id go zzp best bang for the buck honestly hahn is nice but a little overrated and the borg warner s256 turbo that comes with the zzp set up is a very nice turbo would never have to worry about upgrading down the road if u wanted more power im doin the stage 3 as soon as i get my next refund check from my loans

 

[QUOTE=SUKXOST;4280103]Ha....If you can afford an NA and then do a turbo on it(which obviously includes all the parts; labor; dyno time and tuning........you more certainly could afford to have bought an SS. IMO

you can buy a used ls for like 7500 if u look hard enough
spend 3000 on a decent turbo build
dosent make up for the 20000 for a lnf
also including insurance

 

That thought process is a bit flawed considering the fact that turbo 2.4s easily make more power than supercharged 2.0s.

edit- If you meant SS turbo model, then the cost difference is even more drastic since they can'e be had for less than $15k unless they are salvage title or have other serious issues. We paid less than $8k for our 2.4 SS the end of last year.

Our 2.4 shop car is an auto and makes 350+ whp. If you are looking to build your 2.4 auto, bring your car up to our shop and we can get you taken care of. For 300whp, you can simply purchase our intercooled turbo kit. If you are looking to make 350, you will probably need valvesprings.

 

Real cars are built, not bought. It's the mantra of the Jeeping Community and I feel that it's applicable to SUKXOST.

It's fairly easy to get a 2.4 cheap (mint ones with low miles can be had for well under $10k). That's a lot of spare coin to spend on performance mods (compared to a '09/'10 SS). My M62 build with full bolt-ons won't even hit $2k and I'm hoping to get around 260 bhp to the wheels.

That said, to the OP, with some decent TCU tuning, you can get your auto to hook up better than just about any manual on the block and Auto trannies are great for turbo builds because they keep the RPMs up during shifting (it's like having no-lift shift built in).

 

theres always ppl that are gonna hate on the 2.4's either theyll say get a ss'sc or a tc or dont even bother im glad i didnt listen 1100$ later i have a relibale DD that runs mid 13s with 12 sec trap speeds

 

You can drive mine if i can drive yours
the 2.4 intercooled setup would get him where he wants to be....but coulndt he just go m62, single pass, 2.6" pulley, cames and be in the 300+ range aswell???

 

Obviously any transmission can "handle" alot of power but for how long?

That 325 number is GEAR BOX torque. It is not the same thing as lbs- ft-torque out of an engine.

If you were right---they why would any of the TURBO 2.4L automatics EVER fail???

GMs 6 speed auto FWD one is only rated at 280 lbs-ft torque (thats not gear box torque)
(I think that was the first year or so---higher rating now)


don't fall for the hype. That trans will not handle 325 tq forever. (not as long as the warranty anyhow--not that there is one but....)

found it--from GM

http://media.gm.com/division/2005_pr...ans_specs.html

read it and....learn.... 220 lb-ft

 

Kinda debating on what to do with my 2.2 Auto, simply because the Auto takes away so much power from crank to wheels.

 

Hey chief, you may want to check this one out too (It's the SS/SC's gearbox spec info):

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...35%20(MU3).pdf

Read it and... learn... and compare.

4T45E: 220 lb-ft of engine torque
F35: 200 lb-ft of engine torque

So the Auto tranny can RELIABLY handle 10% more power than the FI SS's manual tranny.

Note: It looks like GM beefed up the internals of the SS/TC's F35, making its internals as strong or stronger than the case and the 2008-10 F35 is rated at 260 lb-ft of engine torque (identical to its case torque limit).

Also, for your Manual SS/NA's (you're only rated at 155 lb-ft of engine torque): http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...M86%20MG3).pdf

 

1. My point was that the autotrans is NOT rated at 325lbs- of engine torque. That is true.

2. Interesting info---I have to wonder though...that's 2005 spec sheet.

Ask your self--it it possible GM beefed up the transmission for higher torque capacity for the TURBO LNF?

I found this--out of time at the moment to look for an offical GM release...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F35_%28MU3%29_transmission

260 TQ.

Maybe you or some one else can find an 08 release on the F35 specs?

 

The link I gave you was the 2006 specs. There don't seem to be specs for the F35 for the 2005 model year :shrug: And yes, it makes sense that they would upgrade the F35's internals to handle the extra power that the LNF delivers from the factory. So the FT45E is planted firmly (in terms of strength) between the LSJ F35 and the LNF F35. Not a bad place to be, IMHO, for a car that you can get into for 12k less than a new SS and that can get built up fairly easily.

It looks like that Wikipedia article isn't exactly correct. The Cobalt SS didn't get a tranny rated at 260 lb-ft until the LNF came along.

2007: http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...ME_F35_MU3.xls

2008: http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...08_GME_MU3.xls

2009: http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en..._F35_MU3_n.xls

 

Let's take that a bit further as well. Did GM beef up the auto trans that is used in the turbo HHR?

 

To answer your question, no they did not. The HHR SS's Auto tranny has the same torque specs as the 2.4's Auto Tranny, but the Auto HHR SS uses a detuned LNF (250 hp@5900 RPM and only 235 hp in 1st and 2nd gears vs. the Manual's 260 hp @ 5300 RPM)

 

sukhost, it wasnt about bein butthurt, but that just wasnt funny?

didnt gay jokes go out of style back in.... middle school?

 

So strange,

I have a 2.4 Ecotech and the VIN says SS. It's an auto. Did some come like this? Mine is an 06.

 

'06 and '07 2.4's were branded as SS's, in '08, they renamed them Sports and in '09 they killed the 2.4L Cobalts