08 cobalt changes
05-31-2007, 07:56 PM
#201
Senior Member
The 2.4 for next year not only lost the SS badging, but it also lost rear wheel disc breaks as well!! I was talking with the neighbors son yesterday, he's a chevy mechanic for the past 22 years. That's what he told me!! He definetly did tell me that buying the 2.4SS was a smarter move than buying the 2.0 S/C if you want to mod the motor. He said the 2.4 has a better bottom end for the turbo's!! It will hold up a lot better than the 2.0!!
05-31-2007, 08:17 PM
#202
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-31-06
Location: Cleveland, Oh
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I definately understand having a mechanic you can trust in, there even more useful than having a lawyer has a friend. They can really get your behind out of a bind.
However
Though the 2.4 n/a ecotec is a GREAT engine, if he told you that it was "a better choice" in regards to strength or performance, then he is dead wrong man. If he said "more economical" or "more efficient" or "more responsible" then yea i can understand that. But if he meant "more performance" then that is just wrong.
The 2.0 was built to be the top performing cobalt engine, so saying that the 2.4 is "stronger" is kinda retarded. Especially considering that the 2.0 has a forged crank, forged rods, sodium filled exhaust valves, etc etc etc
Don't get me wrong, the 2.4 is a great car and i'm not bashing on it. But if you wanted the strongest and best performing engine that you could get in a cobalt, then you bought the wrong car my friend.
However
Though the 2.4 n/a ecotec is a GREAT engine, if he told you that it was "a better choice" in regards to strength or performance, then he is dead wrong man. If he said "more economical" or "more efficient" or "more responsible" then yea i can understand that. But if he meant "more performance" then that is just wrong.
The 2.0 was built to be the top performing cobalt engine, so saying that the 2.4 is "stronger" is kinda retarded. Especially considering that the 2.0 has a forged crank, forged rods, sodium filled exhaust valves, etc etc etc
Don't get me wrong, the 2.4 is a great car and i'm not bashing on it. But if you wanted the strongest and best performing engine that you could get in a cobalt, then you bought the wrong car my friend.
05-31-2007, 08:24 PM
#203
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-23-06
Location: Passaic, NJ
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would be because we run a lot more boost with the 2.0 and how many boosted 2.4s are there?
05-31-2007, 08:32 PM
#204
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-31-06
Location: Cleveland, Oh
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-31-2007, 09:19 PM
#205
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-17-04
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
each einge has advatages and disadvatages.
If you coud build a 2.4L with all forged internals and get a turbo working correctly---it would eat any 2.0. However, this is all theory cause no one has done it.
As it sits factory VS factory the 2.0 is obviously better (except for no VVT)
If you coud build a 2.4L with all forged internals and get a turbo working correctly---it would eat any 2.0. However, this is all theory cause no one has done it.
As it sits factory VS factory the 2.0 is obviously better (except for no VVT)
05-31-2007, 10:11 PM
#206
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-27-06
Location: Georgia
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
each einge has advatages and disadvatages.
If you coud build a 2.4L with all forged internals and get a turbo working correctly---it would eat any 2.0. However, this is all theory cause no one has done it.
As it sits factory VS factory the 2.0 is obviously better (except for no VVT)
If you coud build a 2.4L with all forged internals and get a turbo working correctly---it would eat any 2.0. However, this is all theory cause no one has done it.
As it sits factory VS factory the 2.0 is obviously better (except for no VVT)
The argument is which of the two engines is the best performer from the factory. And any person who knows anything about cobalts knows that its the 2.0
05-31-2007, 10:15 PM
#207
Senior Member
each einge has advatages and disadvatages.
If you coud build a 2.4L with all forged internals and get a turbo working correctly---it would eat any 2.0. However, this is all theory cause no one has done it.
As it sits factory VS factory the 2.0 is obviously better (except for no VVT)
If you coud build a 2.4L with all forged internals and get a turbo working correctly---it would eat any 2.0. However, this is all theory cause no one has done it.
