Good news 2.0 peeps!
06-02-2007, 12:10 AM
#26
Senior Member
Sorry, I gotta call BS on this one too.
Everything I have read said the LSJ is dead. They have no production plans for it anymore. And you can't get 20 more horsepower out of an engine by magic. In 2007, the L61 got a new exhaust cam and head ports that gave it a couple more horses. Getting 20 more would require either a change in compression (requiring the use of premium gas, which they won't do), or some kind of major intake and exhaust system change, which would screw up their 50 state emissions.
Even if I see the article, I still say it's a magazine, and not a GM publication.
Everything I have read said the LSJ is dead. They have no production plans for it anymore. And you can't get 20 more horsepower out of an engine by magic. In 2007, the L61 got a new exhaust cam and head ports that gave it a couple more horses. Getting 20 more would require either a change in compression (requiring the use of premium gas, which they won't do), or some kind of major intake and exhaust system change, which would screw up their 50 state emissions.
Even if I see the article, I still say it's a magazine, and not a GM publication.
Lets see what Jack has to say about it before I give up hope or not.
06-02-2007, 12:17 AM
#27
Senior Member
Thread Starter
All I'm gonna say is let me get the copy of Motor Trend to directly quote from so I don't get any of the details wrong.
I should have it tomorrow or sunday Jason said. I'll keep you all posted but for now you all know as much as I do.
If its BS I'd sugest you all wright Motor Trend and raise hell.
I should have it tomorrow or sunday Jason said. I'll keep you all posted but for now you all know as much as I do.
If its BS I'd sugest you all wright Motor Trend and raise hell.
06-02-2007, 01:53 AM
#28
LSX RWD S/C conversion
iTrader: (2)
Sorry, I gotta call BS on this one too.
Everything I have read said the LSJ is dead. They have no production plans for it anymore. And you can't get 20 more horsepower out of an engine by magic. In 2007, the L61 got a new exhaust cam and head ports that gave it a couple more horses. Getting 20 more would require either a change in compression (requiring the use of premium gas, which they won't do), or some kind of major intake and exhaust system change, which would screw up their 50 state emissions.
Even if I see the article, I still say it's a magazine, and not a GM publication.
Everything I have read said the LSJ is dead. They have no production plans for it anymore. And you can't get 20 more horsepower out of an engine by magic. In 2007, the L61 got a new exhaust cam and head ports that gave it a couple more horses. Getting 20 more would require either a change in compression (requiring the use of premium gas, which they won't do), or some kind of major intake and exhaust system change, which would screw up their 50 state emissions.
Even if I see the article, I still say it's a magazine, and not a GM publication.
06-02-2007, 01:59 AM
#29
Senior Member
upping the 2.2 power is tough to believe.....the 2.2 cobalt is their economic commuter.
its built for smokin good fuel mileage.
people who buy a 2.2 in general couldnt give a rats ass about HP.
sorry. i know this may bug some people....but its the truth.
I can believe a 2.4 HP boost....but 20 might be a bit of a stretch....unless they are giving them the gmpp exhaust and intake from the factory and calling it 20 crank hp....
which sounds like somethin they might do...
its built for smokin good fuel mileage.
people who buy a 2.2 in general couldnt give a rats ass about HP.
sorry. i know this may bug some people....but its the truth.
I can believe a 2.4 HP boost....but 20 might be a bit of a stretch....unless they are giving them the gmpp exhaust and intake from the factory and calling it 20 crank hp....
which sounds like somethin they might do...
06-02-2007, 08:49 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-23-06
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a subscription to the mag as well and I get it sent to my dads house . So today I'm going over there to get my new Intense poly trans mounts and if it is there I will let you guys know
06-02-2007, 12:08 PM
#36
Senior Member
continued production of the SC is both good and bad (if it is true)
continued production of the SC is good because it will keep folks developing aftermarket performance parts
continued production of the SC is bad because there will be more SC's on the road making the SC less rare (if any car under 75K can be considered rare)
as far as the other models... a 20 hp would really stink for peeps who paid $$$ to get that 20 hp in 2007 and earlier
the reality of it is.... when the 2008's are on the lots
OK... I got my new Motor Trend mag (July 2007 issue) today.... yippie!!!!
so, I search... and search... page by page and I come across a GM special advertising section...
