I know wikipedia isn’t always right, but it certainly is a superb resource that I use quite often, although I have to keep up my guard. The other day, MM had a junkyard find of a Cimarron, and he referred to its OHV four as being an “Opel-designed 122 pushrod engine“. And he included that link, which led to a wike page on the GM 122 engine. Now that didn’t seem right at all. I’m not trying to play “gotcha” with MM, but I’m quite certain that the OHV four, which originated with the 1982 J-Cars as a 1.8L, and was eventually made in 2.0 and 2.2 L versions, had absolutely nothing to do with the Opel-designed fours that led to the Brazilian-built SOHC fours also installed in some J-Cars, including the turbo versions.
For one, the bore and stroke of these engine are totally different, usually a good tip-off. And needless to say, the blocks seem to share not the slightest resemblance. As I remember it, the OHV four was developed alongside the Chevy 2.8 V6, and shares some aspects of its design. Not coincidentally, all the OHV fours and the 2.8 V6 have the same 3.50″ bore, usually a pretty good tip-off of communality. The SOHC fours had bores of 3.34″ (1.8) and 3.39″ (2.0).
Here’s wiki’s questionable text:
This engine family, produced by General Motors globally, was originally designed by Opel in Germany. In OHV form, it was available in the US beginning in 1982 for the GM J platform compact cars and S-series trucks, although originally in use from the 1970s globally. It is different than the engine used in the Chevrolet Chevette which was also an Opel design. For the J cars it evolved through 2002 when it was replaced by GMs Ecotec line of DOHC 4-cylinder engines. In the S-10 related models it evolved through 2003 when it was known as the Vortec 2200. Production ceased consistent with the replacement of the S-series trucks with the GMT 355 sub-platform.
On a separate development track, this engine family was also available in a SOHC form. The SOHC version featured a belt-timed valvetrain. The water pump was also driven by the timing belt. For the US market, this version was used primarily from 1983 for the J-body compact cars through 1994 although the turbocharged version did make a brief appearance in the N-body Pontiac Grand Am. The SOHC version also appeared in the Opel Kadett E-based, Daewoo produced, Pontiac LeMans for the US market. Globally the engine then evolved along three paths. One path leading to the C20NE and then the C20XE when it obtained a Lotus-developed DOHC cylinder head and in 2000 was renamed Ecotec. Another smaller variant retained its SOHC design and was known as D-TEC having been licensed and produced by Daewoo. For the Brazilian market the SOHC-equipped engine is currently a member of both GM Family I and II – the larger model being known as Flexpower and the smaller Econoflex which is available in the 2010 Chevrolet Agile.
There’s a whole other wiki page on the GM Family II engine, which seems essentially correct:
The Family II is a straight-4 piston engine that was originally developed by Opel in the early 1970s. It was used in the Opel Ascona and Opel Kadett and their corresponding sister models the Vauxhall Cavalier and Vauxhall Astra. In the US the SOHC engine was available from 1982 to 1990 including a turbocharged version known as LT3.
Over time, the engine evolved to include many modern features such as DOHC and Gasoline direct injection. Family II has also expanded to include a range of Opel-derived 6-cylinder engines. Many General Motors subsidiaries, including Holden, GM do Brasil and recently GM Powertrain have adopted this design. It is also starting to be used in hot rods as an engine swap.
No mention of the Chevy OHV four here. What’s the verdict? Obviously, wiki is all wrong on this one, as the Chevy “GM 122” engine obviously has nothing in common whatsoever with the Opel “Family II” engine. The GM 122 engine was strictly a GM North American engine cobbled up with a few shared parts from the 2.8 V6 engine, in order to meet the bean counters’ cost objectives for the NA J-Car program. Somebody please correct wikipedia!
” I’m quite certain that the OHV four, which originated with the 1982 J-Cars as a 1.8L, and was eventually made in 2.0 and 2.2 L versions, had absolutely nothing to do with the Opel-designed fours that led to the Brazilian-built SOHC fours also installed in some J-Cars, including the turbo versions. ”
True.
Don’t rely on Wiki, look at old car magazines, yes printed media!
I only saved a few, sadly. But I clearly remember reading that.
