Originally Posted by torrin1234

I enjoy being different. Everyone around here knew my car because of the noise, everyone knows what a blow off valve sounds like, but a screaming car?


I love the supercharger and I don't think I would trade it in for anything turbo.

Originally Posted by mi6_

Yeah, GM faked them!

Of course they are real! Why the hell would GM lie about them? Look at someone's dyno chart from a stock LSJ! It will be quite similar.

Originally Posted by mi6_

Look at the difference in these power curves:

At 1,000RPM, the LSJ is making a mere 125 lb-ft of torque. At the same RPM, the 2.0 Turbo is making 160 lb-ft. So impressive is its torque band, that it produces 260 lb-ft from 2,500 RPM up to 5,250 RPM (the LSJ only makes 200 lb-ft at 4,400RPM)! That is an insanely flat torque curve. The LSJ at 2,000 RPM produces about 65 HP. The 2.0 Turbo at the same RPM produces roughly 90 HP. The 2.0L Turbo is superior in every way. With the dual-scroll turbo, there is virtually no lag (the biggest downside to a turbo engine)! It will offer way more power, and better fuel economy than the LSJ!

Personally, I don't see how the LSJ even with stage II (241 HP, 218 lb-ft. torque) would stand a chance against a Cobalt SS with the 2.0L Turbo. It would get eaten alive!

I don't know about you, but if this engine is in the Cobalt in 2008, I will be ordering one ASAP. That is the most advanced engine ever developed by GM. Direct injection, VVT, 2.0L producing 260 HP!!! That is 130 HP per litre. That is absolutely incredible! Granted it does this while pushing 20 psi where as the LSJ only runs 12.5 psi stock (or 15 psi with stage II). Obviously the VVT and direct injection is where the big power improvement is gained.

Now, I am not saying that the Turbo will make it into the Cobalt with 100% certainty, but consider this. The Saturn Ion Redline is gone after 2007. That would mean that the Cobalt SS/SC would be the only GM car using the LSJ. Meanwhile the HHR SS (has been photographed running the 2.0L Turbo), Solstice GXP, Sky Redline, and Opel GT (Euro-only version of Sky) will use the 2.0L Turbo. Why would GM still produce LSJs when all their other cars (including the HHR on the same platform as the Cobalt) use the 2.0L turbo? It makes no sense. I gaurantee that by 2009 the Cobalt will have the 2.0L Turbo!

Also, look at the competition. The 2007 Mini Cooper S is going to have a 175 HP version of the 1.6L that is now TURBOCHARGED by a dual-scroll turbo. The SRT-4 will be out with a 2.4L Turbo with 300 HP (260 lb-ft). The Mazdaspeed 3 will be out with the 2.3L turbo producing 263 HP (280 lb-ft). Only the Civic Si with 197 HP will be slower than the LSJ Cobalt and possibly the Cooper S (though many disagree with me). Don't you think GM will want to compete better in this market???

Originally Posted by PauL500x

Saturn will probably still use that engine because they're jus changin the name. I forgot what its gonna be called but i saw a pic n it looks really cool. I might want that instead because theres nuthin like beatin mustangs and 350z's in a saturn I might have to wait for the 08's but will turbo=a lot higher insurance?

Originally Posted by mi6_

The dyno charts are real. Why would GM post them for all of their engines if they were all fake? Why not just post power figures. Gimme-a-break! I can't believe that someone would argue with GM over the validity of their own dyno charts! It is one of the most foolish things I have ever heard!

Remeber that those charts are a flywheel dyno, not a wheel power dyno. They will look different from one another. Also, everyone keeps posting up their dyno's claiming that the engine is so underrated. If you look at the transmission ratios, we don't have a gear in out tranny that is 1:1 (giving you a accurate reading). Third is a little too short (1.18:1) and fourth is too tall (0.89:1). Because of this, every wheel horsepower dyno is going to be innacurate on these cars.

I bet you think that we never landed on the moon too!!!

