G.M. tech says Sc for 2.4
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: 03-17-06
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
From: Moncton Newbrunswick Can.
G.M. tech says Sc for 2.4
This G.M. tech I run into today says they are working on a SC for the 2.4 and it should be out by fall, I called bullshit on this one, because if gm was coming out with anything for the 2.4 it would be a Turbo, it just makes more sence.He assures me this is the direction they are going in because of the stronger than expected sales of the 2.4 cummulating with the realese of the g5 next year in the U.S. I still called b.s. on this one because it would be easier to go turbo due to the compression ratio,but he told me I am wrong it is going to be a SC Whatda guys think anybody got any related info?
#3
well im not sure how credible that source is..and if it is credable....i would say they wouldnt worry with a turbo cuz hahn has one commin out and gm supports hahn...so if ne thing gm would most likely come out with a sc...and if this does happen that will be great...i think it would be neat to super our cars
#4
I think it could be true I will have to ask the GM performance teacher over at St. Phillips College and see if he has heard anything. Maybe someone should email the higher ups at GM and see what they say.
#5
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: 03-17-06
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
From: Moncton Newbrunswick Can.
Thanks Dragon I was not going to do any turbo or anything but if this is the case I might have to consider this but really how many 2.4's do you see supercharged they are all turboed
#6
Everytime GM came out with any aftermarket boost for their 4 cylinders it was always a supercharger. The 2.4 twin cam, the 2.2 eco when it comes out, the cobalt's 2.0 is supercharged so if we are going to get anything i would bet on a supercharger.
#9
Originally Posted by Brandon97Z
Everytime GM came out with any aftermarket boost for their 4 cylinders it was always a supercharger. The 2.4 twin cam, the 2.2 eco when it comes out, the cobalt's 2.0 is supercharged so if we are going to get anything i would bet on a supercharger.
- w
Last edited by Woody; 05-13-2006 at 12:50 PM.
#11
If you want a supercharger, buy an SS/SC!
The 2.4L's compression ratio is too high for any serious boost on any forced induction setup (turbo or supercharger)! The car may be unreliable and likely slower than an SS/SC. The clutch and transmission in that car are pretty well maxed out as far as handling more power.
It will likely not be intercolled nor run 12.5 lbs of boost. With the axle ratio of the 2.4L getrag tranny as compared to the SS/SC transmission (3.84 vs. 4.05) almost gaurantees it will be slower than an SS/SC! It would need to make more power than the 2.0L, which I don't see happening.
GM had a turbo on the 1987 Buick Grand National GNX (turbocharged 3.8L, 276HP/360 tq)! Only 547 were built.
The 2.4L's compression ratio is too high for any serious boost on any forced induction setup (turbo or supercharger)! The car may be unreliable and likely slower than an SS/SC. The clutch and transmission in that car are pretty well maxed out as far as handling more power.
It will likely not be intercolled nor run 12.5 lbs of boost. With the axle ratio of the 2.4L getrag tranny as compared to the SS/SC transmission (3.84 vs. 4.05) almost gaurantees it will be slower than an SS/SC! It would need to make more power than the 2.0L, which I don't see happening.
GM had a turbo on the 1987 Buick Grand National GNX (turbocharged 3.8L, 276HP/360 tq)! Only 547 were built.
#13
Originally Posted by mi6_
If you want a supercharger, buy an SS/SC!
The 2.4L's compression ratio is too high for any serious boost on any forced induction setup (turbo or supercharger)! The car may be unreliable and likely slower than an SS/SC. The clutch and transmission in that car are pretty well maxed out as far as handling more power.
It will likely not be intercolled nor run 12.5 lbs of boost. With the axle ratio of the 2.4L getrag tranny as compared to the SS/SC transmission (3.84 vs. 4.05) almost gaurantees it will be slower than an SS/SC! It would need to make more power than the 2.0L, which I don't see happening.
GM had a turbo on the 1987 Buick Grand National GNX (turbocharged 3.8L, 276HP/360 tq)! Only 547 were built.
The 2.4L's compression ratio is too high for any serious boost on any forced induction setup (turbo or supercharger)! The car may be unreliable and likely slower than an SS/SC. The clutch and transmission in that car are pretty well maxed out as far as handling more power.
It will likely not be intercolled nor run 12.5 lbs of boost. With the axle ratio of the 2.4L getrag tranny as compared to the SS/SC transmission (3.84 vs. 4.05) almost gaurantees it will be slower than an SS/SC! It would need to make more power than the 2.0L, which I don't see happening.
GM had a turbo on the 1987 Buick Grand National GNX (turbocharged 3.8L, 276HP/360 tq)! Only 547 were built.
#14
Originally Posted by mi6_
The 2.4L's compression ratio is too high for any serious boost on any forced induction setup (turbo or supercharger)! The car may be unreliable and likely slower than an SS/SC. The clutch and transmission in that car are pretty well maxed out as far as handling more power.
#15
Originally Posted by zinner
Pretty sure than Hahn has a 2.4 kit for the soltice thats doing like 250+ hp on 9 psi.
