GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I can't help buy wonder why GM chose to supercharge the smallest of the ecotec line. They have a decent 2.2L, a powerfull 2.4L, then they destroke it before blowing it? Isnt that leaving cubes/HP on the table? Think about it: assuming the 2.0L made 170HP just like the 2.4, the supercharging only adds 20% of power! That is pathetic. I thought that GM was sponsoring a FWD, ecotec drag racing program so that it could trickle down to their production cars. Instead we get a Blown 2.0L that makes the same HP as a n/a honda motor of the same size.
Is there a legitimate reason why there isnt a turbo or supercharged ecotec making 240+ HP?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
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
 

· Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Originally posted by 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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Originally posted by gmwsag@Jun 24 2004, 02:38 AM
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.
Good point, but I would say " a sedan under $25,000" I think the Impala LS is a hell of a car for the money.
 
1 - 5 of 5 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