I agree with you 110% I keep looking at the SS-non SC thinking this car is a steal.

A 2.4-- no stupid wing, 17's(I doubt the 18's will help you race), leather interior, possibly a 5 speed, and it will cost probably 3K less.

Guess what......a supercharger will probably cost ......3K. You'll still have the SS and a more sleeper version of it.

Someone in here posted that the 2.2 Ecotec engine(current Cavelier--future Cobalt) has.....a supercharger that gets to 225 hp?


So imagine the 2.4 supercharger.......yes I hate losing the color-keyed inserts, but for 3K I'll take a supercharger and blow the stock SS-SC away.

I really hope this car holds up in the long run and doesn't fall apart squeak or squeal or anything like that.

 

The 2.0 ecotec is made for european cars, such as Saab. The 2.0 motor is all forged, so while you are cracking pistions, snapping rods, and destroying cranks... the 2.0 is still going strong. The 2.0 is power-adder ready.

And that 2.0 in the RSX-S is very high strung and puts out very low torque. The SC 2.0 not only would probably be faster, but the ability to modd the 2.0 is just about endless.
If you spend 3k on an aftermarket turbo or supercharger kit, and you put equal amount into the SC 2.0, I will bet that you will lose. You could probably put in half of the money into the SC 2.0 and still outpower the 2.4. Remember, you cant dail in some 24psi of boost because you will be in trouble. But in my 2.0 motor that is built like a brick chit house... it keeps going and going and going...

My problem is why didnt GM put a turbo on the 2.0 instead of a supercharger? Any mo-mo that watches The Fast and the Furious knows that the sound of a blow off valve makes kids cream. Supercharger whine might just make them do a double take. But I have been promised that I will see some turbo 2.0's and 2.2's coming.

 

Agree with the 2.4 being a better engine comment. Hopefully, the engine will be the only difference between the versions (I want the color inserts also).

 

Originally posted by bigals87z28@Jun 22 2004, 07:49 AM
The 2.0 ecotec is made for european cars, such as Saab. The 2.0 motor is all forged, so while you are cracking pistions, snapping rods, and destroying cranks... the 2.0 is still going strong. The 2.0 is power-adder ready.

And that 2.0 in the RSX-S is very high strung and puts out very low torque. The SC 2.0 not only would probably be faster, but the ability to modd the 2.0 is just about endless.
If you spend 3k on an aftermarket turbo or supercharger kit, and you put equal amount into the SC 2.0, I will bet that you will lose. You could probably put in half of the money into the SC 2.0 and still outpower the 2.4. Remember, you cant dail in some 24psi of boost because you will be in trouble. But in my 2.0 motor that is built like a brick chit house... it keeps going and going and going...

My problem is why didnt GM put a turbo on the 2.0 instead of a supercharger? Any mo-mo that watches The Fast and the Furious knows that the sound of a blow off valve makes kids cream. Supercharger whine might just make them do a double take. But I have been promised that I will see some turbo 2.0's and 2.2's coming.

Im sure that the internals are beefed up for the 2.0 because of the forced induction, but why couldn't they do the same with the 2.4 and use that motor? It is probably because Gm is so cheap and they already had the 2.0L motor in production. It is this kind of corner cutting that keeps GM an afterthough in the small car biz. Chrysler spent some serious effort and money into developing the SRT-4 powerplant. Gm just digs into the parts bin

 

Originally posted by 2HOTZ28@Jun 22 2004, 04:37 PM
Chrysler spent some serious effort and money into developing the SRT-4 powerplant. Gm just digs into the parts bin

If Chrysler wanted a reasonably modern turbo 4, what were their choices? What is in their parts bin that they could have used?

Chrysler spending money to develop the 2.4 turbo doesn't make them noble. It just means that they didn't have a choice. Meanwhile, GM has a modern, proven 2.0 completely developed and ready. I know which motor I would trust to hold up in the long run.

 

Originally posted by 2HOTZ28@Jun 22 2004, 11:37 AM
Chrysler spent some serious effort and money into developing the SRT-4 powerplant. Gm just digs into the parts bin

chrysler went to the parts bin too, but they call it mitsubishi.