As it sits factory VS factory the 2.0 is obviously better (except for no VVT)
The reason the 2.0L keep blowing has nothing to do with the motor's internals. It has to do with fuel problems in the 4th cylinder. The cylinders could handle it if they didn't lean out so much.
20psi is still greater than 10psi. We have trouble handling 21+psi, the 2.4L could never handle that. Besides the Compression in the 2.4L is not optimal for boost either.
06-01-2007, 12:28 PM
#208
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-31-06
Location: Cleveland, Oh
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. We arent talking about which has the most potential. Because potential is just a matter of how much money you have. I've seen Geo storms that would kill anything on this site!!
The argument is which of the two engines is the best performer from the factory. And any person who knows anything about cobalts knows that its the 2.0
The argument is which of the two engines is the best performer from the factory. And any person who knows anything about cobalts knows that its the 2.0
I was talking about potential actually, sorry if it came across any different. Plus remember that there's no replacement for displacement!
06-01-2007, 12:48 PM
#209
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-19-06
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think LandonElf was talking about bolt-ons, not replacing internals. Does anyone know what engine the drag Cobalts use? Wouldn't that be a good hint at which engine can hold the most power?
06-01-2007, 12:54 PM
#210
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-31-06
Location: Cleveland, Oh
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-01-2007, 05:35 PM
#211
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-12-06
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On another note, don't trust any info you hear from people at the dealership regarding this. Heck, dropped by today, and the salesmen there didn't know there was an SS above the 2.4L, lol.....
06-01-2007, 06:53 PM
#212
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-27-06
Location: Georgia
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
every thread, almost every post1) I'm willing to take that bet. Now go buy a Cobalt SS/NA, a turbo and all the components, an intercooler, and hp tuners.
2) My car hit well over 21psi for about 8 months due to a disconnected actuator and didn't have a single problem besides the owner (me) worrying all the time.
3) The 2.4 is a capable engine, but the 2.0 is specifically built for boost. period
4) Boost is not the same from all power adders. 20 psi from a turbo is different on an engine than 20 psi from a blower. To compare apples to apples, you would have to put a blower on the 2.4 and push 20 psi. Then compare its reliability to a 2.0 with a pulley.
Man i need to get away from these forums, there really eating in to my tv watching time.
06-01-2007, 07:52 PM
#213
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 04-13-04
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
390whp stock internals. They ran 315whp w/ 13-15 psi, so the 390 is close to 20lbs.
06-01-2007, 08:01 PM
#214
Senior Member
Only 8-10? Check out this link http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=31971
390whp stock internals. They ran 315whp w/ 13-15 psi, so the 390 is close to 20lbs.
390whp stock internals. They ran 315whp w/ 13-15 psi, so the 390 is close to 20lbs.
That 390whp was calcuated from using the 1/4 times and trap speed, not exact science. My car supposedly puts down 325whp when you calculate it that way!
You are looking at Bill Hahn's car, not an average owners. And the 2.4L solstice motor is different than the 2.4L Cobalt motor in a few ways.
You can run OVER 20 psi on the LSJ if you want to, but it won't last long, just like 20psi on the 2.4L won't last long, and most likely is not on pump gas that most people would drive on.
I think you may have meant originally that the 2.4L will make more HP per PSI than the LSJ. In that case you are correct, and cannot argue that. The larger displacement, and higher compression will make significantly more HP than the LSJ motor.
Driving to work on a 20psi LSJ (with proper tuning) you can do all the time. Driving to work on a 20psi 2.4L (with proper tuning), you might want to buy a bus pass.
06-02-2007, 01:24 PM
#215
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 04-13-04
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That 390whp was calcuated from using the 1/4 times and trap speed, not exact science. My car supposedly puts down 325whp when you calculate it that way!
You are looking at Bill Hahn's car, not an average owners. And the 2.4L solstice motor is different than the 2.4L Cobalt motor in a few ways.
