8th Jun 2002, 10:43

The 2.8 that was in your car originally had 130 HP and 165 lb/ft of torque. Since you put the 3.1 in, then you have 140 HP and 185 lb/ft of torque. NOT mid 200's! Your car just feels really fast because it is such a light car. (2700 pounds)

11th Jun 2002, 08:24

Unless your car is super-charged i'd have to agree with the other two fellows. A stock 2.8L and 3.1L doesn't push mid 200hp. It might have enough torque to beat a Camaro though. Depends on what year and model. And even in the long run the Camaro would beat you.

23rd Dec 2009, 20:20

I love Z24s, no need to talk about them, I have one and its been like using craftman's tools forever.

20th Aug 2010, 14:03

I have a 1989 Chevy Cavalier Z24 with a 3.1 liter engine...

I had a problem with the car dying and not running, but we replaced the oil sensor and it runs fine now.

Parts ain't all that expensive; fairly cheap if you ask me... DON'T let the car run hot, pretty much for any car, mine is in pretty good condition. You must have bought a lemon. I got a 2008 Tacoma, and that truck is a piece of crap; it's a lemon, but not all of 'em.

I recommend a Cavalier for fuel economy, reliability, and cost.

21st Aug 2010, 09:50

That would be a 2.8 Liter V6 if it is the original engine. The 3.1 wasn't used until 1990 in the Z24.

30th Sep 2010, 08:45

I have a black 89 Z24, and it CAME FACTORY WITH A 3.1. I know that for a fact, because I bought the car with a 3.1 brand new. I recently had a problem with the car dying, replaced oil sensor, runs fine now. I absolutely LOVE my car.

I did research, and the 3.1 engines are rated up there with the Corvettes, not in HP, but in durability. Parts are fairly cheap (if you ask me), but hard to work on because of the lack of space.

30th Sep 2010, 14:38

"I have a black 89 Z24, and it CAME FACTORY WITH A 3.1. I know that for a fact, because I bought the car with a 3.1 brand new."

If that is so, then you better research your car further. The 3.1 was not introduced on the Z24 until the 1990 model year. You can research this fact pretty easily anywhere on the Internet. I had a first year 1990 with the then new engine in it. I knew many people who had '89's and they all had 2.8's in them. Either yours is actually a '90 sold as an '89, or there is something else wrong with it.

Facts are facts though, so something is awry with your car if it is actually a 3.1 car that is a 1989. Either way, you made out good on it, as this engine was an improvement over the 2.8.

12th Oct 2010, 15:47

This is true. You can even look at all of the '89's listed on this site they are all listed with 2.8 V6's except one that was replaced with a 3.1 after the fact and they listed it that way.