 

People, Most Rally Racing leagues allow a Maximum displacement of 2.0L, maybe GM is trying to kick up its standings in Rally Sports along with it's SCCA cars. Besides that the Stock SS is getting an Automatic 4-Speed Transmission, not a 5 or 6 speed Manual.

 

Originally posted by IMPALAon20s+Jun 22 2004, 12:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (IMPALAon20s @ Jun 22 2004, 12:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-2HOTZ28@Jun 22 2004, 11:37 AM
Chrysler spent some serious effort and money into developing the SRT-4 powerplant. Gm just digs into the parts bin

chrysler went to the parts bin too, but they call it mitsubishi. [/b][/quote]
The SRT-4 engine is Chrysler....not Mitsubishi. Currently, Chrysler doesn't use any Mitsubishi engines in vehicles built in North America by Chrysler.

 

Originally posted by bigals87z28@Jun 22 2004, 07:49 AM
If you spend 3k on an aftermarket turbo or supercharger kit, and you put equal amount into the SC 2.0, I will bet that you will lose.

Nah, my point was.....the SS-SC will probably be ~21K the SS-non SC will probably be ~18K. Use the difference to get an aftermarket SC for the 2.4L.


So in the end SS-SC ~21K.
And on the other hand SS-nonSC ~18K + aftermarket supercharger ~3K = ~21K.

 

Originally posted by Hudson+Jun 22 2004, 06:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hudson @ Jun 22 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-IMPALAon20s@Jun 22 2004, 12:19 PM
chrysler went to the parts bin too, but they call it mitsubishi.

The SRT-4 engine is Chrysler....not Mitsubishi. Currently, Chrysler doesn't use any Mitsubishi engines in vehicles built in North America by Chrysler. [/b][/quote]
Double check motortrend.com .....the competition between the SRT-4, SVT Focus wagon, and the Mazda (3 or 6)?

They quote a Mits. Eclipse turbocharger on the SRT engine.

Neon specs

The Neon SRT-4 has a Mitsubishi TD04 Turbocharger that boosts anywhere from 11 to 14 psi

 

Originally posted by Mestizo+Jun 22 2004, 06:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mestizo @ Jun 22 2004, 06:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Hudson@Jun 22 2004, 06:13 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-IMPALAon20s

@Jun 22 2004, 12:19 PM
chrysler went to the parts bin too, but they call it mitsubishi.

The SRT-4 engine is Chrysler....not Mitsubishi. Currently, Chrysler doesn't use any Mitsubishi engines in vehicles built in North America by Chrysler.

Double check motortrend.com .....the competition between the SRT-4, SVT Focus wagon, and the Mazda (3 or 6)?

They quote a Mits. Eclipse turbocharger on the SRT engine.

Neon specs

The Neon SRT-4 has a Mitsubishi TD04 Turbocharger that boosts anywhere from 11 to 14 psi [/b][/quote]
Additionally, the 3.0 V6 used in the Stratus and Sebring 2-doors is a Mitsu engine (pulled straight from the Eclipse).

 

Originally posted by TaHoE@Jun 22 2004, 05:30 PM
Besides that the Stock SS is getting an Automatic 4-Speed Transmission, not a 5 or  6 speed Manual.

Cobalt Review

Ok I'm not a GM engineer and I don' have the inside scoop, but I found the article above.

It says:
The Cobalt, on which this new generation of Super Sports is based, will debut in late 2004 as a 2005 model. Journalists were recently allowed a close-up look at some of the various Cobalt models. The examples shown were prototypes, but they're said to be practically indistinguishable from what the final production versions will be. There were no opportunities to drive them, but all present were allowed to look them over closely inside and out, giving a good opportunity to see this significant new performance car firsthand.
Cobalt SS is available as a four-door sedan or two-door coupe. It has a 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine that makes 170 horsepower, 30 more than the 2.2-liter of base, LS, and LT models. Available transmissions in the SS are standard 5-speed manual or optional 4-speed automatic. Also included in the SS are sport-tuned suspension; disc instead of drum rear brakes; 17-inch alloy wheels; and unique trim.
----------------------
Also someone in our forum knew a person who tested a "protoype" Cobalt, with the orange construction stripes on it.

They had a 2.4 with a 5 speed.

