Oh now you were joking? I saw no inferring of you joking so I took it as what you said.

It's not about tuning, you said...and I quote:

and even still you say

This has nothing to do with tuning, this was all about the engine. You're mixing and matching your statements to try and make some point. I make my statements perfectly clear.

yes because he was a idiot who was bragging about dyno #s "untuned" ~ 180 WHP

No you just didn't know.

I thought the L61s weren't built for boost though? Hmm...

You do also realize there have been people who KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING who've ran low 12s and even very high 11s on a stock L61 just fine a good period of time.

No, this is where you're wrong. I brought up another car because you said exactly this...

Which is inferring on any setup on any car. Why is it so silly to run 3-4 pounds of boost is beyond me.

And now of course you know what most people are thinking. Silvia Brown > You

This thread was never about a power level, you're making up examples to suit your statements. The LSJ motor came forced inducted, do you think that engine can handle 500 HP? No? Damn, then I guess it's not built for boost if it can't handle a high power level...gee.

*cough* um...

Funny.

You want to be completely honest...YOU are the one who made the rude comment towards me. You made no signs of joking, you're not my friend and I don't know you, so yes I'm going to take as YOU are butthurt over a conversation. I could care less if people follow what I say or not, the only thing I do is question why people say what they say. It's people like YOU who make blanket statements and then try to make dumb excuses to say it. "Built for boost" like I already stated makes 0 sense and already proved why I said it. You're purely making excuses for technicalities of why you said what you said and in the end you still said...

Just like I already had said. Who the **** cares how much you're running, it's about the power you're able to create from doing so.

I was not talking down to you or anyone in this thread and as a matter of fact I even said in the beginning

I wasn't trying to insult you or single you out or talk down to you. I was stating how I feel and made a point. You circle around my statements like a one legged dog. Everything I said was in reply to what you said. Do not challenge my reading comprehension or my intelligence by trying to say that I can't read.

It's alright though because people like you are always the same. You don't know **** about me to say my intent on this forum. The people who do know anything about me know what I'm about.

HAHAHAHAHA

You know why I'm laughing?

Because you gave ONE example of a douchebag with a procharger and that's "consistancy". You show me who else with a L61 who is blowing their motors because of TOO MUCH POWA!

I also find funny that because a certain car doesn't have a PCM tuner that it "lacks tuning" or because it according to you "lacks tuning" it's not built for boost.

I love how this thread goes from the motor can't handle it then the computer is at fault and back and forth again. I honestly don't understand why you keep bringing up the computer. If a engine blows because some idiot doesn't know that the **** their doing, it's the computers fault? or is it the engine that can't take a terrible tune? That's it. That makes perfect sense now.

You're probably asking yourself why do I even reply to you...because some n00b will read what you say and start thinking like you. It would be one thing if you were making a point but you're partly agreeing to what I'm saying to persue your own agenda in a discussion. "That's what I was trying to say too" or "but I do agree that..."

Right.

Can I touch yours? lol

 

+1 Rep for not worryin' about what is commin' but worryin' about what you got right now!

 

NJHK<<<< like to quote much??

 

I got accused of not reading, so if I quote, it points out I'm not just making stuff up.

Other than, no I don't enjoy quoting alot.

 

whatever njhk not once did i say anything about you till after you flipped out... i could frankly care less about how you feel about me... sorry but you're still quoting things that prove your points and not the full statements just as everyone does... including myself... and yes PCM tuning is not the only type of tuning but even people have had trouble tuning the new L61's with piggybacks and stand alone's people have even thought they had it nail and then something happens.... look on other forums and you will see people who have popped their 2.2s including on this forum. how the hell am I partly agreeing from the beginning i've agreed with you minus maybe one thing.. and I was ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN THE REASON WHY PEOPLE MIGHT THINK SOMETHING. and way to call someone who's not posting on here a douchebag just because you've had a conflict or two... grow up... seriously...it seems more and more lately when someone slightly goes against you you get seriously butthurt and wont let something go... i could care less who you are...or what you know for that matter... or your actual reading level ... newsflash "reading>you" is a common saying on this forum just like "built for boost" why don't you waste some more time to break that down on how it doesn't make sense.... there are certain things you have misunderstood that i've said since you quote me and then repeat what I say in a different manner... I didn't begin to say anything purposely rude till after your rude comments.... seriously goto bed... the point of this thread was to talk about possibly getting some way to get a warrantied supercharged 2.4 which we can all agree probably wont happen... i've tried to get back on topic a few times.. yet you continue to not leave it alone.... get back on topic....since it seems that no one cares what you're saying considering no one else has addressed either of us....

i still say that we should see if we can get a company who makes a turbo or sc kit to contact gm at some point.. scions have done it and they have a few kits that are factory warrantied.. Who knows with gm though... they do silly things sometimes

and for the record.. you say you don't want some noob believe something that is wrong.. the point we're arguing is moot... it has no relevance to anything mechanical, it started over a stupid saying you don't like....and a good noob wouldn't believe just one person, they'd do a bit a research... plus what do you care if someone else blows their motor... it's not your car... if they believe one person and pop because of it it's not your fault...

