they wont do that because the 2.4 will now be in direct competition with the Solstice....

 

You're missing the point...

Any vehicle can handle forced induction

It's the amount of stress the actual engine can take though. A geo metro could handle boost, I'm sure low levels but it's just the point that you CAN boost anything and there is no such thing as "built for boost". Built for a higher power level is a different story.

 

well when I use "built for boost" i mean more than 3-4 lbs of boost.. more like 10lbs and over, i think that's what many people use it in reference too... built for higher power levels...

i think we're bother saying close to the same thing... just in 2 totally different ways.. lol

 

Boost is boost...

And also, 3-4 lbs of boost on what? You're just mentioning air pressure and not from what type of compressor.

 

njhk you're missing the point of what i'm saying... yes the type of compressor matter. however i'm pretty sure the 2.4 can't handle 12.5 lbs of boost from the m62 like the lsj can thats all i'm trying to get at... essentially. it's silly to only run a few psi on any form of boost... do it right or don't do it at all...

I'm trying to compare apples to apples and you're reading into it.. i'm just saying for whatever reason it may be... the 2.2 and 2.4 cannot handle what what the 2.0 can given they're using the exact same application... I know that hasn't been tested... however

many 2.2's have popped because their internals aren't made to handle alot, brandon's 2.2 popped from a procharger, which is MUCH better for the engine as far as heat and over all stress then the eaton. and I'm willing to bet that though the 2.4 has more displacement and can make the same power with less boost that the 2.0 will go longer before it breaks.. I could be wrong. but people are pushing out 300 from the m62 which is a feat and then things pop... however thats partially dew to the insane amounts of heat produced as well as the stress put on the blower since when people are running that much WHP they're usually and i stress USUALLY over spinning the blower. yes there is a 400 2.4L turbo solstice on a stock engine however the 2.0 should be able to do the same safer.. because of the lower compression pistons... YES the 2.4 can make the power easier but the tune has to be dead on or POP.. do you see what i'm getting at a little more now? I'm not trying to start a war with you man..

i'm pretty sure we're just saying the same thing

 

man you guys dont even know for sure whether or not the supercharged version is being dropped next year.. its just a bunch of rumors goin around. thats how the car buisness is.. you almost never know till it actually comes out or that year arrives.

 

Hmmm, I wonder who would be doing that in the near future?

 

ummm the ss/sc being dropped isn't a rumor at all man... it's been pretty well established for the last year basically

 

owell we will see with time.

 

Email Gm telling them that they should SC or Turbo the 2.4 and they might consider it if enough people were to bring it up. If everyone on the forums did it we might have them thinking. Just an idea though.

 

Really? A few pounds of boost is silly?

Cause only 3 PSI of boost on a procharger on the 4G Eclipse V6 motor gained a good 60 WHP. Sounds silly?

Fact is that you're making statements without cause or real reason behind it.

If by Brandon you're talking about bc3tech...read on how he blew his motor then come back because HE DID NOT blow his engine because off too much power or boost or of anything relative, he blew it because he didn't know what the **** he was doing from the beginning on the fuel management side of things.

And no, no one is creating 300 whp on the M62s and no one is reaching it reliably if they have, so to say that people are doing it all day long is "silly".

Like I've already said and even Halfcent, compression ratio is of little importance if you have a efficient compressor and a good form of engine management.

They wouldn't care.

 

forget it njhk i forgot you were god.... bc3tech blew his engine for many of reasons but you're still missing the point of every thread i post...

I guess being stuck in the "friend" zone is really hindering your ability to just read everything for what it says...

yes a procharger on 3 psi makes 60 hp ... which is damn good but ok compare to it running 10 psi on the same set up....

i'm comparing 2 engines on the same platform

. I could be wrong. but people are pushing out 300 from the m62 which is a feat and then things pop... however thats partially dew to the insane amounts of heat produced as well as the stress put on the blower since when people are running that much WHP they're usually and i stress USUALLY over spinning the blower.

the fact that you say: "and no, no one is creating 300 whp on the M62s and no one is reaching it reliably if they have, so to say that people are doing it all day long is "silly"."

just proves that reading> you, since I never said that they're running reliably... I said that they run 300 HP and something pops... meaning it doesn't run reliable and I said why...