Of course non of this has been finalized; as no Cobalt has been made so to say right now that the Cobalt will be one way or the other is foolish. The Cobalt webpage hasn't been updated in a while, so saying the webpage says so isn't a good way to judge. The webpage also claims that the SS-SC boasts a 205, but the Saturn Ion Redline dynoed a 225.....so the webapge isn't 100% correct either.

Also Chevy would be smart to have an ace up their sleeve before giving away ALL their tricks.

 

Originally posted by Hudson+Jun 22 2004, 06:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hudson @ Jun 22 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by IMPALAon20s@Jun 22 2004, 12:19 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-2HOTZ28

@Jun 22 2004, 11:37 AM
Chrysler spent some serious effort and money into developing the SRT-4 powerplant. Gm just digs into the parts bin

chrysler went to the parts bin too, but they call it mitsubishi.

The SRT-4 engine is Chrysler....not Mitsubishi. Currently, Chrysler doesn't use any Mitsubishi engines in vehicles built in North America by Chrysler. [/b][/quote]
Its a Mitsu engine, get to know your facts

 

The 2.4 turbo engine comes from Mexico where they have had it in some cars for years. They didnt "develop" anything. Its been around for some time.
The turbo is all Mitsu, and I belive the 2.4 is a larger 2.2 found in DSM's. GM did the same exact thing DCX did. Took a proven power added engine, but it into a small car and made a lot of power. GM didnt cut corners, but probably didnt want to lose anymore ground on the Sport Compact world after leaving the Cavi and Sunfire to duke it out. They wanted to get back into peoples heads with a powerful engine in a brand new car that import kids might actualy take a look at. They had a proven strong engine that was made for turbo or supercharging. BINGO! So instead of developing a whole new turbo/sc program and waiting 5 years to release it, and in that time have everyone yell at GM because they didnt use what they had to at least get there foot in the door, they grabed what they had from Saab, and there ya go.
And the 2.0 SC motor doesnt just make 200hp. They tested the Ion redline at 200 to the wheels, so figure 240hp at the crank for the 2.0 SC.
So you spend 3k and you get the same results with zero warranty. Sounds like a deal to me!!
Also, the 2.4 isnt even in prodcution, and we are already crying foul that GM is cutting corners. AMAZING!! GM is always wrong!

 

Originally posted by bigals87z28@Jun 22 2004, 07:49 AM
The 2.0 ecotec is made for european cars, such as Saab. The 2.0 motor is all forged, so while you are cracking pistions, snapping rods, and destroying cranks... the 2.0 is still going strong. The 2.0 is power-adder ready.

Then 2HOT Z28 wrote:

Im sure that the internals are beefed up for the 2.0 because of the forced induction, but why couldn't they do the same with the 2.4 and use that motor? It is probably because Gm is so cheap and they already had the 2.0L motor in production. It is this kind of corner cutting that keeps GM an afterthough in the small car biz. Chrysler spent some serious effort and money into developing the SRT-4 powerplant. Gm just digs into the parts bin

Then bigals8728 wrote:

Also, the 2.4 isnt even in prodcution, and we are already crying foul that GM is cutting corners.  AMAZING!!  GM is always wrong!

Basically you've said that the 2.4 isn't as reliable as the the 2.0 SC, but then you say we can't judge yet? :blink:

True, the 2.4 hasn't been developed, so is it a fact that every tuner using the 2.4 will have more engine probs developing than the 2.0? Maybe, but in the end I'd rather work with the 2.4.

I could be wrong though the 2.0 could be a good choice as you could use that huge wing to fly away. I doubt those 18's are going to help this car.

Think of it this way, a stock GT Mustang won't have 18's but a Cobalt will? That's a cosmetic feature that will most likely hinder performance, but it's too early to say at this point.

 

Originally posted by bigals87z28@Jun 22 2004, 08:38 PM
Also, the 2.4 isnt even in prodcution, and we are already crying foul that GM is cutting corners. AMAZING!! GM is always wrong!

If they were always right, they wouldn't be getting creamed by Honda and Toyota in compact car sales.

