GM Inside News Forum banner
21 - 33 of 33 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
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?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,620 Posts
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.
 

· 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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,602 Posts
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.
 

· 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.
 

· 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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
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.
 

· 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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
46 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.
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
The 2.0 has another advantage over the 2.4 other than the fact that it has forged internals. The fact that it has a shorter stroke allows it to turn more R.P.M.'s. I'm sure Chevrolet will ship them out with a low rev limit, but it won't take long for the after-market to get rid of the limiter. The 2.0 may make 200 hp at 6500, but what will it make at 7500 or 8000? The 2.0 is designed to handle those kind of revs and higher. The 2.4 can't because of it's stroke, the piston speed would be excessive. A prime example is the S2000: 2000-2003 2.0=9000 rpm 2004 2.2=8000 Honda had to limit the revs to keep piston speed down.
 
21 - 33 of 33 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