Interesteing this discussion on the Holden Camira. I am in NZ and we received from GMH the JB Camira with its 1.6 OHC Family 2 Opel based engine. We in NZ did not recieve the JD Camira like Australia did we got the Japanese Camira which was a rebadged Isuzu Aska This was a 2.0ltr or 1.8ltr car with a Japanese Isuz 4ZC1 Engine. This was produced in NZ as the JJ Camira until 1987 whne NZ got the JE Opel based model Camira. I have still a JJ Camira SL/E which has become very rare now and I was a salesman for the local GM franchise at the time. This was a very good car but was followed by conjecture as the JB 1.6 Camira was not popular in New Zealand and left its mark unfortunately.
I had an ’82 Cavalier Type 10 Hatchback with the 1.8l/manual in college, and I’m almost positive it was the Brazilian engine. I don’t remember at this point where I heard that, but it was pre-Internet days, so it may have come from one of my many interactions with Nalley Chevrolet’s parts counter (That’d be Nalley!). Of course, memory isn’t what it was, so maybe my mind is making things up…
The Brazilian SOHC engine was never offered in the Cavalier. The Pontiac, Olds and Buick J-cars offered both the Chevy OHV and the Brazilian SOHC fours.
Interesting world GM 4 banger production was at Fishermans Bend Australia now converted to 6 cylinder world production iy was always assumed the 4s were Opels
I also thought it was strange that the GM OHV fours were developed by Opel and then given a push-rod head specifically for use the the J cars. And I certainly didn’t look up the bore and stroke dimensions because I just assumed it was true. Especially when I considered that the J-body was shared, in highly modified form, with Opel and Isuzu (as well as Vauxhall and Holden which were clones of the Opel and Isuzu, respectively) and assumed that platform had to have come out of Russelheim and not Detroit. But that, I also am unsure of.
As far as I know, the OHV four was only used in NA. I’m quite sure all the other global J-Car derivatives used only versions of the SOHC engine.
Can only speak of the Holden variety they were OHC
And the original JB Camira ( J Car) was a 1.6 liter.
In typical GM style the JD had three engines, the 1.6, the 1.8 TBI and the 1.8 MPI, all OHC and none of them any good
Ah, so there *was* an Isuzu connection! I almost added that to my comment above, and removed it at the last moment.
Apparently whoever I got the idea from about my ’82 having the OHC engine was mixed up on that, too.
I remember the engine being ‘buzzy,’ but fairly free-revving. I can confirm it would pull the hatchback up to 100 mph, although it was about out of breath at that point. This is the car in which I got my last speeding ticket (1985), a six-pointer, if you can believe that from a J car.
Yes, there was an Isuzu connection. Isuzu’s J-body variant was the Aska and from pictures, it looks very typical for Japanese cars at the time (no bad thing). Imagine a Cavalier with a more modern OHC engine by Isuzu, better assembly and an interior which was on par with that of the Accord at the time. Basically, a Cavalier’s skeleton with Japanese flesh.
Holden’s Camira was NOT a clone of the Aska, as I’d said earlier. Although in New Zealand, the the Aska was sold as the Camira JJ after the original car was deemed to be sub-par…. this, according to Wikipedia!
One thing about which I am unclear: was the J-car platform engineered by Opel to be the Ascona, then shared with the other divisions? Or was it designed by GM in Detroit as the Cavalier, et al and then given to Opel and Isuzu to make what they could with it?
I’m pretty sure, but may be wrong, that the J was designed in Detroit. I certainly wouldn’t call assembly by Isuzu to be a good thing, most of what we got in the US was sub par and the reason they were chased out of the US market.
I assumed the J-body was much like Ford’s Erika Escort. To look at the US market Escort, it seems a lot like something Dearborn would give us until you realize it was a cheapened version of a car from Europe. And because Opel needed to make their Ascona FWD anyway, I figured GM Detroit would piggyback the Cavalier off the bones of Russelheim’s design. If the J-car is indeed a Detroit design, though, it’d be the only other Opel-besides the U-body-in my lifetime (I’m 29) based off of a Detroit design that I know of.
Maybe Isuzu quality isn’t the best in the long-term, but in terms of assembly quality and design in general, it still compared favorably with what we got in the Cavalier. Second tier Japanese quality, at the time, was still superior in terms of fit and finish and control precision. It’s why Chrysler’s Colts-built by Mitsu-were so successful.
Anyway, take a look for yourselves and compare with Cavalier or Ascona. I think it reflects the era’s relative superiority of Japan’s workaday models.
