Talk:GM Ecotec engine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LTG and LSY[edit]

The article implies that the LSY is a development of the LTG, I don't think that's the case. They have the same capacity, but the LSY is a longstoke engine and the LTG is square.

I believe the LTG was developed by Opel from the Family II engine, whereas the LSY is in fact derived from the smaller Family I engine (or something else ?), and then stroked out.


Opel developed the Family engines in the early 1980s, derived in part from the design work on the CIH Opel engine and the Duratech engine used in the Vega.

The Family II was the big bore engine and the Family I the small bore. The both had cast iron blocks and timing belts tensioned by a rubber block on the water pump.

Later in the 1980s, the Family 0 was developed with an even smaller bore engine with a timing chain.


In the 1990s, the engines were redesigned :

- The Family I had a thin wall cast iron block, and a timing belt tensioned with a sprocket rather than a block.

- The Family II had an aluminium block with cast iron liners and a timing chain.

- The Australian engine, designated Family II, continued with a cast iron block and a belt tensioned by a rubber block, but had a new 16 valve cylinder head. This was used on the Daewoo Winstorm (Captiva) and Nubira.


GM currently produces two 3/4 cyilnder engine ranges afaik, the Family I capacity engines with timing belts and electroplated bores (1.0T 3, 1.2T 3, 1.5T 4), and the Family II engines with cast iron liners (2.0T), both with aluminium blocks.(The 1.5T four in the Baojun is a derivation of the Suzuki Geo Metro engine).60.231.232.112 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SKU codes[edit]

See Talk:List of GM engines#SKU codes for a (incomplete) list of SKU codes used in Opel cars, including some past Family II Ecotecs.

Tables[edit]

Can someone move the model information into tables. One engine has been done, but the rest require tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydbot (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Rods[edit]

Who uses this thing in hot rods? While GM says that the ECOTEC is the new small block of the tuner generation, who's actually made a "hot rod" with this thing? I think associating "hot rod," a term used for highly modified vehicles which generally use American V8 engines, with the ECOTEC is both unfounded and untrue. kevinthenerd 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, this family of engine has been used in sever drag racing cars making over 1,000 hp. 99.24.136.248 (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ariel Atom uses Ecotecs

L34[edit]

A bore of 86 mm and a stroke of 88 mm for a four cylinder engine does not result in a 2.0 L displacement. Kevinthenerd 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does -> V=πr²h, or π(86/2)²(88) -> 511174.82mm³ per cylinder -> 2044699.30mm³ total displacement, or 2044.70cc, or 2.0L (rounded to 2 significant digits) 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

V6 engines[edit]

What V6 engines are doing in an article for an inline-4 engine - just because they once bore the same Ecotec nameplate? Move them to GM High Feature engine or any other relevant article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.239.120 (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L61 compression[edit]

Most info says the ratio is 10:1. One says 9.5 or 10:1. If 10:1 is 'higher', then the 9.5:1 is normal? AMCKen (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Displacement[edit]

The LE5 should be the same as the LE9 since they have the same bore/stroke.

The LAP and LE8 should be 2198cc (134.1cuin), not 2189 as that's what 86x94.6 gives. AMCKen (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split Ecotec[edit]

Is there any interest in splitting the Ecotec engines into their own article, leaving the original Opel Family II engines here? --Vossanova o< 15:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I, propose that the SOHC GM 122 engines be merged with the 1990's section of this article.VX1NG (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are correct. While researching this article a few years back I uncovered more complexity and never went back and moved things around - partially because 1) the GM Fam I and II pages were such large projects and 2) There is little information on the OHV engine. I intended to go back and devote more time however, clearly, I didn't do that. My sincere apologies to the wiki and internet-automotive communities.

More research is needed as the history and evolution is unclear to me. I think there are 3 threads and perhaps they converge and diverge? Opel OHV engine -> C16XE? -> GM Family 1 engine Opel OHC engine? -> this OHC "Brazil" engine -> GM Family II engine (*) (Opel OHV engine?) -> Cavalier engine (GM 122) -> Vortec 2200 -> end?

  • This may be a divergence and may be illustrated by the differences between the C20NE and the C20XE. Perhaps the C20XE became the Fam II and the C20NE became the Flexpower (Brazil)? This is odd because the Econoflex (Brazil) which I believe is a Fam 0 has a similar distributor location to the engine we are talking about. In addition Daewoo is heavily involved so maybe the 2 Opel engines (OHV and OHC) spawned Fam 0, fam 1 and fam II which is an interesting story in itself. So you can see why once I uncovered all this I was leary to go back - especially when there are so many with much more knowledge of Fam 1 and II than I - so I was overwhelmed.