 

yup i agree with jacko. and since i started this thread all ive been reading all day is CUT THROAT ACTIVITYS. i mean its an open discussion but why does everyone flame up about it. i mean cmon chip in the ideas i know there are lots in here already. this is a hot thread in just 1 day lol.

alright guys my gosh. where were we.

just got home from work and i have to read 3 new pages of this crap lol. i thought this was an interesting topic. i was reasearching earlier.

if gm was to supercharger the 2.4 i know it would work any engine can be FI. my dad threw 2 turbos on a huge 903 v12 and its for a truck and it runs on propane magnum heads and headers huge 4.5 inch pistons forged alumminum 1 3/4 valves ceramic coated and all kinds of neat parts but the thing is the more cynlinders and bigger engines cant take much boost itl blow up. i dont remember what boost it was running somewere in the 4psi to 9 psi boost range.

well back on track. the 2.4 can handle a SC or turbo. the crank on the 2.4 can support atleast 300hp which most guys arnt that far yet. And yes to quote JACKOLOPES post are compression is 10.5-1 which is alittle high for boost but it can work. all gm would have to do more than likely would be to lower compression for pistons to say 9.0-1 or 9.5-1 which is pretty good. and possibly add limited slip diff for new power. the vvt cams and whatnot are plenty for just adding sc or turbo. unless you upgrade them the cams might have to be upgraded later on.

and they probly would change out the gear box slightly get a heavier clutch plate with maybe flywheel but not sure. i mean minor changes the 2.4 could easily run with a 2.0 stage 2 they just simply didnt go lets say the whole. (Go big or go home idea) or build a big engine with lots of power potential.

if you think about it the 2.0 is slightly smaller than the 2.2 duh! but if you take away the supercharger on the 2.0 what would the hp be then huh!!!! probly about in the range of what the 2.2s are running maybe close to what the 2.4s are stock dont know just guessing and i better not catch any FLAMES FOR THIS.

the 2.0 was SIMPLY PUT designed for boost and for higher power ratings at the time that what gm was looking for that little extra coolness and power for the money.

as for the 2.2s go which consist of more than what 75% of sales, just because people buy them lots of older folks i see in them because there very cheap and great gas milage. the 2.4 was i think in my perspective just a tester engine for the cobalt. they didnt make many 2.4 cobalts they didnt think people would buy as many. why i dont know its got the BEST GAS MILAGE. and has the power to boot that. and if you want more step up to the sc.

well im probly missing something but its been along day and a hot one. i do have respect for the 2.0 guys love the whole sc idea. just i think usually makes sense bigger engine means you can put down more hp. not always true but usually.

hell im gonna rip out my engine and put a ls6 in there i think thats a corvette v8 i dont know what the letters are if there right but. why not v8 in a cobalt IT CAN BE DONE. just have to completely redo the engine bay and front end and everything but it can be done just COSTS$$$$$$. thats all it is anymore $$$. and then lets see who has the fastest cobalt. i would be pushin whats that 400 crank hp lol.

anywhos ill wait to get some flames on this when i come back tomorrow morning and il be off early tomorrow from work at 830. thanks for the posts so far. im sure itl be more interesting.

ryan.


Ecoblue, and Njhk you guys get rep from me you always have something good to say and very smart about it.

 

You're so cute. Wanna hug?

Give me 5 examples

And tell me 1 person who has a standalone and still can't tune their car and I'll show you a inexperienced tuner. Plain and Simple.

If you haven't noticed, I'm on pretty much every ECOTEC related forum...I see 80% that is talked about online. I've also been involved in the ECOTECs since 2003. I know what's going on...

1. You don't know what our conflict is about
2. He was the one to start the conflict, not me.
3. He is a douchebag.
4. I could careless if he saw it here or not. I've told him plenty of times. It's not 2 or 3 times...it's been more than that but way to tell me to grow up. Pat on the back for that one.

And I was explaining why they shouldn't...you were defending it. So no, we weren't agreeing.

lol when?