Correct, the original Australian Holden Camira bombed here in NZ big time due to poor quality, so GM-NZ imported the Isuzu Aska version and popped the Holden badges on it. Getting a rebadged Aska meant we also got loads of extra features as standard – a/c, cruise, cushy seats, digital dash etc. Very easy to tell the difference – our Australian-sourced Camira had the Hofmeister kink on the rear doors; the Japanese-sourced Camira didn’t, as the following pic shows. Pic is of car on trademe currently.
This question rang a loud bell, go to the bookshelf and grab my very beaten to hell copy of “The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry” by Brock Yates. Refer to pages 30-34. Opening chapter concerns the design and development of the J-car.
To fit the story in a couple of paragraphs, first GM convinced themselves that Americans did not need, or want for that matter, a high-performance overhead cam engine. Never mind that that was one of the big selling points of the Honda Accord, et. al. Then, “There were three choices available to the GM team: the “Family Two” 1.8 liter overhead camshaft four-cylinder from Opel, a compact high-rpm power plant beig manufactured by GM in Germany, Brazil and Australia; a new V-4 overhead valve which could be created by chopping two cylinders from the V-6 engine employed in the larger X-cars; or finally a new Chevrolet-designed four-cylinder engine with the traditional overhead valve layout.”
After going thru a couple of pages regarding the pluses and minuses of each of the three it came down to, “Because Chevrolet was supplying the engines for the American J-car, it was their call.” The Chevy boys didn’t like the Opel designed engine. The Pontiac crew liked the OHC motor. They Chevy boys won out. Therefore the European J-cars got the Opel motor, the American versions got the Chevy.
Very, very fascinating book. If your curious about why the American car industry should have gone belly up 25 years earlier, I heartily recommend a read.
That’s exactly the answer I was looking for, because my intuition told me the same thing. That book is going on my winter reading list; I’m surprised I never got to it before.
Isn’t it ironic that the OHV four also ended up in the Cimarron?
I loved the final paragraph on page 34, ending the engine discussion.
“Yielding to one compromise after another and saving the pennies demanded by an accounting-oriented corporation, General Motors had finally decided on an engine for the new “revolutionary” J-car that was scarcely different from ones that they had been using for over twenty years.”
So let me get this straight. Yates is harping on GM because they chose to manufacture a new engine design here in the US(North America) as opposed to going with another new engine design that was going to be built off shore? What’s not to understand, or am I missing some other point?
Although unlike almost everybody else posting here I happen to think the J-Car was an OK car,even when compared to the Japanese offerings. Funny how Yates was comparing the Accord to the J-Car. I thought it was in the same class as the A-Body. That arguement is like asking which car is the biggest POS IMO. People, the Civic and J-Car were the cheapest offerings on the food chain.
I too wonder what the Cimarron could have been if it was offered with a more European drivetrain.
But one thing I did notice about this site is that you guys seem to only want a Classic if it is turn key. I guess there aren’t any hot rodders in this bunch. Me? I’d be stuffing a C20LET between the strut towers.
BTW Chevy had Hi-Po goodies for the L46/LQ5/LN2 listed in the Chevrolet High Performance Manual back when these engines were available. IIRC lots of big names had success beating the foreign(and domestic) competition with these engines whether it was in a sprint type,formula or production based car.
“the “Family Two” 1.8 liter overhead camshaft four-cylinder from Opel, a compact high-rpm power plant being manufactured by GM in Germany, Brazil and Australia” It could certainly have been built in the US too.
“You guys seem to only want a Classic if it is turn key.” No way! If a Curbside find has an engine swap, all the better. Even a wild swap like the EcoBoost Edsel.
You didn’t get it straight. Given the volumes that the Cavalier was expected to sell at, Chevy needed to build it in the US. They could have just built the SOHC engine here, but chose to design a different engine, the OHV four.
There is no doubt that the OHV engine was developed with time, to deliver much more power, like so many other Chevy engines. But in the form it first arrived in, the 1.8 and early 2.0s, it was almost universally described as an underachiever in both its power and running characteristics. That’s specifically why the SOHC 1.8 was a step-up option in the Pontiac J2000, Olds Firenza and Buick Skyhawks, even if it made two hp less than the 2.0 version of the OHV Chevy four. It was more refined in its characteristics.
The Chevy OHV became a typical GM engine: made long enough (decades), it became a rugged and reasonably powerful engine, but never a refined one, compared to the competition.
The fact that it had competition success meant essentially nothing in terms of what the overwhelming percentage of the buyers in that class were looking for.