So to the point: Was "GM122" a GM NA design which started in the '82 Cavalier and ended in the 2003 S-10 with no history before or after? Or was it somehow intertwined with the 2 Opel engines that evolved into Fam 0, 1 and II - with independent variants in NA, Germany, Brazil, Korea and Australia(?) Complex issue.

I am happy to help the community however I am at the end of my knowledge. I very much enjoy the history of automotive engines and will help when I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toneron2 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal[edit]

I don't have any information on GM 122 engine and how it is related to Family II. However, I feel that this article has always been US-centric - in fact, in the beginning it was named GM Ecotec engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) until I renamed it some 7 years ago - and mostly contained the description of all-aluminum global versions launched in 2000s in the US to replace all earlier North American inline-4 designs.

Rather than merging, I would rather suggest to split this article into two separate entries.

The current one should be named "GM Family II engine (Ecotec)", "GM Family II engine (L850)", "GM Family II engine (2000s)", etc., or maybe even left as it is. The article should primarily address the all-aluminum Ecotec generation that started in 2000s, just as it does now.

The new one should be named "GM Family II engine (1978-1999)", GM Family II engine (1980s-1990s)", "GM Family II engine (pre-2000s)", "Opel Family II engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)", etc. This should contain historical pre-Ecotec versions that are currently listed in "1990s" section and should merge information from the various orphaned "x20xxx" articles (such as 20NE, 20SE, 20SEH, C20NE, C20XE, C20LET, and X20XEV.) If you feel that GM 122 OHV engine belongs there, then merge it too.

Then of course there's an issue with older Australian and Korean D-TECs, as well as Brazilian Family II engines, but these can be given separate articles or subsections, since they probably belong to original 1980s cast iron design and not the newer all-aluminum global Ecotec. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 14:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move: no ageement in 36 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GM Family II engine → General Motors Ecotec engine – All General Motors literature refers to this engine family as the Ecotec engine family. See:http://gmpowertrain.com/product_guide/REV_FP_2014_Information_Guide_102213.pdf, http://gmpowertrain.com/Libraries/Product_information/2013_4FRev_Information_Guide_091012.sflb.ashx, http://papers.sae.org/2000-01-1392/ and http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2002/02/07/035471.html --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC) VX1NG (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Couldn't this name describe any of the engines listed at Ecotec? --BDD (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Proposed title is highly ambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the engines listed at Ecotec aren't referred to as such, they should be removed. Perhaps you can help with this. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The engines listed at Ecotec have used the name but only for non-technical purposes; i.e. marketing. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
only for non-technical purposes; i.e. marketing - That suggests to me that common usage of the term Ecotec does include all of the engines listed there, and that the proposed title for this article General Motors Ecotec engine is therefore simply unacceptable, being misleading and even inaccurate, in terms of WP:AT. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the current title is also ambiguous, as it could equally refer to the Opel Family II engines. Good point. We need an alternative proposal for a new name for this article, I think. Relisting to allow time to find one. Andrewa (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to try and explain what happened. Originally there were two engine families located in this article. The "original" Family II engines (cast iron block, belt driven) and the Ecotec engines (all-aluminum, chain-driven). The "original" Family II engine was used as a starting point for the Ecotec design, but due to the extensiveness of the changes and the evolution of the design it is considered its own engine family now. So, to end the confusion between the "original" Family II engines and the Ecotec engines, I moved the "original" Family II engines information to Opel Family II engine and I am now trying to complete the split between the two by moving the Ecotec engines to a more appropriate name. That is pretty much everything in a nutshell. The only other two article name suggestions I can think of at the moment are General Motors Family II engine (Ecotec) or General Motors Ecotec engine family. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that this article is now intended to cover all and only those engines that are closely derived from Family II but are all-aluminium, chain driven?
Ecotec alone does not seem sufficient to distinguish these from all other GM engines, so General Motors Ecotec engine family seems inadequate. Similarly GM Family II engine includes other engines... the iron-block, belt driven ones. General Motors Family II engine (Ecotec) is cumbersome.
Do the engines you propose to cover have enough in common to even warrant an article? If so, what's the common name for this series of engines? If it doesn't have one, then I'm skeptical that we even need an article grouping them together. We may... are there reliable sources that group these engines together? What do they call them? Andrewa (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, While, the engines currently found at GM Family II engine are derived from the original Opel Family II engines they are vastly different. All of the engines in the GM Family II article currently are based on the original Ecotec engine family design which was introduced around 2000. GM groups the engines together under the Ecotec engine family name; Ecotec is also the common name for these engines. Here is a source talking about the GEN II-Ecotec: http://www.gmpowertrain.com/PowertrainFiles/Engine/Stories/12_LHU%20Ecotec1.doc. Here is a source talking about the GEN III-Ecotec engines: http://articles.sae.org/11466/. In my opinion the best way to fix this is to move the list currently found at Ecotec to Ecotec (disambiguation) and to move GM Family II engine to Ecotec and have a top hat comment linking to Ecotec (disambiguation). With regards, VX1NG (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Info[edit]