Like I've already said and even Halfcent, compression ratio is of little importance if you have a efficient compressor and a good form of engine management.

I agreed that tuning is the main reason things are popping.... however you should know that low compression gives a better margin of error...


so all in all reading> you as far as my posts are concerned. you've said no i'm wrong then you say the same thing...

however i do agree ... no matter how many people email gm they more than likely wont care. the best chance is to get a company to show that their system is reliable and pitch it to gm but that probably wont work either...

 

... any engine can be built for boost.... simple answer to this whole thing. The only thing you need a little money and you'll be able to do F/I on any engine you want

 

The LFN motor won't make it into the cobalt for 2 big reasons

1. the lnf motor is design for rear whell drive, if you ever popped the hood on a solstice gxp you'll notice just how much space it actually requires.
2. putting a 260 hp engine in a sub compact would be bad for buisness.
A. it would canniblize g6 gxp sales
B. it would price the cobalt far out of the sport compact market

but hopes for a 2.0 tubo cobalt are still valid. the 2.0 LK9 ecotec that GM uses for Saab puts out 210 hp, is compact enough for frontwheel drive, meets the new fediral emmissions standards, and would keep the cobalt ss competitive in proformance and price in the sport compact market

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...onvertible.pdf

 

that and somewhere gm had a lsj motor running a turbo with dual wastegates.. it's in a thread somewhere around here

 

haven't you guys heard that that SS is pretty much done...

and here is my source CLICK ME

the supercharged is going away becase of the new emissions laws that take effect in 2008 and it would not be good bussines for GM to more research into how to make the car pass the tests, and if they did I'm sure they would have to take a loss in power

 

Honestly, I didn't have a problem with you but people like you make me sick. Anytime you want to say something on a public forum, someone wants to question what you say, you're automatically threatened and you try to make me seem like the "self proclaimed know it all" which I am not. You are making statements on 1 or 2 examples of which you are not even sure of yourself.

You are the one who is basing why the 2.2 isn't so great or "built for boost" because of one dipshit like bc3tech and then you are trying to say that the M62 makes people produce 300 whp and you then say:

I know how to read perfectly fine and what I replied to was directly from what you said. Making a point > You

You are the one who took what I said out of context. YOU were the one saying that a engine is "built for boost" and then I said any engine can be boosted
and then you stated that ...wait...let me quote you because evidentally I make things up and can't read:

then you said

then I said

then you said

Which is inferring on ANY setup and ANY engine. The amount of boost pressure irrelavent, if it does the job, it does the job. Do you think 10 PSI is just some magical number that makes it good or bad if it's less? There are guys on V8 motors that run less than 5 pounds of boost...why? because they don't need to run any higher to achieve the amount of power they were looking for. That is why I said:

Then you got butt hurt because I was making a point and not acting like every other follower and just taking what you say for truth or heart. I question people because people can be wrong. I like it when people question me then I can explain why I said what I said and not just my blanket opinion or statement from 1 example and not from a wide variety or even state why something is happening.

I'm not normally an ******* but I'll go ahead and be one and make you look "silly"

you said...

First of all, who are these "many 2.2s"? How long have you been into the ECOTEC motors or seen what people have done and why? You name Brandon who had a procharger setup and try to say he blew his motor because his motor couldn't "handle it". You do realize how much did he dyno'd correct?

Now do you also realized that GM MADE A KIT for the 2.2 ECOTECs with a M62 and get this...WARRANTIED! Why would GM warranty a kit for a L61 motor if it couldn't "handle it". Oh and by the way, the people who did have this kit dyno'd and ran much better than Brandon's setup ever did...

