At the Chicago auto show this year they had the various Ecotec engine variants on display stands. There was the new L61, the existing LE5, the new LNF, and the only other one was a modified LE5 Hybrid engine. Basically is just had a Ginormous alternator and a battery pack bolted to it. Actually, I think I have a picture....



There will not be a GM stock forced induction 4 cylinder other than the LNF.

However, as I'm sure you all have seen, the 2009 HHR SS is getting an LNF. So I think it's safe to say that whatever the Cobalt is in 2009, it will have the option as well.

 

I'm really trying not to flame but I really can't stand the whole discussion of saying things as hypothetical as "If the 2.4 had boost....blah blah blah...it's better"

Also, I understand why SOME people say "It's built for boost" but people think of it in the wrong sense of why something is produced/engineered a certain way and then added with forced induction.

If you were to follow closely on the LSJ guys and see what type of heat (pre and post combustion...pre meaning IATs and post meaning EGTs) and the low efficiency of the M62 supercharger, there is a reason why they had it only at 9.5:1 compression. I also believe the command a/f ratio is in the 11s as well in stock form.

The LE5 with a roots charger would be a dumb engineering move from a reliability standpoint, emissions standpoint and warranty standpoint.

Also, saying that with boost it will be faster is a really blanket statement. Displacement is only a part of the equation. The reason that forced induction was even such a positive with making power is that displacement wasn't of any importance...it made small motors as powerful as larger displacement engines. I think sometimes people forget this.

If you're talking about building a vehicles engine, it doesn't matter the size of the motor but the mind behind it.

Yes and No.

But what you're saying is equaling out each other.

 

smartest thing in this thread +rep

 

Thanks.

 

well guys your quick on the flame button. lol anywhos they originally didnt design the 2.4 for boost i know this. but if they did im assuming it would be pretty good. as for the solstice and cobalt 2.4 engine. i think the solstice was out just b4 the 2.4 cobalt not sure though. and another thing it was just a friendly question thought i would get some knowledge outta it.

ryan.

 

Maybe you missed this...

You wanted knowledge out of it, you got some.

 

they probably had similar release dates then, bc the solstice, although very hard to find, was out in 05 as an early 06 model. I think that the first solstices were delivered in june 05, as 06's

 

great posts adam, + rep

 

Thanks.

 

or not, it wont let me rep you...

but great post none the less.

 

LOL It's all good. I have like 180+ rep points. Maybe I'm maxed out

 

actually supposedly gms contract with eaton is up which will lead to more turbo applications because like many people have said for emissions and such. this is an odd situation considering while the 2.4 isn't "built" for boost it's known that it can handle it very very well. that being said i doubt that gm will come out with a boosted 2.4 just because of the major over haul they would have to do to the engine.... (direct injection would be good, fully forged, and among other things a revamp of the computer to actually agree with what you're doing to it.) that being said as awesome as it would be to see. i'm pretty sure that the only way you're seeing a boosted 2.4 is if someone takes the initiative like hahn and makes a kit.. hell who knows maybe even some company can talk to GM after getting it tested for a while about getting it covered under warranty. HKS, borla, and corsa have all done similar things. But I don't see gm making the effort on this one.

the LNF will be a beast of a motor and they're going to focus on making that as good as possible. not looking to revamp something that already runs well.

 

The 2.4 is in no way meant to be boosted. Most people would know that the 2.0 and 2.2 were GMs basis for the major power. GM wanted 750 horsepower so they started with the 2.2 and went to work. The 2.4 was never part of GMs powerplant to get serious horsepower. While yet the 2.4 can definitely achieve some serious power the 2.0 and 2.2 were designed more for that power in respect to the 2.4. I remember reading somewhere that the 2.0 and the 2.2 by GM are considered GMs new small block. So while the 2.4 would be tight, I highly doubt GM will do something like that when all their performance funds for the "new small block" is tied up in the 2.0 and 2.2 Ecotec project

 

but why is the 2.2 for economy and the 2.4 for the n/a ss and the bigger sedan?