Remember that GM's selling point on this kit will be that it doesn't void factory warranty. So they are not going to make a shitload of power. Instead they will offer a reliable increase in power. I doubt it would be higher than an SS/SCed's output because of this.
Hahn can do whatever they want, because they are not going to have to replace your 2.4L when it blows up!
#16
Originally Posted by mi6_
GM had a turbo on the 1987 Buick Grand National GNX (turbocharged 3.8L, 276HP/360 tq)! Only 547 were built.
I would say GM would do superchargers for factory aftermarket. There is far less plumbing. No need for a turbo header and exhaust, piping from the turbo to the IC, mounting brackets for the IC, and etc. A S/C is a pretty easy install comparatively.
#17
Originally Posted by dnbguy86
If anything, it will make more power due to its compression ratio, granted it will have to run a higher octane fuel. And as far as the getrag being maxed out, nonsense,i've personally seen getrag's handle 250whp with nothing more but a slight clutch upgrade. The reason the ss/sc runs more boost is because its compression ratio is lower than that of the 2.2/2.4, so it must run more boost to compensate for the lack of compression. The final drive ratio really doesn't have so much an affect on who'd, but more of the ratio's of all the gears in the tranny. Not trying to butt heads or anything, just trying to show its capable of beating an ss/sc not saying it would though.
#18
Originally Posted by Woody
I don't have any inside info, but I tend to agree with Brandon. I can not recall GM doing a turbo on any production car. Maybe they have, but I can not think of any. But supercharged - yup. Did supercharged in the past, and obviously doing it now.
- w
- w
#19
Originally Posted by NJHK
Correct. You hit that on the head.
Thanks man, it just gets old when everyone always says the ss/sc is so good, you can make power on all cobalt platforms. Just depends on what your loooking for...
#20
Originally Posted by mike25
i think there was a turbo saab
Saab 9-3 from 2003+ has a 2.0 Turbocharged ECOTEC...you might see them say "2.0T". There is a High Output and Low Output version.
#21
Originally Posted by dnbguy86
Thanks man, it just gets old when everyone always says the ss/sc is so good, you can make power on all cobalt platforms. Just depends on what your loooking for...
#22
Originally Posted by mi6_
If you want a supercharger, buy an SS/SC!
The 2.4L's compression ratio is too high for any serious boost on any forced induction setup (turbo or supercharger)! The car may be unreliable and likely slower than an SS/SC. The clutch and transmission in that car are pretty well maxed out as far as handling more power.
It will likely not be intercolled nor run 12.5 lbs of boost. With the axle ratio of the 2.4L getrag tranny as compared to the SS/SC transmission (3.84 vs. 4.05) almost gaurantees it will be slower than an SS/SC! It would need to make more power than the 2.0L, which I don't see happening.
GM had a turbo on the 1987 Buick Grand National GNX (turbocharged 3.8L, 276HP/360 tq)! Only 547 were built.
The 2.4L's compression ratio is too high for any serious boost on any forced induction setup (turbo or supercharger)! The car may be unreliable and likely slower than an SS/SC. The clutch and transmission in that car are pretty well maxed out as far as handling more power.
It will likely not be intercolled nor run 12.5 lbs of boost. With the axle ratio of the 2.4L getrag tranny as compared to the SS/SC transmission (3.84 vs. 4.05) almost gaurantees it will be slower than an SS/SC! It would need to make more power than the 2.0L, which I don't see happening.
GM had a turbo on the 1987 Buick Grand National GNX (turbocharged 3.8L, 276HP/360 tq)! Only 547 were built.
The only problem the 10.4 compression generates is the worry of detonation but you wouldn't necessarily need to run 14lbs of boost if you were at 10.4 compression and a 2.4 liter engine.
I'm not sure where you get your info from but I'm willing to bet that any of the other boosted Ecotec engines will outperform the LSJ in terms of speed. The only advantage to the LSJ is that it can run a higher amount of psi.
#23
Originally Posted by IonNinja
Actually the higher compression would probably be of more benefit than not. Since it takes power to make power a stronger NA engine would help with supercharger gains. Not to mention a larger displacement engine means it will be taking in more air than a 2.0 would, which means more power.
The only problem the 10.4 compression generates is the worry of detonation but you wouldn't necessarily need to run 14lbs of boost if you were at 10.4 compression and a 2.4 liter engine.
I'm not sure where you get your info from but I'm willing to bet that any of the other boosted Ecotec engines will outperform the LSJ in terms of speed. The only advantage to the LSJ is that it can run a higher amount of psi.
The only problem the 10.4 compression generates is the worry of detonation but you wouldn't necessarily need to run 14lbs of boost if you were at 10.4 compression and a 2.4 liter engine.
I'm not sure where you get your info from but I'm willing to bet that any of the other boosted Ecotec engines will outperform the LSJ in terms of speed. The only advantage to the LSJ is that it can run a higher amount of psi.
The biggest thing you 2.4 guys would have to worry about is ignition timing if you're running higher amounts of boost.
#25
Originally Posted by Dragonsfire12345
not really engine technical but how can you fix the ignition timing to run higher boost?