So bad example and bad inferring on your part.

Insert p0wn.

 

dude i am a newb and i am sick and tired of hearing about this crap!

 

They would see 17,000 emails from people who already own cobalts....are 17,000 people gonna trade in?


17,000 emails from non cobalt owners, than maybe.

 

1. Motors can be either or. The LE5 is used in both front and rear wheel drive cars.
2. Uh...OK. That makes no sense. Seemed to work well for Dodge with the SRT-4. Second, the AVEO is a sub-compact. The Cobalt is just a compact car.
A. Again, your argument makes no sense. You're talking about two totally different markets. The people that are going out and buying GXPs for the most part would most likely NEVER consider a Cobalt. It's a larger car, a completely different platform, and judging by the costs of the G6 line, will probably be priced well above the Cobalt - closer to the $30k STARTING price, whereas the hypothetical turbo Cobalt could easily maintain a starting price in the low $20k range. Let's not forget being a different platform. The G6 is heavier, which hurts it GREATLY in the performance department. The GTP motor has 252hp and the SS/SC is still faster stock for stock. Besides, the Cobalt hasn't hurt GTP sales. Again, different market shares.
B. WTF? Again, no sense. They've already got a 2.0 turbo motor. So development costs are minimal. They can take the 2.0, rotate it 90 degrees, slap a tranny on it and they've got themselves a car. Plus they've already got the Cobalt platform, so costs won't rise much if any, therefore cost to the consumer shouldn't rise as well.

As for the LK9, it became the LSJ with a few minor changes. Hell, just look around at some of the stamping on an LSJ, pretty much everything on the damn motor still says "SAAB." So it's not like it would be getting ANOTHER new motor.

 

GM sales sheets list the G5 and Cobalt as sub compacts

you pay for you profomance think another $5k for an LNF, BECAUSE GM KNOWS THAT AT 60 HP OVER EVERYONE ELSE IN THE SEGMANT, THEY CAN CHARGE THAT
THAT WOULD BUT THE COBALT AGAINST STIs AND EVOs WERE IT WOULD BE MASSIVELY OUT CLASSED
ALSO, NO ONE IN THERE RIGHT MIND WOULD PAY $10K MORE FOR A G6 GXP FOR LESS HP AND MORE WEIGHT
THE LK9 WOULD BE THERE LOGICAL CHOSE

 

Lots of problems here. First, there is plenty of room for the engine. Second, many manufacturers are already putting 260 HP in COMPACTS (not sub-compacts) for a while. It will do nothing to the sales of GXPs. And it doens't cost any more then a current LSJ would.

GM has already announced they are putting the LNF in the HHR.

 

First of all, who are these "many 2.2s"? How long have you been into the ECOTEC motors or seen what people have done and why? You name Brandon who had a procharger setup and try to say he blew his motor because his motor couldn't "handle it". You do realize how much did he dyno'd correct?

Now do you also realized that GM MADE A KIT for the 2.2 ECOTECs with a M62 and get this...WARRANTIED! Why would GM warranty a kit for a L61 motor if it couldn't "handle it". Oh and by the way, the people who did have this kit dyno'd and ran much better than Brandon's setup ever did...

So bad example and bad inferring on your part.

Insert p0wn.[/QUOTE]


god damn you got something up your ass god comment I was just messing around cuz you're being just as you say I'm being... i'm providing a different side to it.. and yes 2.2 ecotec's CAVI's do have a warrantied by gm. however UNLIKE the ions they have tuning.. do you know the numbers brandon put down when he blew his motor? no... no one does. considering he blew his, already injured from lack of tuning motor, from putting on a much smaller pulley which and considering certain internals of the 2.2 are only meant to handle at most 250HP... your the one that always get butt hurt man.. i'm not getting butt hurt just llike i've been saying READING>YOU i've been talking about the ion/ cobalt the who time and you keep bringing in other cars.. I'm not all knowing either but many of the boosted 2.2s have had many problems (yes mostly dew to the lack of tuning, unlike the L61 caviler's since they have hptuner support last time I checked) I'm not using other ecotec's or other cars as an example I'm talking about the cars that are involved on this forum.

