That's one of the stupidest comments I've seen on here The 2.4 does NOT have stronger internals than the 2.0. The 2.4 was NOT designed for Turbocharging. You do NOT know yet what will hold up to 350whp. The Solstice by Hahn has SO far, but remember, it's RWD!! Not even the same trans/drivetrain setup! Nobody's getting upset, you're just really passing around bad info. All of the ecotec motors are very strong, however the 2.0 is designed to handle the most boost from the factory. With the exception of pistons and valve springs, everything can handle 600hp in the 2.0, and that's from GM. You seriously need to do a little research and learn the facts before you start spreading that crap around!

 

Auto, nice power from a 4 banger. Almost as much power as my old V6 Ram Air Grand AM , but with better mileage.

 

Man, don't waste your breath. I've told these guys here over and over again about the weak tranny especially the 5 speed but it's like trying to talk sense into a telephone pole.

The 5 speed in the 2.2/2.4 is only rated for 170lbs max. That's quite a bit lower than the 225lbs for the auto.

 

took the letters right from under my fingers....

 

I got the 2.4 because I liked the car, I don't trust GM that much that I would let them supercharge my car for me, and I want the car to last. Besides if I let GM do all the work for me what would I get to do, driving is only half the fun.......

 

this thread is getting to be really dumb...mods please lock it....too much bs floating around here. I hate the damn 2.4 turbo debate, everyone saying they can't wait to be able to beat an s/c. Well if that is the case, then we will twin charge, for about the same cost as your turbo, and still beat the hell out of you..

 

Aren't we all Cobalt SS's here?(for the most part)

stfu ppl, I love the SS/SCs and the SS/NAs....cuz when it comes down to it...


...WE....the Cobalts that is, are murdering ricers left and right...debate all you want...audi used to take 1.8 group b rally cars and make 500-600hp with stock parts whoopdee doo...Honda guys are taking SOHC non-VTEC motors and making 10 sec. strip only crxs, for the right price you can make any car beat anything out there pretty much.

I got the 2.4L cuz i couldnt afford a SS/SC

But i will finish this post with this....why do nissan guys swap sr20dett's with sr26dett's?
Why is there the 383 stroker Chevy small block?
Why do people take out the Jeep 4.0 I-6 and put in a crate 350?
There's no replacement for displacement...
I think in the end, the 2.4Ls will make more overall HP, who knows who will be more reliable though. When you are tuning for HP, who cares about how long it will last all you want is one run right?
Want guarenteed longevity? Get a Hyundai Accent....
Out of box boost and power?
SS/SC hands down
We'll see what we can do with the extra 400cc Chevy has blessed us with

 

my reasons: 4 doors / price / insurance
I wanted Manual but couldn't get it ( i bought a used one w/ 4,000 miles on it for about 7k cheaper )

 

the reason most people lessen their compression is because the dont want to risk sittng on a time bomb....it is safer for the engine and not to mention more th ikely more reliable in most cases....bt in truth if the engine is built right from the factory we shouldnt have any probles with high compresion....which i believe is the case of the 2.4...

 

lol i agree that was a bold statement to make....but i believ the 2.0 was deigned o handle SAFE levels of boost from the factory hat wont case reliability issues....any engine can go forced induction...its the composition of the engine tha determins how fa ou can take i with FI...and o yea your block wont handle 600hp...gm build book clearly stats an further power past 500 and the block needs special mods to ensure reliabiliy...crankshaft wil need to be upgraded...cylinder head needs to upgraded...not sure if youd sonsider tha internal though...so yea u cant say wha u said above nd believe it true...

 

1. Price--first I was only going tot get a 2.2L--so it was a step up for me. After test drving the 2.4L--I knew I would not be happy with a 2.2

2. There was no 05 S/C SS left in the province--and with all the problems with 05's-I guess that was a good thing.

3. Fuel milage was a concern but not a big one

4. Big ugly, ricer wing---sure that can be changed---for money

I have driven a S/C since then and glad I got the 2.4L--the FE3 suspension is a perfect balance between cornering grip and comfort.

 

I got my 2.4 b/c it was automatic... had lower insurance than the SS/SC... and was about $2,000 cheaper at the time.

But lemme tell ya'... this SS/SC is just plain fun. The 5-speed wasn't that much of a pain to learn... and now that you can grab one for $23k instead of $25k... they're more affordable...

I haven't done any major mods yet... but that'll come soon enough.

 

The point I was trying to make was not why people lower their compression when going the F/I route. The point was, higher compression with a small amount of boost will make lower horsepower than a similar engine with lowered compression and a greater amount of boost.

The engine can be hand built by Rolls Royce, it still doesn't negate the fact that when you put boost to a higher comp. enigine, you WILL get detonation.

