[Mestizo]

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.

 

[Mestizo]

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.

 

[Mestizo]

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

 

[Mestizo]

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.

 

[Mestizo]

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.

 

[Mestizo]

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.

 

[Mestizo]

Originally posted by jfnz24@Jun 24 2004, 12:42 PM
Not everybody likes the big wings. Understated ones work wonders. Still think that both SS and SS supercharged should be offered with 4 speed auto and 5/6 speed sticks.

What's the point of having an automatic Supercharged car?

Get a stick: save gas, have less transmission problems, and save a few bucks on invoice price.