I failed to see how you "p0wned me" considering you're brining up **** that has nothing to do with what i'm talking about... I never said I was infallible either.. and I was mearly attempting to explain what me and most other people probably are referring to when they mean "built for boost".. I know boost is boost and no 10 isn't some magic number however (hell bc3tech was running 10psi and I will still say that the l61 in the ion/cobalt isn't built for boost), since you're so keen on bringing up other cars, look at some Honda motors that are "built for boost" with aftermarket components can handle 30+psi which yes depending on the application may not provide the most efficient way to do things but when somethin. g is "built for boost" IN MOST PEOPLES MINDS it will handle more than 3-4 psi.

I said it before i'm not trying to start a stupid efight damn man.. from the beginning i've been saying i'm pretty sure we're just saying the same thing different ways, I never said some cars can't handle boost. I've just been saying some cars can take boost better then other and can handle utilizing more of the potential of the application then 3-4 psi.

i've been saying from the beginning tuning is an issue... you've been saying tuning is an issue, you say that it's the internals that are usually the limiting factor, I agree because if you only have a car that has rods that can handle 230HP then that's going to hurt what you can do with boost, you might be able to run 400HP on a specific blower, but if your parts can't handle it then most people are going to say it's not built for boost. If you have to upgrade internals very quickly then most people will feel it's not as much built for boost thats ALL i've been saying.. the 2.0/2.4 is built better for boost because they have some forged internals so they can take more of a beating... and as it is the 2.0 comes with a S/c stock and they built it to handle that SC stock... so i'm going to go out on a limb and say that it was "built for boost"


I've said it many times... we're agreeing on many things... and we're saying many of them in two different ways, however when when I point out how we've been saying the same things... you still say I'm wrong... "built for boost" is a term maybe people use... i don't know why you're getting so butt hurt off it... it's not that big of deal.. I just attempted to explain why people use it.. and it turned into this retarded discussion...

also i never said many people are running 300whp on the m62 i said some people are and they have major problems due to tuning issues and over spinning the m62 however your keep ignoring that... there are very few that run that much hp on the m62. and don't give me that "people like you ****" because we're just having s stupid miscommunication... this is why people say **** like "i forgot you're god or something" and are actually serious .. because "people like you" talk down to anyone else when they don't "follow" what you say.. so oh wait... that makes us the same type of person then since I'm getting all "butt hurt" because you're not following what I say... and you're getting even more butt hurt cuz i'm not following you. seriously... that "people like you" comment is even more retarded then this arguement.. and there are many 2.2's that have had complications with boosting between this forum and others...

hell ok i'm going to say something crazy and off the way... BUT.... IF a certain platform fails to possess a consistently relyable tuning solution then i'm going to say they're not built for boost. considering if it can't be tuned properly then things aren't going to run as well as it could...


So bad example and bad inferring on your part.

Insert p0wn.

 

Paragraph after paragraph of CRAP! Don't you guys think that if GM were to boost the 2.4 they might be inclined to, oh I don't know, SLAP IN SOME LOWER COMPRESSION FORGED PISTONS! Geeeez! I mean seriously if GM were to take the time to build a boosted 2.4 do you think they'd leave it at the 10.whatever it is now? I sooooooo don't think so!

So GM drops the comp to 8.5 or so and slaps on an intercooled turbo TA DA! Boosted 2.4 and it'd be as reliable as the boosted 2.0.

Also don't forget the crank and rods are already forged in the 2.4 so it would only require new pistons, NOT a hard thing to do.

 

Everybody go to bed. Bunch of crabby asses... Geez.