idk, but this thread is going into a way different directiion than it was supposed to

 

the 2.4 holds more air. boost pressure is measured in pounds per square inch. if you have a larger space to hold the same amount of air, you see less psi. now do you get it?

 

well we can go have this debate forever,one frickin thing i know is I have a bullit proofed valvetrain& head.LOLLOL

 

theres no point trying to compare boost levels vs hp levels etc
saying zomg we make X hp on only X boost! is irrelevant.
because if you actually turned the boost up to 18 like an LSJ is capable of....
that doesnt mean ZOMG 500whp!! that means POP.

a high compression N/A motor boosted is a whole different ball game.
the LSJ is created specifically to handle boost.

 

I thought the srt4 was a 2.4???

 

its still not a high compression N/A motor whether its 2.4 or 2.0 isnt the issue.

 

I think I understand now: There is no way to compare the two, they are two different animals. Thanks an0malous and chevysalesman614 for the clarifications.

 

easiest way to think of it, the more air and fuel in the cylinder, the more energy.

a high compression N/A motor uses its compression to get more compressed air/fuel in the space to make power.

lowered compression means you can use more pressurised (boosted) air coming in, to increase the cylinder pressure.


Its 2 different ways of making power.
and naturally, if you boost that high compression motor, its not going to need as much boost, because it already has high compression working for it.

 

anom is more knowledgale, than i am... so if he comes in and pimp slaps me like the forum police, i'd go with what he said.
but, what i said about stacking air in 2 different size spaces.. does hold true.
i'm glad we could help you

is there a high rise head gasket available for the 2.4? (i know he knows what i mean, but for the noobs: a thicker head gasket will lower compression.. it makes the cylinders bigger and you might not need to swap out your pistons)

 

?? What ??

Your telling a guy he can't keep up with a Turbo swapped SRT4 with his stock m62?

This is 199% incorrect.

(The below is not directed at you salesman.)

Let's see... they (srt4) swap out to a 50 trim...we can install a whipple...problem solved. Try running 1200 hp on a next to stock SRT4 motor rrrrrrriiiigggggghhhhttt.

Not to mention I get pissed at all the SRT fanboyisms. "you'll never make a cobalt as fast as the SRT4...or you will never make a ss/sc as fast as a 50 trim srt4 with stock M62????? Talk about misleading information. I have one word that proves you wrong...MONEY.

It's not the car you have but how much money you have to upgrade it...ANY car can be made to compete with another with enough money...using what ever parts you have available.

My point..stock m62 with forged internals + nice shot of nitrous... = > than 50 trim.

My point being your question is too generic...like "whats better a 350ci motor or a 351ci motor"...how much money are you talking about spending? Whats your hp goal...besides slaying SRT4's?

You want to beat srt4's but they have the same options as you...aka...with enough money you can be running single digit QM times...be more specific

 

^he runs 12.0 in his ss s/c for those that dont know

 

using my stock M62

Which direction are you taking your 2.0 Brian? Turbo or super?

(sorry not trying to thread jack)

You would think that working for chevy you would have all kinds of forged internals inyour car by now...come on...get to hoppin!

 

well this was interesting as usual.LOL

 

damn, you know my first name? <-- i usually only say that in regional forums, and p.m.'s
i'm gonna have to go turbo. i like the idea of the twinscrew.. but as most of us know, its not a good idea to trust new vendors.
hahn has been around for a while(4g63 community)[i used to havea 97 gst], and i trust they will send me the kit once it comes out.

 

Yeah, sorry, I didn't make myself as clear as I thought and I even made a mistake!

Yes, you are right. What I was trying to say is that at 16 lbs into the 2.0 it would take 13.33 lbs into the 2.4 to make the same effective displacement. I get the impression that many guys here are putting 16 lbs into their 2.0s, safely and reliably, because it is made with lower compression and stronger parts to take the boost. But will the 2.4 higher compression engine take 13.33 lbs safely and reliably? I get the impression that most people are correctly limiting boost to the 2.4 at around 8-10 lbs. So technically, again if everything else were equal, a 2.0 at 16 lbs burns more fuel/air than a 2.4 does at a realistic boost level of 8-10lbs. If taken farther, that means that a 2.0 at 16 lbs is effectively a 4.35L motor and a 2.4 at 10 lbs is effectively 3.26L. Again, I started this discussion by saying that a 2.4 isn't automatically better than a 2.0 if the 2.0 can handle more boost, which it can. A smaller engine that can handle more boost will make up for a larger displacement engine with less boost. I hope that makes my point clearer.

Obviously all of this is theoretical and I may have not even done the math right (been a long time since college ). Others here are saying they are getting stage 2 levels from the 2.4 with 8-10 lbs of boost, so no theory is perfect.

 

Gotcha, I understand what you are getting at now. Thanks for clearing that up my good man

 

Hey, it's all good!

You guys with the 2.2 and 2.4 customs deserve and get just as much respect as someone with a 2.0, and that's the way it should be.

It doesn't matter what you start with, it is what you do with it (and the end result) that
matters!

Randy
'05 Yellow SS/SC

 

you are almost there Rebels kit on my car at 10psi is 290-300,but I'll stick with 7psi,cause these cams and head are gonna bump up the numbers anyways

 

I said that the 2.0 is cast and assembled in Germany but someone else says:
"Maybe the very early ones, ie Ion Red Lines. Now they all come down the same line at the Tonawanda NY engine plant with the regular Ecotecs"

I didn't know that. Sometime last year (or maybe it was in '05) the GM techs told me about the Germany thing and I didn't know they had changed it. I do know that my '05 engine was born in Germany, but hey, I'm not a snob, that doesn't make it any better.

Are they making the 260HP TurboECO at Tonawanda?
I am asking because I live about 15 miles from Lordstown. Back in the '70s they built full-size Impalas at that plant (before they switched to make the Vega, then Cavalier, then Cobalt). You could get an Impala in an SS with a Hi-Po 396, 427 or maybe even 454. They caught a ring of about 6 guys who were stealing the engines! They worked on the line and would reject the big-blocks as being bad, then they would drive out to the landfill where GM dumped the reject engines and pick them up!
Needless to say, GM set up a sting, caught and prosecued the guys and since then just destroy the reject engines.
But hey, I sure would love to get a TurboECO for cheap!

Randy
'05 Yellow SS/SC

 

this is true, heat from any blower is due to air being compressed, some blowers compress air more effeciently that others, meaning less heat.

consider, the more compressed air, the higher the heat level right? yes

stock ss/sc pulley boosts 12.5psi on 2.0L
stock ss/sc pulley boosts only 7.5 psi on 2.4L

i think i can prove that the m62 on the 2.4L is more effiencient creating less heat in comparison as the same amount of cfm is being created

im waiting for my standalone iat2 sender and guage, i'm gonna log the iat2's and i'll post them up, hopefully it'll get here before the weekend,

 

It will be interesting to see how much heat is generated,but if I got this correct,since the 2.4 has to use only 7psi for the same numbers as a ss/sc,then it only stands to reason it is generating lower temps?

 

all i gotta say is make 3 runs down the track with a stock ss/sc
make 3 runs with my car, touch each s/c and tell me which one burnt your hand lol

you cant really use psi levels as comparison because its a different motor so it will respond different to say the same setup on a different motor

 

I hear you there man. I'm not one to trust an untested product. Plus turbo's are just very efficient at what they do.

If I had a 2.4 I would much rather turbo than supercharge...and on our 2.0 the only reason I would go supercharger is because its easier since they already are supercharged...and I'm lazy haha