We’re not stuck on “turn key”, but generally we do focus more on history as it actually happened rather than the modifications that were/are possible.
Paul,
You really need to read that entire section of the book to catch all the details. There was no way I was going to be able to boil down four pages into three or four paragraphs. Chevrolet had a lot of (manufactured, NIH?) complaints about the OHC engine. The block was a bit too long, it would have been impossible to bore out from 1.8 to 2.0 liters without siamesing the cylinders (which Chevy refused to consider), etc., etc., etc. From Yates’ tone, I’m assuming that a lot of those complaints were really NIH covered over with more rational sounding objections. Then again, the entire point of the first chapter of the book was a detailed analysis of how GM was going to finally design the world car that sent the Japanese packing back over the ocean . . . . . and ended up coming up with an also-ran that didn’t sell nearly up to expectations in the first year or two.
The Accord wasn’t a rival to the A-bodies when the J-car was developed and launched. The Accord got bigger for 1986 and substantially bigger than for 1990. The 1990-93 iteration was very close to the dimensions of the GM A-bodies.
I really don’t recall seeing any ad materials back in the day that compared the J car to the Accord; maybe I’m not remembering it correctly.
I’d always felt that GM positioned the J cars (particularly the non Chevys) as a cut above the K cars and the Escort/Lynx models.
I happen to have really liked my J-body… and “hot rodded” it fairly extensively, although most of that effort went into lightening and suspension work. When the smog pump seized, I simply removed the whole system and plugged the holes in the head – no other work done to the engine.
The car handled like it was on rails, and was comfortable on long trips, too.
Is that an old Type-10 hatch? Tres cool!
The two first gens I liked the most were the mid 80’s Z24 hatch and the contemporary Olds Firenza SX hatch (which was mechanically identical).
But, by then I was already on my second 5.0 Fox body. I thought there was no way you’d find me in a FWD car. Until I got in a friend’s Dodge Shelby Charger turbo…
A ride in a well tuned L body can change minds for sure. I do have a soft spot for the J hatches though. The J2000 had a pretty good looking mug.
“The Pontiac crew liked the OHC motor. The Chevy boys won out.” A specific example of how platform over-sharing eventually destroyed middle brands Pontiac, Olds and Mercury.
What really hurt is that the then-president of GM, Pete Estes, liked the OHC engine. And Chevrolet division still got to shove their design down everybody else’s throats.
I distinctly remember an early non-Chevrolet J car with an OHC badge on the front fender. Here’s a service manual for an OHC Firenza: http://www.faxonautoliterature.com/1982-Olds-Firenza-OHC-4-Cyl-Engine-Repair-Shop-Manual-Original-Supplement–P15491.aspx
Keep in mind that the Olds and Buick versions came out a year later – after the initial stumbles of the Chevrolet, Pontiac and Cadillac versions were very well apparent, documented, and hashed over ad nauseum.
Bit of a typo in the title, if you will. A “Wiki” is a type of website where users can add, edit, and delete content. Wikipedia’s just an encyclopedia Wiki that’s become very well known.
Wikis were invented and named by Oregonian programmer Ward Cunningham. “Wiki” is a Hawaiian word meaning “fast” or “quick”.
Collaborating computer people often use Wikis to collect and share information. Inside the corporate network where I work most development projects use Wikis.
Fixed, just for you! 🙂
Thanks! Just looked at the Wikipedia’s J platform article, which says, “Approximately 10,150,000 GM J platform cars were sold on across eleven marques on six continents from 1982 through 1997, not counting Daewoo Espero sales. Consequently it is the fifth best selling automobile platform in history.”
Fifth best-selling in history. Sigh. McDonalds sells a lot of hamburgers too.
Reminds me of the line from “Christmas Vacation:”
“He worked really hard, Grandpa.”
“So do washing machines…”
Ha!
Yep, the J-body. The car that WAS a success for General Motors, and absolutely nobody who considers himself a true car enthusiast will ever admit to it. Likening the J-body with McDonald’s is a very apt comparison. It was the Big Mac of cars. Sold lots, and few people care to admit they owned one. Probably the closest thing to an anti-status car ever built.
Thirty years from now, I’ll be very curious just how many of them are still around at antique car shows.
My future Barrett-Jackson material. Rarer than a (fake) SS Chevelle!
Did you actually correct the Wikipedia article in question with the (now confirmed) source?
