2.4L LE5 Performance Tech 16 valve 171 hp EcoTec with 163 lb-ft of torque

G.M. tech says Sc for 2.4

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-12-2006 | 08:47 PM
  #1  
g5mike's Avatar
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?
Old 05-12-2006 | 08:48 PM
  #2  
MarcS's Avatar
The Stig
 
Joined: 05-11-05
Posts: 6,484
Likes: 1
From: New York
Who knows, I haven't heard anything about it.
Old 05-12-2006 | 08:53 PM
  #3  
mike25's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 03-07-06
Posts: 7,224
Likes: 1
From: west virginia
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
Old 05-12-2006 | 09:07 PM
  #4  
Dragonsfire12345's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 11-01-05
Posts: 5,446
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio,TX
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.
Old 05-12-2006 | 09:15 PM
  #5  
g5mike's Avatar
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
Old 05-12-2006 | 09:16 PM
  #6  
Brandon97Z's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 04-13-04
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
From: Indiana
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.
Old 05-12-2006 | 09:21 PM
  #7  
snobird's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-02-06
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
From: tn
now the famous question wil 2.4 sc beat 2.0 sc no stage two just bone stock
Old 05-12-2006 | 09:29 PM
  #8  
mike25's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 03-07-06
Posts: 7,224
Likes: 1
From: west virginia
ok i emailed gm and i should be hearing something back from them before long so ill let ya all know what they say
Old 05-12-2006 | 10:01 PM
  #9  
Woody's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 04-21-06
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
From: Minneapolis
Talking

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.
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

Last edited by Woody; 05-13-2006 at 12:50 PM.
Old 05-12-2006 | 10:33 PM
  #10  
snobird's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-02-06
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
From: tn
anybody got any ideas on 2.4 2.0 sc which will win higher compression on 2.4 lower on 2.0 also will they make it for auto
Old 05-12-2006 | 10:34 PM
  #11  
mi6_'s Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-01-05
Posts: 1,589
Likes: 0
From: Canada
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.
Old 05-12-2006 | 10:40 PM
  #12  
snobird's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-02-06
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
From: tn
hmm well i bought my wife the 2,4 cause she cant drive stickshift i was going with turbo but supercharger sounds so much better
Old 05-12-2006 | 11:21 PM
  #13  
dnbguy86's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 01-23-05
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
From: texas
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.
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.
Old 05-12-2006 | 11:26 PM
  #14  
zinner's Avatar
Moderator Alumni
 
Joined: 08-26-04
Posts: 4,944
Likes: 2
From: RTP, NC
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.
Pretty sure than Hahn has a 2.4 kit for the soltice thats doing like 250+ hp on 9 psi.
Old 05-12-2006 | 11:31 PM
  #15  
mi6_'s Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-01-05
Posts: 1,589
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Originally Posted by zinner
Pretty sure than Hahn has a 2.4 kit for the soltice thats doing like 250+ hp on 9 psi.
I am not saying you can't make the power. The engine's life cylcle will be shorter than a factory 2.0L because of the force involved with the higher compression. Also, the 2.4L tranny and clutch would never take it.

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!
Old 05-12-2006 | 11:42 PM
  #16  
Cobalt_Supercharged's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-08-05
Posts: 5,295
Likes: 0
From: AZ
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.
They also had the GN from 85-87 and the Regal T-Type. 91-93 they made the GMC Syclone, and 92-93 the Typhoon. Turbo & intercooled 4.3L V6.

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.
Old 05-12-2006 | 11:52 PM
  #17  
NJHK's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
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.
Correct. You hit that on the head.
Old 05-13-2006 | 09:15 PM
  #18  
mike25's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 03-07-06
Posts: 7,224
Likes: 1
From: west virginia
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
i think there was a turbo saab
Old 05-13-2006 | 09:25 PM
  #19  
dnbguy86's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 01-23-05
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
From: texas
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...
Old 05-13-2006 | 09:27 PM
  #20  
NJHK's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Originally Posted by mike25
i think there was a turbo saab
Correct.

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.
Old 05-13-2006 | 09:28 PM
  #21  
NJHK's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
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...
No problem.
Old 05-14-2006 | 12:35 AM
  #22  
IonNinja's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-29-05
Posts: 7,926
Likes: 0
From: AZ
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.
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.

Old 05-14-2006 | 01:18 AM
  #23  
NJHK's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
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.

Agreed.

The biggest thing you 2.4 guys would have to worry about is ignition timing if you're running higher amounts of boost.
Old 05-14-2006 | 01:26 AM
  #24  
Dragonsfire12345's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 11-01-05
Posts: 5,446
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio,TX
not really engine technical but how can you fix the ignition timing to run higher boost?
Old 05-14-2006 | 01:57 AM
  #25  
NJHK's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Originally Posted by Dragonsfire12345
not really engine technical but how can you fix the ignition timing to run higher boost?
Your computer sets your ignition timing through the ignition system. You can alter the timing by either getting a reflash (reprogramming the PCM) or by replacing the ignition system with an MSD Ignition System which gives you the ability to alter your ignition timing. You would need the MSD DIS-2.


Quick Reply: G.M. tech says Sc for 2.4



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:38 AM.