2007 Chevrolet with the Cobalt SC and a great 3 page fold out w/ the SC.
I did not see any mention of 2008 Cobalts throughout the magazine... I went slowly page by page, TWICE! maybe I am blind, but I did not see the any write up regard a 2008 Cobalt..period????
Jack, can you find out what page it is? am I in the right issue?
continued production of the SC is good because it will keep folks developing aftermarket performance parts
continued production of the SC is bad because there will be more SC's on the road making the SC less rare (if any car under 75K can be considered rare)
as far as the other models... a 20 hp would really stink for peeps who paid $$$ to get that 20 hp in 2007 and earlier
the reality of it is.... when the 2008's are on the lots
OK... I got my new Motor Trend mag (July 2007 issue) today.... yippie!!!!
so, I search... and search... page by page and I come across a GM special advertising section...
2007 Chevrolet with the Cobalt SC and a great 3 page fold out w/ the SC.
I did not see any mention of 2008 Cobalts throughout the magazine... I went slowly page by page, TWICE! maybe I am blind, but I did not see the any write up regard a 2008 Cobalt..period????
Jack, can you find out what page it is? am I in the right issue?
Last edited by suburbanrobot; 06-02-2007 at 12:08 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
06-02-2007, 12:15 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-01-06
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-02-2007, 12:22 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-20-06
Location: Ridgefield, NJ
Posts: 8,913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
soo yeeeaaaaa wheres the mag?
BTW They stop production on the LSJ this year, nodoubt about, so if your friend has the mag that sez they are still making it, MT is wrong.
Either way, nothing to get crazy over. LSJ is dead after this year.
BTW They stop production on the LSJ this year, nodoubt about, so if your friend has the mag that sez they are still making it, MT is wrong.
Either way, nothing to get crazy over. LSJ is dead after this year.
06-02-2007, 12:23 PM
#39
Senior Member
Thread Starter
He's at work right now like I said today or sunday. (today's saturday right?) But yeah if its wrong then we need a angry letter wrighting campaign to MT for publishing wrong information.
06-02-2007, 12:43 PM
#43
Junior Member
Join Date: 05-03-05
Location: michigan
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your buddy is reading the GM addvertisement on page 42 it says that there was an increase in horse power in the 2.2 and 2.4 and then it says they get mid 20s (mpg) in the city it dosent say they get 20 extra horse power. on page 48 they have the horse power for the cobalts rated at 148-205. i think he was reading a little to quick
06-02-2007, 01:08 PM
#46
Senior Member
your buddy is reading the GM addvertisement on page 42 it says that there was an increase in horse power in the 2.2 and 2.4 and then it says they get mid 20s (mpg) in the city it dosent say they get 20 extra horse power. on page 48 they have the horse power for the cobalts rated at 148-205. i think he was reading a little to quick
06-02-2007, 01:12 PM
#48
I'm old school
I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. Direct port injection is a more efficent way to fuel the cylinders and everything I have read and heard states more HP is achieved just by direct port injection. This was something we looked into for my car but sadly it isn't a retrofit type modification.
06-02-2007, 01:22 PM
#49
Senior Member
Thread Starter
your buddy is reading the GM addvertisement on page 42 it says that there was an increase in horse power in the 2.2 and 2.4 and then it says they get mid 20s (mpg) in the city it dosent say they get 20 extra horse power. on page 48 they have the horse power for the cobalts rated at 148-205. i think he was reading a little to quick
And I'll smack Jason in the head when I see him for his lack of reading comprhension.
06-02-2007, 01:26 PM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-25-06
Location: Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota (from Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Line him up in front of all of us so we can all kick him in the nuts and knee in in the head when he bowls over!