 

Huh. Innnnteresting. I just remember from the press releases when the 2.4 was first being brought over from GMPE in late 2003 it was supposed to be the motor for the 2005 Cobalt. I actually think they announced it before the 2.2. They'd announced the 2.0, but said it would be going into the ION first and then transferred as the uplevel motor for the Cobalt. I don't remember officially why they delayed it, but I think it was to add the VVT, which was NOT on the original GMPE 2.4 Eco. Then when 2006 hit it was dumped into the Cobalt, HHR, ION, and Solstice.

 

I saw an SS Caviler the other day. Did they really produce those, or were those just decals someone put on?

 

whatever the case may be a good discussion none the less.

ryan.

 

Decals

 

lol no such thing

 

haha the ss badge on a cavalier is like a GTR34 on a honda. or a jdm H on an acura, just a false representational ricer idea of how to be cool.. or like putting subie emblems on a cobalt.

 

Not to single you out but I keep seeing this over and over...

"Built for boost"

What the **** does that mean?

Seriously, do any of you guys understand what the difference between a naturally aspirated stock motor and a stock f/i motor? NOTHING. There is no specialties to it. It's pistons, rods, crankshaft, valvetrain etc. People talk like there is something super special that is done to a engine that is going to be boosted.

Fact of the matter is that any engine can have forced induction. You can turbo a lawn mower if you really wanted to. What matters is:

1. Fuel Enrichment
2. The strength (not the type) of the pistons
3. The strength and thickness of the connecting rods

On most Sport Compact cars, these are the only real important factors to consider when building a street turbocharged vehicle. Even in most vehicles, the crankshaft is not the issue until you're doing something extrodinary. The compression ratio doesn't even matter either...it could be a hassle from a tuning aspect but it essentially doesn't matter.

The point I'm making is that "built for boost" is a fictional car phrase just like "your car needs backpressure" or "AWD is only good from a dig". Ultimately, it's bullshit.

 

well since the 2.2 is what they use for there race blocks... i think the 2.2 would be better a choice, or wait maybe GM might just realese a full blown race car for us.

 

The LSJ and L61 is basically the same block design (same bore just different stroke).

 

built for boost - means it has exactly what you said it depends on:

Fact of the matter is that any engine can have forced induction. You can turbo a lawn mower if you really wanted to. What matters is:

1. Fuel Enrichment
2. The strength (not the type) of the pistons
3. The strength and thickness of the connecting rods


and while the 2.4 and 2.0 have very similar engine internals... which engine has the F/i stock? because certain things are made slightly better.

is the 2.2 "built for boost" NO.... it needs a total over haul of the engine internals to be able to handle anything significant. not to mention the fact that it has no good tuning ability...

thats what most people mean by "built for boost" it would handle boost easily... and though the 2.4 and 2.0 are similar there are certain things that are key differences between the two. the 2.4 is more "built for boost" then a 2.2 and from how it seems in come ways more than the 2.0 but no one has really pushed the limits of the 2.0 without having the heaton restrict them... so who knows..

also the 2.4l wasn't close to being finished developed at the time the 2.2 drag car came out... and the only thing that resembles the actual 2.2 is the stroke and that it was BASED of the 2.0 .. at this point it's silly to drop in a 2.4 and redo everything and rebuild/tune a new motor. even if it would produce better results

 

There are two things about an engine "design" that would make it more boost friendly. One, as we have all heard, is compression ratio. A lower ratio makes it easier to avoid problems with detonation. But good tuning solves that problem too. The second is cam timing. A forced induction engine has less valve overlap. But the physical system is identical.

Did you know that the LSJ and L61 engines have the exact same cam profiles? They are just timed differently. On an L61, you can operate the LSJ cam timing with the use of the adjustable cam gear set. It's that easy.