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/48db29/32.png) [@grandamld9](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/grandamld9)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/21 "2005-10-19T16:48:33Z")
> [@SloWhite\_Z](#): > > I’m a big GM fan but the quad 4 is a peice of shit. Sure if u find one that is in good shape they run good but there known for blowing head gaskets right and left and the heads warp real easy. The whole trying to pull out as much hp you can out of a 4 cyl. is just putting more stress on the engine on 4cyl. than what it would be on a 8cyl. engine causing faster wear and tear on the engine. The head gasket issue is common among the early quad 4s when they first came out I.E the 1988-1990. The 086 head is common to warp and crack, but they did away with that head in 92. But really the only quad 4 that has major problems is the 92-93 OHC/SOHC quad 4, these motors were junk, you could almost count on a headgasket or head warpage issue with this motor (the OHC quad 4 really gave the quad 4 family a bad name) If you want to talk about junk motors dont get me started on the GM 60 degree and 90 degree motors. ---
**Author:** ![tjZ28](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de0a6/32.png) [@tjZ28](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/tjZ28)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/22 "2005-10-19T16:50:27Z")
> [@neonmike22](#): > > In my casual research GM doesn’t really seem have anything that compares to those, they generally use a lot more displacement to get that sort of output. Yes… GM uses more displacement to get that sort of HP output and far superior TQ w/ similar mileage. Case-in-point: 2006 Chevrolet Impala Find a Car Fuel Economy Fuel Type Premium MPG (city) 18 MPG (highway) 28 MPG (combined) 22 That’s in a pretty heavy car w/ a 5.3L V8 making 303/323 HP/TQ. -TJ ---
**Author:** ![grandamld9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/48db29/32.png) [@grandamld9](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/grandamld9)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/23 "2005-10-19T16:54:00Z")
> [@Cheeks](#): > > so the quad four made 190 hp from 2.3 liters, later on down the road (read 1997) Honda came out with a 1.8 liter making 195 hp and if you want to go older in 1992, honda had a 1.7 making 170 hp and older than that in japan in 1988-89 they had a 1.6 liter making 160hp well there was the 88-95 quad 4 LO these made 150hp, then there was the 89-94 quad 4 HO that made 180hp and the 90-93 quad 4 W41 that made 190hp. But i was just pointing that out, that GM has made high hp 4 cylinders in the past. [Previous page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735.md?page=1)