It's a common saying when someone is not reading what you type correctly...it means exactly what it says. Like said, I read what you said perfectly fine, so you're incorrect.

...yeah a completely different manner. I'm not agreeing with what you're saying, if I did, I would say so.

LOL really? which one?

I know what the point of the thread was and I even said this wasn't to single you out. Why don't you yell at everyone else who turned this into a "the 2.4 isn't built for boost" or "the 2.4 with boost will be much better". Right cause you won't.

I would but I can't stop thinking about you big boy

LOL says the guy who replies everytime I post

Why? the 2.4 isn't built for boost LOL

Stupid sayings turn into the misconceptions. You ever hear people say "You need backpressure". I'm sure at one point this was a stupid saying. Or how about "there is no tuning". I could go on...

So that's why I say what I say. It's the state of mind of people and when people believe everything they read and don't question anything. Someone could have read what you said and believed "hey, he said that it's not built for boost" and then repeats what he read on and on but does not question nor does he know exactly what he's reading.

I question people all the time...not saying they don't know what they are talking about but want to know WHY they said what they said which is why I said what I said and kept replying back to you.

I care about the next generation of car enthusiasts and their state of minds. I like to help people also if I can at all. Excuse me for being a actual car enthusiast.

 

its understandable man. you sound quite educated to me im not flamin anyone i started this whole thing. everyone has some good points but the last page was a bunch of flames thats it.

heres the thing. all 3 engine types chevy has the ecotecs. 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4 all can support boost whether its 1psi or 20. it can get the job done somehow. enough education behind it and some money you can do it. and dont give me this theres no tuning crap. THERE IS. someone can make tuning hptuners vector gm whoever it can be done thats it.

ryan.

 

Exactly. Air pressure is air pressure.

Also, GM has 6 ECOTEC motors now lol

L61, LNF, LE5, LAT, LK9 and last but not least LSJ

(it's sad I remember that off hand)

 

yeah wow thats interesting. but the 6 ecotecs arnt they all just 2.0s 2.2s and 2.4s just different simlarities. i mean im just guessing i dont know. like the solstice is running a 2.4 but RWD and different internals and computer stuff. would that be considered le5 or whatever other letters and numbers you said lol.

 

Displacement wise, yes but they are all different in some ways.

3 2.0s
2 2.4s
1 2.2

 

i figured something like that. whats the difference with the 2.0s woul that be the bore and stroke correct and varrying othere things.

fwd and rwd to i would guess the 2.0s are in the balt, ion, g5 i think and 1 other not sure.

ryan.

 

You forgot about the L42 (natural gas burner). Whats the LAT? I don't recognize that one. Is that the 1.8 liter one?

 

there is a very select few cars that have natural gas. and there is a new propane powered truck ford has f150 i think. which is cool cuz my grandpa owns a big propane buisness here in lagrange ohio.

i hope they make more production models of that truck. what the heck how comes i never heard of natural gas eco.

ryan.

 

I don't want to really get all into it here so just read the stickies here: http://www.ecotecforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=40

L42? wtf? What car is that in? US vehicle?

LAT is a 2.4 Hybrid engine

http://www.ecotecforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1925

 

cool thanks man il check them out.

ryan.

 

I just found that myself, the LE5 hybrid variant, the same one I posted a picture of in this same thread. The L42 has been around a long time. But its not used in any domestic brands.

 

Ah, so you LOSE!

I'm only talking about North American cars man-penny

There are a bunch of other Euro ECOTEC cars that share nothing with the US ones...so I don't even count them

 

yeah this is america lol. thatd be interesting to see a 2.4 hybrid and how awsome that could potentially be with hp and AMAZING mpg.

ryan. but then again its half electric so it wouldnt need hp but would still be great to see a production model. or atleast a prototype.

 

Read this for power it makes:

http://www.ecotecforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1925

 

Well, according that what I just read, the LAT engine is in use on the Saturn Vue and Aura Green Line. So go buy one and slap a Hahn turbo on it.

Oh wait, it probably isn't "built for boost"

Oh jesus that was too easy.

 

LOL that'd be insane

 

yeah thats cool so its just running alittle less power im assuming thats crank hp. yeah i read what power it had i just forgot and wasnt payin attention. i think its less cuz of its turning the electric motors and stuff. but thats still damn good. and i wouldnt think you could put a turbo on a hybrid just not much room. but then again anything can be done is my saying.

"Enough time money and space and a little thought you can do anything"

ryan.

 

hahaha

too easy

 

But in your original post, you just said GM, didn't specify GMNA......