GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
13,378 Posts
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.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
13,378 Posts
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!! :rolleyes:
Also, the 2.4 isnt even in prodcution, and we are already crying foul that GM is cutting corners. AMAZING!! GM is always wrong!
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
13,378 Posts
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.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
13,378 Posts
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.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
13,378 Posts
Originally posted by 2HOTZ28+Jun 24 2004, 02:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (2HOTZ28 @ Jun 24 2004, 02:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bigals87z28@Jun 24 2004, 01:57 AM
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.
Yes the supercharger is cheaper, but then again does it make the Cobalt SS any cheaper? A supercharged Cobalt will cost more than a SRT-4 but will make up for that by being Slower. Dodge cant keep SRT-4s on the lot, they are getting snatched up left and right. For a simple reason: cheap+fast+aftermarket support=street credit, which = sales. Sure the cobalt is a nicer car, you can keep telling yourself that when the mopar wastes you at the track. [/b][/quote]
where did you get the pricing for the Cobalt? How do you know it will be more then the SRT4? The Ion isnt.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
13,378 Posts
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.
I dont like big wings, and probably like the Ion Redline, the wing will be optional.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top