Remember, this whole thing started when someone incorrectly stated that the 2.4L was designed for boost moreso than the 2.0L which simply isn't true.

 

Thats true in some cases but not all. We just need to wait for more 2.4's to be boosted to compare the two.

 

Exactly.

 

Ok back to the original question why did I choose the 2.4 over the 2.0?

The 2.4 fits my needs better than the 2.0 does. Not to say the 2.0 is bad, it's just bad for me.

These were my absolute requirements I used to make my decision. If the car did not meet any one of these criteria I would not consider it:

#1. I didn't want to spend over $20,000 - I got my 2.4l auto with the pioneer sound system for $17,500 out the door (including Doc fees, but not tax.) By the way, I had $50k in the bank, so I could have bought whatever I wanted - I guess I'm just a cheapskate.

#2. I needed an automatic transmission - it's the only kind my wife is able to drive for physical reasons.

#3. I wanted at least 30mpg real-world highway mpg. I get 31-33 mpg at 75mph.

#4. I wanted at least 25mpg commuting mpg. I average 25-27mpg commuting to work.

#5. I wanted the best hp/wt ratio in a sporty car that handled well, was comfortable and had all the amenities like: ABS braking, a decent stereo and a/c; yet met all the above criteria.

PS:If I just wanted to go fast with no other consideration, I would have bought a Kawasaki zx-14 and dropped a turbo in it. I would have come out a lot cheaper, but I probably would have shortened my lifespan considerably. I'm 50 yrs old, and though I have considerably more riding skill than I did when I was 20, my slowed reaction time and reflexes would get me over my head in a heartbeat on an 8 second bike. I'll stick to my 11 sec. 750 and hopefully live a little longer.

 

Uh, actually I have the 2.0 specific build book. Pistons and valve springs are the only weak links to 600 hp. The crank is already forged. The block itself is ok untill then. Yes, they do swap to a different crank, but it isn't required. As far as "saying it and believing it to be true", well, if GM says it's true, I'll believe it . I won't be building mine to 600 hp, so I won't get to say " I told you so". The fact of the matter is, the 2.0 is stronger, period-and that's the main point I was trying to make.

 

thats interesting....what i said was directly stated in the ecotec build book also....the 2.0 is just for those who dont want to fool with going and picking out their own ustom FI engine....dont get me wrong im not dissing it in anyway....the 2.4 however i believe has a better future for tuning and part because thee is more we can do to it....for you guys a bigger blower might be the MOST productive mod you can make...thats nt our case....it really isnt a game of who comes best from the factory...we know who wins that...the actual game is the result when a modded ss/sc is sittin at a stop light, that weaker 2.4 pulls up beside you and you say i got this....hes got a weak engine....and then that 2.4 floors it and is gone and you say ****...then whos gotta weaker engine....jut a scenario not tryin to start a flame war...........see ya at that stoplight

 

Lol, I'd like to see you at the stoplight! It all comes down to who wants to spend the most money A 2.4 better be packin' some crazy heat to beat a 12 sec capable, ~110mph trapping car. Might want to actually have a 12 second 2.4 before you start calling out the faster guys on the board.

 

HAHA I love the last line.

 

umm i dont believe i called out anybody.....and our car isnt a 12 second car....stock vettes are barely a 12 seond car....moneys no object to me.....and when it comes to payin 3k extra for a ss/sc or jus buyin that weak 2.4...ill take the 2.4 an go buy a turbo kit...sure it might cost a lill bit more...but is higher quality parts than that sc on your 2.0.....once again not tryin to start a flame war ...even ss/sc owners have said the blower is a cheap POS....

 

In the first sentence, are you telling me that you don't have a 12second car, or I don't? My car is definitely 12-second capable. As for the blower being cheap, wrong again. They're nearly bullet proof, reliable, and produce great torque. How many factory superchargers can push over 20psi and still make gains?

 

Are you sure that the 5 speed in the 2.4 is only rated at 170lbs max?

 

Oh look... another thread in the 2.4 section with 2.0 owners shatting all over it. Imagine that.

 

my fault...your cars...u know wha im sayin.....and yea any ar can be a 12 second car.....but ure not gonna sit there and say your car will push 12 seconds with just a few bolt-ons....not gona happen...t will need more serious mods than that or a smller pulley....ill bet thir bullet proof...how do you even know that....plenty of supercharges can make more psi without problems....lets see you do it for extensive periods and see what you can do.....and whn it comes down to in reference to an earlier post....it doesnt matter how much compression you have...you guys have reduced compression and your makin 12 psi at lets say 250 hp....not sayin thats accurate.....now we have higher compression....so if we go FI it would take us less boost to make the same equivlent of power levels....you 250hp @12 psi to our 250hp @maybe 6-8psi.....