mastoer

hey guys i was on the locl srt4maton website and noticed a couple things...but the main thing i noticed is that the srt-4 is running more liters then the cobalt ss s/c at a 2.4 and the coblat is jus running 2.0... why is that i know they make a lower end cobalt thats running a 2.4 liter powerplant why didnt they s/c that engine instead of dumbing down the liters to 2.0...i would think that the horsepower would be up there 2 about around what the 2005-2006-srt4 is runnin (THats about 230hp0..after thinking this i began to think if the cobalt had a 2.4 liter s/c powerplant would it totally demolish the srt-4 because i think its a close call between the cars depending on driving ...but to get back to the main point and the main question why does the cobalt ss s/c have only 2.0 liters instead of a 2.4 liter engine

zer0

I ponder'd the same question.

patathSS

The 2.0L has been around for a while and has been used before with forced induction with the Saab 9-3. The 2.4 is a relatively new motor and not nearly as thoroughly tested. This would be my explanation.

eastcoastz

The 2.0 was designed for boost and is built very strong.

Zenkat

Althought, they're finding the 2.4 in the Solstice/Sky to be nearly as stout as the SRT motor. They're boosting it up to mid 300's already with a lot of success.

patathSS

So maybe the 2.0 is stout and will handle a bit????

leviticus88

Also, The 2.4l was designed as an NA power plant. vvt is an example of technology that the 2.4 has that the 2.0 doesnt. The 2.0 though is built for boost which the 2.4 is not.
Both motors are great powerplants. As far as the ss/sc not being 2.4. I really don't know.

97cavie24ls

the 2.0direct port motor has vvt , and boost

still gm's screw up for not using the 2.4

funny thing is the 2.0vvt has a lower redline than any motor currently for the eco's