Originally Posted by Acidangel_5.0

i'd hate to say it but your making yourself look more and more like an idiot or somebody who believes everything that is told to them..

you can LOOK at the graph and tell its a fake by the lines, that is not a true dyno graph plotting.. its somebody using photoshop or mspaint, drew 2 dots and created a PERFECTLY FLAT LINE throughout the entire rpm band.. sorry.. not gonna happen.. dont give a **** how tuned a car is.. you will always have some play in the power bands

Originally Posted by Acidangel_5.0

i'd hate to say it but your making yourself look more and more like an idiot or somebody who believes everything that is told to them..

you can LOOK at the graph and tell its a fake by the lines, that is not a true dyno graph plotting.. its somebody using photoshop or mspaint, drew 2 dots and created a PERFECTLY FLAT LINE throughout the entire rpm band.. sorry.. not gonna happen.. dont give a **** how tuned a car is.. you will always have some play in the power bands

Originally Posted by cawpin

Yes, there is going to be some flucuation. However, when you are representing the minimum average there isn't much difference between two points. The dyno charts are a representation of actual power. It isn't a print out of an actual dyno run.

Originally Posted by CobaltSonOfS.A.M.

I have to agree, the only real way to tell the real output is a) pull the engine, and dyno it, or b) dyno the car on a casis dyno an exept that that is your cars output, TO THE GROUND.

Originally Posted by OniMirage

the other thing you need to look at IS the actual output ... 250lbs of torque at 1500 rpm? There is no way that it going into a FWD, a RWD would be the perfect place for it. LOL could you imagine the pain it would be to try and launch that in a fwd? Is it me or is traction an issue with the car as it is now? Add more power at a stupid low rpm and holy **** you aint goin nowhere

Originally Posted by mi6_

That is what the chart represents. GM, like every other manufacturer, has to have their engines rated before the car goes for sale. The dyno graph is a simple but representative graph of the powerband of the engine. You haave to remember when comparing the LSJ and the turbo, one engine has VVT and direct injection, while the LSJ doesn't. That is what produces the sudden drop-off of power.

It is real, and for those of you who think it is you are frankly complete idiots! I wasn't going to call people names, but since you guys are all calling me idiots, I am going to do the same to you! Post a dyno chart of your engine (flywheel) and lets see how close it is to the GM graphs. Once you do that, then you can convince me that the GM one is wrong. They built and engineered it. I think they know what their dyno would look like.

If you don't trust GM enough to post an actual dyno graph, why the hell did you buy a GM product???

Originally Posted by mi6_

That is what the chart represents. GM, like every other manufacturer, has to have their engines rated before the car goes for sale. The dyno graph is a simple but representative graph of the powerband of the engine. You haave to remember when comparing the LSJ and the turbo, one engine has VVT and direct injection, while the LSJ doesn't. That is what produces the sudden drop-off of power.

It is real, and for those of you who think it is you are frankly complete idiots! I wasn't going to call people names, but since you guys are all calling me idiots, I am going to do the same to you! Post a dyno chart of your engine (flywheel) and lets see how close it is to the GM graphs. Once you do that, then you can convince me that the GM one is wrong. They built and engineered it. I think they know what their dyno would look like.

If you don't trust GM enough to post an actual dyno graph, why the hell did you buy a GM product???

Originally Posted by CobaltSonOfS.A.M.

But it IS a altered dyno readout, how much nobody knows. Car companies have been under rating car for decades, the 69 Chevelle SS 396 was even under rated on displacement, it was actually a 402. Look at the 02 Skyline GTR, Nissan said it had 285hp, but they have been chassis dyno'd at 350+hp stock. Thats with the AWD soaking up some HP too. Car company's do this for many differant reasons.

Originally Posted by unkillsam

I personally don't understand why GM would advertise their graph in its present form. For any F/I motor to drop power so quickly 1,000 before redline like that graph shows is very unrealisic. Thinks about it...the supercharer builds boost off the RPM of the motor with the time/rpm change factored in as well. Why would a f/i motor lose power..i.e. boost, before hitting redline. That is where you make maximum power.

Look at the 5.4 charged motor it the GT500 and most other engines in supercharged applications. They all hit peak HP close to or at redline.

I think this is just one of the many ploys that GM uses to keep insurance rates down for the customer. Most of us are paying pretty cheap insurance no?

After GM had to kill the Camaro, (no-one that wanted the car could afford the insurance) I think that they learned a lesson. I also think that they generally do this only with cars that might not sell if insurance was sky high,,,i.e cheaper cars geared towards younger people that tend to have higher rates anyway.

So lets not belive the charts as some GM fansboys will (no offense to those who are cuz I am one sometimes too) but lets not kill them for it either. Instead lets be grateful for the time being that we have cheap insurance on a quick little car!!