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57315&d=1384476402 http://europe.autonews.com/article/19990802/ANE/908020826/global-gm-effort-creates-new-engine

Requested move II[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GM Family II engine → L850 engine – To end confusion with Family II engine, I propose that the information currently found at GM Family II engine be moved to L850 engine

Here's a link to GM's website citing Rita Forst as a group engineer who managed "...design and development activities for the L850 light-alloy engine series." [1]

See also:

  • "GM engine family goes global". Wards Auto. December 1, 1995. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
  • "L850 MUST SATISFY A WIDE RANGE OF TASTES". autonews.com. August 2, 1999. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
  • Williams, Fred (December 16, 1998). "GM PLANT IN GERMANY TO SHARE TONAWANDA'S L850 ENGINE". Retrieved 13 August 2014.
  • Robinson, Aaron. "GLOBAL GM EFFORT CREATES NEW ENGINE". Retrieved 13 August 2014.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by VX1NG (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 17:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: as per WP:Common name—L850 is an obscure name. L850 is for the 86 mm bore applications, and L880 for 88 mm bore. The engine is a development of (read: new generation of) the Opel Family II engine, so I would propose that they be merged back together as GM Family II engine because the current structure is highly confusing. We can then state all the various marketing and engineering terms attached to it. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OSX, I am unable to find any information that confirms that L880 was used for 88 mm bore applications. Also, the reason for separation is due to extensiveness of the changes. The L850, Ecotec, etc.... was joint effort design between Opel, Saab, Holden, and GM Powertain, not merely a revised Family II engine. It would be the same as Triumph Slant-4 engine and Saab H engine sharing the same article. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the L880, that came from the article itself. I cannot verify it either. I understand the two Family II engines are very different, but something needs to be done about the naming structure. We could make a single page, spit into first and second generations. Or two articles: GM Family II engine (first generation) and (second generation). I believe all the GM engine pages should have "GM" in the title as this is the established protocol for auto engines (just about all other engines are following this company first structure). OSX (talk • contributions) 00:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I have with having GM Family II engine (first generation) and (second generation) is the fact, I have been unable to find any source (that doesn't quote Wikipedia) that calls these engines Family II engines; from everything I have read GM refers to these as either the Ecotec engine, the L850 engine, the Large Gasoline Engine (LGE), or the Global Four Cylinder. That's why (as you can see from above) I am being so persistent about changing the name. And I am on board with the idea that "GM" should be in the titles of articles, except for the confusion on which name gets put in the article title, GM or the division (i.e. Opel, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, etc...) originally responsible for the design. Also, the reason I started removing "GM" from many of the engine articles names, is because I ran into editors who took issue with the articles not following WP:Common name, so I started switching the articles to more "WP:Common name-friendly" names. Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I too found sources difficult to find referencing the post-2000 design as a second generation Family II. Since GM Ecotec engine is the official (and common name), I'd go with that. It is not ideal in the sense that the old "Ecotec" moniker has been thrown around by marketeers for other unrelated engines, but I am sure this can worked around with hatnotes. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OSX, what do you think of this proposal? Step 1: Move the current info at GM Family II engine to GM Ecotec engine and move information at Ecotec to Ecotec (disambiguation) and insert a top hat comment on the "new" GM Ecotec engine article that links to Ecotec (disambiguation). Step 2: Fix all the links to GM Family II engine and have page redirect to either Family II engine or Opel Family II engine. Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds mostly ok to me:
I think GM Family II engine should become the new name for the old 1980s Opel Family II engine. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative of GM Ecotec engine. Thanks, OSX. VX1NG (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GM Ecotec engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GM_Ecotec_engine&oldid=1202297427"