You can run OVER 20 psi on the LSJ if you want to, but it won't last long, just like 20psi on the 2.4L won't last long, and most likely is not on pump gas that most people would drive on.
I think you may have meant originally that the 2.4L will make more HP per PSI than the LSJ. In that case you are correct, and cannot argue that. The larger displacement, and higher compression will make significantly more HP than the LSJ motor.
Driving to work on a 20psi LSJ (with proper tuning) you can do all the time. Driving to work on a 20psi 2.4L (with proper tuning), you might want to buy a bus pass.
You are looking at Bill Hahn's car, not an average owners. And the 2.4L solstice motor is different than the 2.4L Cobalt motor in a few ways.
You can run OVER 20 psi on the LSJ if you want to, but it won't last long, just like 20psi on the 2.4L won't last long, and most likely is not on pump gas that most people would drive on.
I think you may have meant originally that the 2.4L will make more HP per PSI than the LSJ. In that case you are correct, and cannot argue that. The larger displacement, and higher compression will make significantly more HP than the LSJ motor.
Driving to work on a 20psi LSJ (with proper tuning) you can do all the time. Driving to work on a 20psi 2.4L (with proper tuning), you might want to buy a bus pass.
Last edited by Brandon97Z; 06-02-2007 at 07:05 PM.
06-03-2007, 07:43 PM
#218
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-27-06
Location: Georgia
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plus the 2.4 in the solstices is RWD in addition to all of the other tweaks and changes. So its not a good representative for 2.4 Cobalts by any means.
06-03-2007, 10:16 PM
#220
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 04-13-04
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the fact thats its rwd is irelevant the strength of the motor is what i'm talking about.
06-03-2007, 10:28 PM
#221
Senior Member
The motors are different? Care to explain what those differences are cause thats news to me. It doesn't matter who's car it is, its pussing almost 400whp on a stock internaled 2.4 which is more then 8-10psi you stated. Just showing the 2.4 is a pretty stout motor especially being NA from the factory.
06-03-2007, 11:07 PM
#222
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 04-13-04
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me what the differences are then!!! Don't just sit here and tell me "they are different" PROVE IT. Now i didn't come one here to say the 2.4 is better then the LSJ or anyother motor. I just wanted to show what the 2.4's are capable of. I'm not talking about what only the normal joe blow can achieve, but rather showing what can be achieved when you do things right and really push the stock 2.4. And theirs no need to convince myself to put 400 on stock internals as i've shown you that it can and has been done.
Your thinking of the LNF 2.0 DI turbo motor. I'm talking about the differences between the solstice 2.4 and cobalt 2.4.
Your thinking of the LNF 2.0 DI turbo motor. I'm talking about the differences between the solstice 2.4 and cobalt 2.4.
06-04-2007, 04:52 PM
#223
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-09-06
Location: Rockland County NY
Posts: 3,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/04/c...rged-for-2008/
Chevy cancels Cobalt SS Supercharged for 2008
Posted Jun 4th 2007 3:35PM by Frank Filipponio
Filed under: Car Buying, Coupes, Sports/GTs, Chevrolet
It's been a little while since we talked about the Cobalt SS Supercharged and maybe that's part of the problem. Although this sporty version of the econo-minded Cobalt and one step up from the non-blown Cobalt SS has won its share of accolades from sporting organizations and publications, it hasn't seemed to keep up with the vehicles at the head of the sporty compact class. We know that it is a competent performer, but it seems that GM has quietly decided to discontinue it. The naturally aspirated SS, however, will soldier on, but with a new name. For 2008, the Cobalt SS becomes the Cobalt Sport, and the Cobalt SS Supercharged is being dropped altogether. It could be that Chevy wants to focus more attention on the upcoming HHR SS we showed you a little while ago. Whatever the reasoning, it appears the little Cobalt that could, will be no more. Unless, of course, Chevy is just working on finding a way to get the GXP/Redline 260-hp mill into the Cobalt's engine bay. Follow the jump for the full list of changes for the 2008 Cobalt.