 

Originally posted by Mestizo+Jun 23 2004, 07:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mestizo @ Jun 23 2004, 07:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bigals87z28@Jun 22 2004, 07:49 AM
The 2.0 ecotec is made for european cars, such as Saab.  The 2.0 motor is all forged, so while you are cracking pistions, snapping rods, and destroying cranks... the 2.0 is still going strong.  The 2.0 is power-adder ready.

Then 2HOT Z28 wrote:

Im sure that the internals are beefed up for the 2.0 because of the forced induction, but why couldn't they do the same with the 2.4 and use that motor? It is probably because Gm is so cheap and they already had the 2.0L motor in production. It is this kind of corner cutting that keeps GM an afterthough in the small car biz. Chrysler spent some serious effort and money into developing the SRT-4 powerplant. Gm just digs into the parts bin

Then bigals8728 wrote:

Also, the 2.4 isnt even in prodcution, and we are already crying foul that GM is cutting corners.  AMAZING!!  GM is always wrong!

Basically you've said that the 2.4 isn't as reliable as the the 2.0 SC, but then you say we can't judge yet? :blink:

True, the 2.4 hasn't been developed, so is it a fact that every tuner using the 2.4 will have more engine probs developing than the 2.0? Maybe, but in the end I'd rather work with the 2.4.

I could be wrong though the 2.0 could be a good choice as you could use that huge wing to fly away. I doubt those 18's are going to help this car.

Think of it this way, a stock GT Mustang won't have 18's but a Cobalt will? That's a cosmetic feature that will most likely hinder performance, but it's too early to say at this point. [/b][/quote]
Ok, first off, any forged engine will fair much better then a non forged. So there for the 2.0 that is forged will hold up to a lot more power then the 2.4 without the strength. Thats a given no matter what. Take a look at the new 03/04 Cobras and ask yourself why they are making 500, 600+hp on a stock block? All forged. The Gen III's on the other hand, are not. They need to be rebuilt with stronger parts to handle the loads that the Cobra takes from the factory. The 2.0 has this same strength and it will be the building block of a lot of very quick pocket rockets. 2k in mods could have you going low 13's or faster. Why spend the extra money on coming up with a whole new line up for the 2.4 when the 2.0 is already there?
On the other side, GM isnt cheap. Producing forged internals for the 2.4 would cost a lot more then just taking a proven and already available engine. Take a look at forged pistons vs cast prices.
Again, they did like Dodge did and took a proven 2.4 that was already turbocharged and put it in the neon.
Could there be a larger future for the 2.4 as it comes on line? Yeah. And thats what I mean by jumping to the fact that GM is "cheap". GM is just releasing the engine, and Im sure that with time we will see higher performance models, but right now, GM is being "cheap" and going to introduce this hi-po engine in n/a form for the Solstice, Cobalt, and G6.
From what I understand, the Cobalt SS's 2.0 SC motor is more of a foot in the door approach to the sport compact game. Personaly, I think they chose the wrong power adder, but thats another thread.
If you want to call GM cheap for making a 20k 205hp supercharged coupe with a 5spd and tons of goodies in the brand new Cobalt cheap... then thats up to you. And the wing and wheel comment is dismissable as thats what the market wants. Thats like saying they will make a Corvette with a turbo diesel, 3 inch lift, smoke stacks and 34 inch tires with 4wd. People looking at the Cobalt SS will be into the wings and rims along with the other tuner performance parts.
I hope the aftermarket really opens its arms to the Cobalt. The Ecotec line is a great line up of engines, and they can make plenty of power as proven by GM themselves.


And GM must be doing something right. They have only been the #1 car company since the 1930's.

 

Actually GM sells more compact cars in the US than either Toyota or Honda...

Chevrolet Cavalier
Pontiac Sunfire
Saturn ION

All these cars added together, wether fleet or retail sales...make GM a leader in compact car sales.

Actually, I think that the Cavalier by itself is one of the best selling small cars in the US, with more than 250,000 sold a year.

As someone from GM said before..."well sell more small cars than anyone else...we also make less money on small cars than anyone else"

 

Originally posted by TaHoE@Jun 22 2004, 05:30 PM
People, Most Rally Racing leagues allow a Maximum displacement of 2.0L, maybe GM is trying to kick up its standings in Rally Sports along with it's SCCA cars. Besides that the Stock SS is getting an Automatic 4-Speed Transmission, not a 5 or 6 speed Manual.