I read that book by Brock Yates. About the 1.8 pushrod, when it was tested and was very slow, GM brass didnt care. They figured buyers would assume “slowness means good MPG” and buy it regardless. BTW, the benchmark Accord was a compact car at that time.
In same book, Yates says when the 2.0 came out for 1983, GM boys were asked ”what can a 1982 owner do to make their motor better?”
“Buy an ’83”.
What kept GM from going belly up sooner? One word ‘Suburbans’.
@ What kept GM from going belly up sooner? One word ‘Suburbans’.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Remember also that the 4 door Suburban did not come out until years after its only competition, the IH Travelall, did so. I have always wondered what would have happened at GM if Ford and Dodge had introduced a credible competitor to the Suburban around 1994-95 (or better yet, 1984-85). Dodge supposedly had one in development based on the 94 Ram but dropped it. Ford hit under and over with the Expedition and Excursion, but did not hit the target until the Expedition EL – which did its best Mopar imitation and hit the market just as the market imploded.
GM may have gone into a tailspin years before it did without any competition in that market.
The 1.8 SOHC left a lot on the table with GM’s cheap route for EFI on it. With a one barrel throttle body injection, response was lazy at best. I had thoughts about swapping the turbo’s port injection setup onto the base head.
My sister had an 84 Sunbird/J2000 and while the basic car was just fine to me, it was let down by the noisy and somewhat rough engine. If you let the 3 speed automatic shift for itself, it was a slug, if you manually shifted it to take advantage of the deeper breathing it was capable of, it did ok, but with no tach in her car, I don’t think I ever got it over 4500 rpm and it did NOT sound happy at high rpm. It was perfectly content to turn 2500-3000 rpm and return 30mpg doing it.
It certainly was better than the Quad OHC that replaced it in her 94 Olds Achieva. That Sunbird was still going strong at 150,000 miles, after my other sister was done with it, the Achieva meanwhile had gone to the junkyard at 140,000 and 10 years due to multiple electronic failures and dad and I’s refusal to fix it anymore.
In my opinion, but also from others, the Quad 4 was thrown together in a hurry, as GM did with Vega/Citation. Kicked it out the door and said ‘See we got a DOHC too now!’.
And let the buyers be ‘Beta testers’, then upsell them into a new “real [bigger] car/truck” when it’s brought back to dealer to get fixed. Which was the plan all along?
Wikipedia, wrong on an automotive matter? Surely you jest!
I don’t understand why those who are not in the know insist on editing the thing based on half-truths and rumour. The other fun one referring to a car of the same period is its allegation that the Ford Tempo is part of the CE14 programme, at a time when Ford wasn’t even using those alphanumeric codes. Never mind there is not a single period reference on the planet to CE14 (the programme was called Topaz, and the Mercury version wound up with that as its nameplate); and even if Ford were using the codes, C stands for the segment (Tempo would have been CD) and E stands for Europe (there was no involvement by Ford of Europe). Now this error has propagated all over the internet, thanks to Wikipedia. The wrongful uses of CE14 outnumbers the correct uses online (Stephen Harper uses it to cite work that he did on the European 1990 Ford Escort, which is the only model the code is associated with; and it is correct on Autocade).
Apologies for taking this slightly off-topic, but I couldn’t resist bringing up another example of why Wikipedia cannot be trusted on automotive matters. You really are better off just asking a proper gearhead or browsing a well informed discussion like the above.
People always confuse the OHC and the OHV engines…sounds like you guys have it straight.
I owned an ’84 Buick Skyhawk Wagon with the 1.8 OHC mated to a Turbo-Hydromatic 125C. It did have a tach. The torque converter seemed to have a high stall speed, and it wound up quite easily. It was a nimble little wagon, that would turn 3k at 60 mph (no overdrive with the 125C). It could turn an honest 25 mpg in town, and 32-24 mpg on the road (60-65 mph; back then the speed limit was still 55 mph). When the compressor cycled–you could feel it at highway speeds.
What I didn’t like about the 1.8 was serviceability, cooling, and it didn’t seem to rugged (head gasket). I didn’t abuse it, and I knew the first owner.
I’ve driven the Chevy 2.0 in a Cavalier Wagon at work, much torquier, and perfered the tighter torque converter with more grunt. Did not notice the AC cycling. May have had one of the new compressors that don’t cycle.
Later I owed two S10 trunks with the 2.2 w/ 5-spd. Slow, but rugged. 192k and counting on the 2001 model. Just now getting to a valve cover gasket on it.