2.2 vs 2.4
03-28-2008, 12:00 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-14-2007
Location: SoCAL & Louisville, KY
Posts: 3,365
Remember that the early IROC Z's in the 80's only had 160HP. Look at todays 4 bangers. Nevertheless, I'm glad I insisted on the 2.4.
(I went from a 3 banger (the GEO) to the V6--a bit of difference!
)
03-28-2008, 08:48 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-02-2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,529
Absolutely no complaints with my 2.2L. In the first week after I bought it, 4 adults -- all over 200 pounds each -- drove it all over Middle Tennessee for a total of 1,200 miles, and I had no complaints about the way it ran. I make regular runs from Nashville to Steele Alabama, about 201 miles one way, and go up and over Monteagle Mountain. 6% grade up one side, and 5% up the other. The Buggy has no issues what so ever. Drop it out of D and into I and right on up and over. With great gas mileage to boot. Have driven a lot of 4 cylinders before, and this one beats any of those.
03-28-2008, 09:36 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-26-2007
Location: ...
Posts: 1,554
My 2.2 experience is pretty similar to tim_tenn's. It runs pretty well. I came out of a 300hp '95 Vette and sure my little four banger is no Vette but its got enough go for what I need. Plus I don't have to buy premium fuel any more. You can put regular in the 2.4 but then you're pretty close to same as 2.2 performance because via the electronic spark control the knock sensor is keeping timing pulled back in the 2.4 when 87 octane regular is used.
03-29-2008, 09:37 PM
#16
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 03-19-2008
Location: West Coast
Posts: 12
It sounds like the 2.2. would suffice, I certainly don't want to be buying premium fuel for any reason. Plus, the better deals are accompanying the 2.2s which I already mentioned, are in great abundance here.
03-29-2008, 09:51 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-02-2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,529
Cherokee -- I really don't think you'd regret getting the 2.2L. I drove Toyotas in the late 70's through the late 80's, and thought the 2.4L in my Celica GT and my SR5 pickup was a pretty strong engine with agreeable gas mileage. I would say this 2.2L Ecotec is at lest as good as that 2.4L was, and probably smoother and quieter. I drove a '96 Olds Achieva SC with the Iron Duke 4 cylinder with a manual transmission and absolutely hated it. It was pretty much gutless, and forget having any sort of power when you turned on the air conditioner. My HHR would run rings around that Olds andget better mileage doing it.
03-30-2008, 01:54 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: 12-14-2007
Location: Toronto ON Canada
Posts: 2,964
The 2.2 likes to rev higher than other engines I have had. If you keep the auto tranny in "I", it will stay around 3000 rpm where the power is. I find that more satisfying, feels like a manual. 
Anyone find any ill effects from doing that regularly?
Anyone find any ill effects from doing that regularly?
03-30-2008, 02:23 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-30-2006
Location: Maryland Heights, MO
Posts: 9,149
03-30-2008, 07:05 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: 12-28-2005
Location: Worcester County, MA
Posts: 2,531
I don't drive like I am in the Indy 500, so I don't see the real difference. I tested the 2.4 before I bought mine with the 2.2 in 2005. Sometimes I wish it had a bit more pep, (the car, not me) but I keep up with everyone just fine, and my gas mileage is great compared to lots of other vehicles on the road.