The SS gets a manual in June of 2005.

 

Originally posted by bigdaddycoats+Jun 23 2004, 02:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigdaddycoats @ Jun 23 2004, 02:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TaHoE@Jun 22 2004, 05:30 PM
People, Most Rally Racing leagues allow a Maximum displacement of 2.0L, maybe GM is trying to kick up its standings in Rally Sports along with it's SCCA cars.  Besides that the Stock SS is getting an Automatic 4-Speed Transmission, not a 5 or  6 speed Manual.

The SS gets a manual in June of 2005. [/b][/quote]
Any way to prove this?

 

I don't believe the forged reason because the 2.4 can be built with forged internals just like any other engine. What would make more sense is if the 2.0 has thicker cylinder walls than the 2.4. With the artificial boost the cylinder pressures are much higher so maybe they felt they needed the added cylinder wall thickness to promote engine longevity and avoid warranty work.

I also don't believe the Rally Racing League angle because that is an insignificant effect for such a huge decision. And besides who is more involved in Rally racing than Subaru and their WRX is a 2.4.

As far as turbo or supercharger I think it comes down to dollars and cents. An Eaton supercharger bought in bulk can be bought for next to nothing compared to a turbo system and can also be installed much easier without all of the associated plumbing. At the same price as a Neon the Cobalt will have way more content and quality in every category but maybe drive train so money has to be saved somewhere if they plan to compete in price.

There is a turbo Ecotec but it is in a $35,000 Saab.

 

Originally posted by big swede@Jun 24 2004, 12:02 AM
I don't believe the forged reason because the 2.4 can be built with forged internals just like any other engine. What would make more sense is if the 2.0 has thicker cylinder walls than the 2.4. With the artificial boost the cylinder pressures are much higher so maybe they felt they needed the added cylinder wall thickness to promote engine longevity and avoid warranty work.

I also don't believe the Rally Racing League angle because that is an insignificant effect for such a huge decision. And besides who is more involved in Rally racing than Subaru and their WRX is a 2.4.

As far as turbo or supercharger I think it comes down to dollars and cents. An Eaton supercharger bought in bulk can be bought for next to nothing compared to a turbo system and can also be installed much easier without all of the associated plumbing. At the same price as a Neon the Cobalt will have way more content and quality in every category but maybe drive train so money has to be saved somewhere if they plan to compete in price.

There is a turbo Ecotec but it is in a $35,000 Saab.

well, im sure they could, but the forged 2.0 was already there, in production.
And I know why they chose supercharger over turbo is because its cheaper. Thats my biggest pet peve of this car is that its not turbocharged to appeal to the sport compact market.

 

Give me a break 2HOT....
Gosh: all you people care about today is horsepower, horsepower, horsepower. I look for 'quality' and 'durability' in a car. I look for a 'nice' interior, and a 'smooth' ride I'd actually buy. You look for a big-gas-guzzler...
And why do we need a supercharged-Ecotec. If you are so in love with comparing Honda with GM, Honda doesn't have supercharged I-4 engine making over 240 hp.

 

Originally posted by gmwsag@Jun 24 2004, 01:58 AM
Give me a break 2HOT....
Gosh: all you people care about today is horsepower, horsepower, horsepower. I look for 'quality' and 'durability' in a car. I look for a 'nice' interior, and a 'smooth' ride I'd actually buy. You look for a big-gas-guzzler...
And why do we need a supercharged-Ecotec. If you are so in love with comparing Honda with GM, Honda doesn't have supercharged I-4 engine making over 240 hp.

"quality and "durability" should be a given, performance should not need marginalized to achieve it. After all we are talking about a "SS". If you dont care about horsepower, then buy a cheaper base model. Look, I am a GM fan. I generally like GM products and will continue to support them. But all this talk about "cost cutting" and "lowering development costs" is making me sick. I thought this message board was supposed to be a group of Car people not bean counters.

BTW honda does have a 240HP I4, and it doesnt need to be supercharged to achieve it.

 

I have a GM car right now. But there are somethings I would never buy in my life from GM. A compact car? An SUV? A sedan below $30,000.... Definite NO-No's.