Thanks for the tip, Chris!
[Source: GM]
Deletions
(21U) Laser Blue Metallic exterior color
(56U) Sunburst Orange Metallic exterior color
LTZ Sedan model
SS Supercharged Coupe model
New Features
(37U) Imperial Blue Metallic exterior color
(39U) Blue Flash Metallic exterior color
(87U) Slate Metallic exterior color
(JL4) StabiliTrak stability control system
(NW9) Traction control
(ASD) Head-curtain side-impact air bag delete for Fleet and Government order types
(UE0) OnStar delete for Fleet and Government order types
Changes
1AM37 is now called Sport Coupe and the equipment group code is now 1SP
1AM69 is now called Sport Sedan and the equipment group code is now 1SP
(TV5) Sport Package is now called Performance Appearance Package and is an available option on 2LT Coupe and 2LT Sedan. The 3LT Coupe and 3LT Sedan equipment groups are deleted.
(ASF) Head-curtain side-impact air bags are now standard on all models
(US8) AM/FM stereo with CD player and MP3 playback is now standard on all models
(U2K) XM Satellite Radio is now standard on all models
Instrument panel uppers are now Ebony on all models
LT Sedan with neutral interior now has woodgrain trim
Unless, of course, Chevy is just working on finding a way to get the GXP/Redline 260-hp mill into the Cobalt's engine bay.
*prays to the GM gods*
Chevy cancels Cobalt SS Supercharged for 2008
Posted Jun 4th 2007 3:35PM by Frank Filipponio
Filed under: Car Buying, Coupes, Sports/GTs, Chevrolet
It's been a little while since we talked about the Cobalt SS Supercharged and maybe that's part of the problem. Although this sporty version of the econo-minded Cobalt and one step up from the non-blown Cobalt SS has won its share of accolades from sporting organizations and publications, it hasn't seemed to keep up with the vehicles at the head of the sporty compact class. We know that it is a competent performer, but it seems that GM has quietly decided to discontinue it. The naturally aspirated SS, however, will soldier on, but with a new name. For 2008, the Cobalt SS becomes the Cobalt Sport, and the Cobalt SS Supercharged is being dropped altogether. It could be that Chevy wants to focus more attention on the upcoming HHR SS we showed you a little while ago. Whatever the reasoning, it appears the little Cobalt that could, will be no more. Unless, of course, Chevy is just working on finding a way to get the GXP/Redline 260-hp mill into the Cobalt's engine bay. Follow the jump for the full list of changes for the 2008 Cobalt.
Thanks for the tip, Chris!
[Source: GM]
Deletions
(21U) Laser Blue Metallic exterior color
(56U) Sunburst Orange Metallic exterior color
LTZ Sedan model
SS Supercharged Coupe model
New Features
(37U) Imperial Blue Metallic exterior color
(39U) Blue Flash Metallic exterior color
(87U) Slate Metallic exterior color
(JL4) StabiliTrak stability control system
(NW9) Traction control
(ASD) Head-curtain side-impact air bag delete for Fleet and Government order types
(UE0) OnStar delete for Fleet and Government order types
Changes
1AM37 is now called Sport Coupe and the equipment group code is now 1SP
1AM69 is now called Sport Sedan and the equipment group code is now 1SP
(TV5) Sport Package is now called Performance Appearance Package and is an available option on 2LT Coupe and 2LT Sedan. The 3LT Coupe and 3LT Sedan equipment groups are deleted.
(ASF) Head-curtain side-impact air bags are now standard on all models
(US8) AM/FM stereo with CD player and MP3 playback is now standard on all models
(U2K) XM Satellite Radio is now standard on all models
Instrument panel uppers are now Ebony on all models
LT Sedan with neutral interior now has woodgrain trim
Unless, of course, Chevy is just working on finding a way to get the GXP/Redline 260-hp mill into the Cobalt's engine bay.
*prays to the GM gods*
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post