2.0 turbo baby!!
06-14-2007, 04:15 PM
#76
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: 09-30-06
Location: saddle brook, nj
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like i posted before, they redisgned the kit, this is their new kit. it is no longer the big airbox that sits on the intake manifold. it is a streamline flat piece that sits over where the s/c used to be.
06-14-2007, 04:24 PM
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-11-05
Location: Yonkers NY
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thats the way it should be. that big box was a waste
sweet deal .. good luck wit that
(and a little hint to everyone who types subscribed--- if you just hit thread tools at the top of the page, you can click subscribe to the tread so its just like u posted in it.. and it saves useless posts so people like me dont have to look thruu 3 pages of subscribed messages) lol just thought id give a little advice if some1 didnt kno about it
sweet deal .. good luck wit that
(and a little hint to everyone who types subscribed--- if you just hit thread tools at the top of the page, you can click subscribe to the tread so its just like u posted in it.. and it saves useless posts so people like me dont have to look thruu 3 pages of subscribed messages) lol just thought id give a little advice if some1 didnt kno about it
06-14-2007, 05:31 PM
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-11-07
Location: Bourbonnais IL
Posts: 4,741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn that is going to be awesome man! I cant wait to see the finished install and some vids of it!!! Good luck with installing everything this weekend, I hope it goes smooth.
Mike
Mike
06-14-2007, 06:20 PM
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-20-05
Location: Delray Beach, FL
Posts: 2,807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-14-2007, 06:38 PM
#87
Ok so a 2.2 that is 147 hp if you add the same turbo should have the same results...
Now a 2.0 would have less power then a 2.2 right? So without the supercharger it would produce about 135-140 hp
If there is something i'm not under standign please let me know
06-14-2007, 06:44 PM
#88
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-24-07
Location: Santa Clarita, Ca
Posts: 1,732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it hard to belive that just switching to a turbo is going to give that much power... If you think about it, the 2.0 with out a supercharger, would put out, i'll just say 140hp, so your saying a turbo will give the car 185 hp...
Ok so a 2.2 that is 147 hp if you add the same turbo should have the same results...
Now a 2.0 would have less power then a 2.2 right? So without the supercharger it would produce about 135-140 hp
If there is something i'm not under standign please let me know
Ok so a 2.2 that is 147 hp if you add the same turbo should have the same results...
Now a 2.0 would have less power then a 2.2 right? So without the supercharger it would produce about 135-140 hp
If there is something i'm not under standign please let me know
the 2.0 has lower compression. lower compression means good for boost
06-14-2007, 07:06 PM
#90
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-20-05
Location: Delray Beach, FL
Posts: 2,807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont feel like explaining it honestly lol turbos are just much more efficient in making power and some other turbos on half the boost that the TAG's turbo puts out will put out the same power bc all turbos are different.
06-14-2007, 07:10 PM
#91
Senior Member
to truely do the comparison your talking about, you have to realise the LSJ is built to handle boost....
when you compare the 2 with the supercharged taken off.....
in all fairness you would have to give the LSJ some high compression pistons....
because the 2.2 makes power with compression
the LSJ makes power with boost.
so if you put those pistons in your LSJ, its gonna be more than 140hp.....
all in all its a very coonfusing way to look at things.
the 2 motors are built with different goals in mind so its hard to compare them fairly.
when you compare the 2 with the supercharged taken off.....
in all fairness you would have to give the LSJ some high compression pistons....
because the 2.2 makes power with compression
the LSJ makes power with boost.
so if you put those pistons in your LSJ, its gonna be more than 140hp.....
all in all its a very coonfusing way to look at things.
the 2 motors are built with different goals in mind so its hard to compare them fairly.
06-14-2007, 07:17 PM
#92
to truely do the comparison your talking about, you have to realise the LSJ is built to handle boost....
when you compare the 2 with the supercharged taken off.....
in all fairness you would have to give the LSJ some high compression pistons....
because the 2.2 makes power with compression
the LSJ makes power with boost.
so if you put those pistons in your LSJ, its gonna be more than 140hp.....
all in all its a very coonfusing way to look at things.
the 2 motors are built with different goals in mind so its hard to compare them fairly.
when you compare the 2 with the supercharged taken off.....
in all fairness you would have to give the LSJ some high compression pistons....
because the 2.2 makes power with compression
the LSJ makes power with boost.
so if you put those pistons in your LSJ, its gonna be more than 140hp.....
all in all its a very coonfusing way to look at things.
the 2 motors are built with different goals in mind so its hard to compare them fairly.
my guess would be
2.0 around 130 to 135
2.2 is 145
2.4 is1 71
06-14-2007, 07:22 PM
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-03-06
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 4,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm kinda new to the whole tuning thing, so i'm trying to learn, but it seems to me that a 2.0 would not produce as much power as a 2.2 and the 2.2 does not produce as much power as the 2.4... even if the 2.0 had high compression pistons...
my guess would be
2.0 around 130 to 135
2.2 is 145
2.4 is1 71
my guess would be
2.0 around 130 to 135
2.2 is 145
2.4 is1 71
06-14-2007, 07:41 PM
#94
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-15-05
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 5,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's ur answer. Granted both have mods, so stock for stock Im not sure, but I like the fact my N/A 2.0L made more whp.
06-14-2007, 08:38 PM
#96
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-15-05
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 5,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wit this setup 300whp+ easy, depending on tuning and PSI, Jon the guy with the concept kit is supposedly making 406whp. Thats why we're all wondering how this guys kit will run and hp #'s
06-14-2007, 09:01 PM
#97
I know this is a 2.0 thread... but is it possible for the same results from a 2.2? Ijust didn't think it was a reasonable gain to be in the 300s+ just by adding a turbo... but i guess with that much boost its possible, but how long will and engine handle 18-20 psi before it blows up like a time bomb?
06-14-2007, 09:08 PM
#98
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-15-05
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 5,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stock N/A engines should never really see more than 6-8 psi so if ur looking for big power u'll have to come to he realization of internals, BUT remember almost every 1000hp+ GM cobalt race car is based off the 2.2 engine. so the potential is there, 1000 hp is obvisously an extreme example.
06-14-2007, 09:18 PM
#99
stock N/A engines should never really see more than 6-8 psi so if ur looking for big power u'll have to come to he realization of internals, BUT remember almost every 1000hp+ GM cobalt race car is based off the 2.2 engine. so the potential is there, 1000 hp is obvisously an extreme example.
06-14-2007, 11:59 PM
#100
New Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: Pennyslvania
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts