General Cobalt General Cobalt, Pursuit, and Ion talk. Post specific discussions in the forums below

Disappointing news about modifying the Cobalt SS

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-05-2004 | 05:59 PM
  #1  
Maverick's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: 08-05-04
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey
Disappointing news about modifying the Cobalt SS

I found this quote here
http://www.saturnfans.com/forums/sho...threadid=37965

Its from a saturn forum. It details why simply doing a pully swap probably won't be an effecient way for tuning the ION Redlines supercharged motor. Keep in mind the Cobalt SS uses the SAME ENGINE. It looks like the cobalt won't be a car that is easily modded. Very disappointing IMO.
The quote below was typed by a person who knows the supercharger game very well:

ION Redline Aftermarket Supercharger Pulley Information
The Saturn Ion RedLine (RL) features the 2.0L Supercharged ECOTEC (LSJ) motor. The supercharger is the latest generation Eaton M62 helical roots style positive displacement supercharger and offers a maximum of 12 psi of manifold pressure for a 40% increase in power. The latest generation offers a more efficient low-end power and improved durability from a more precision made zero-contact assembly. Also the supercharger is configured with an internal bypass valve to lower off power loads resulting in less power used and higher MPG ratings when cruising. The intake manifold that the supercharger is mated to is an all aluminum port matched intake manifold with an internal water-to-air Laminova heat exchanger intercooler. This style of heat exchanger is more efficient than even that of a bar and plate intercooler and offers more compact packaging. When the whole package is configured together and controlled with a high speed PCM it produces 200 HP and 200 lb-ft TQ for a very solid and reliable powertrain package.

As is the case in every consumer’s quest for “more power” the common ideology is that the more air you can stuff in a motor the more power you will get out of it. This is a solid way of thinking as long as it’s adhered to with attention to both the needs of the air (oxygen) and the needs of a combustible (fuel). Other factors contribute to the whole process like spark and it’s timing, but for simplicity sake focus will be directed to just air and fuel (mixture). In the case of the RL the fuel needs are addressed 100% by the PCM and sensor input based on the mass of airflow entering the engine. The M62 supercharger based on the relationship of the engine rpm and rotor speed addresses the air needs of the motor. This leads individuals to assume that by spinning the supercharger faster that it will also increase the air entering the motor and by ideology make more power. This assumption is inaccurate and will only lead to a loss in power, and increase in heat and drastically reduced supercharger and engine life.

To understand why this is the case (as contrary to ideology as it sounds) it’s very important to fully understand how a positive displacement helical roots supercharger works and its respective limits. Positive displacement helical roots superchargers are literally one-way valves that move a fluid from one place to another. The way the valve works is that it is of a specific size and can move a specific volume of fluid through itself by creating a bucket that is first exposed to one side then contained in the assembly and then exposed to the other side through constant rotation. How this is possible is based on the design of the rotors that are counter-rotating and intermeshed. There is no physical contact between either the rotors or housing of the supercharger, but the clearance is so close that at high speeds not even air under pressure can escape. Also the actual profile of the rotors is almost like a 4 leaf clover and is aligned in a way that the ‘lobe’ of one is in the ‘recess’ of the other as they rotate. By moving a larger volume of air into an intake manifold than the motor can consume the supercharger begins to cause backpressure against itself and the intake valves. This backpressure continues to build until it’s many times that of atmospheric and in the case of the RL 12 times so. Thus you have more air entering the motor and it results in more power than it would naturally aspirated.

The pressure in the manifold is in a direct relation to how much volume the supercharger puts in it and how fast. When correctly matched through gearing to engine rpm the supercharger will offer a substantial increase in volume at low engine rpms and as much as two or three times that by redline. The supercharger however can only operate so quickly because of physical size limits and mechanical bearing limits. As the pressure in the manifold increases it generates heat from both compression and action against the rotors and this heat becomes increasingly more of a problem as rotor speeds increase. This is a key factor in why roots superchargers tend to be so inefficient in the range of 60-70% compared to that of a Turbo in the range of 90% efficient. Basically as you increase rotor speed you see diminishing returns to the point that the actual volume of air is lower at higher rotor speeds than it would be at a lower speed.

The M62 supercharger at 12psi by redline in a 2.0L motor is already very close to it’s maximum operating speed needing around 30 HP to operate producing 180degree charge temperatures. Obviously the intercooler addresses the extreme charge temperatures, but increasing the rotor speed much more will only take additional power to do and measurably increase charge temperatures.

Will a smaller diameter pulley make more power? Possibly, but there are other more reliable and safer ways to make equal if not more power than can be made with a smaller pulley. When a pulley does become available it will have to be no more than a few percent difference in size or by redline the heat generated will cause blower failure from heat expansion and contact. In a warm weather environment or abusive driving conditions I would never suggest a smaller pulley because heat build-up will result in even quicker failure.

For now opening up the exhaust track and providing more than atmospheric pressure to the open side of the blower are the only easy ways to gain power. A possible M91 swap would also result in more air volume and at a lower pressure and temperature, but it would take serious work. Finally the other option would be N20, but I can’t stress enough that is MUST be plumbed AFTER the supercharger along with ANY form of fluid other than air or it will delaminate the rotor coating and dramatically reduce power.

I have been tuning M45, M62 and M91 blowers on Hondas for a number of years now here in the humidity-neglect high California desert. I have seen everything happen to them and every attempt to make more power by people and most of the time all that results is an expensive piece of junk that can’t even produce the advertised power because of physical damage from failing to understand how they work.

Also as of my last chat with Hondata no M62 supercharger strapped to any Honda motor has even produced more than 280 HP and that’s with cams, exhaust and hondata PCM so don’t expect anything magical out of a RL because it’s already been tried on a motor that statistically is exactly the same as the LSJ.


...
-Adam Chant
http://www.scdyne.com
"Tune it or lose it!"
Old 08-05-2004 | 08:30 PM
  #2  
Eddie's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-11-04
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
From: patterson, ca
damn that sux, i knew turbo is the way to go or atleast a centrifugal supercharger. gm better have some power packages available like mopar does for srt4. but i doubt it.
Old 08-06-2004 | 01:14 AM
  #3  
zstyle's Avatar
Premium Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
If Eaton roots blowers don't make more power with a smaller pulley then why does it seem to work so well with the 3800 S/C?
Old 08-06-2004 | 10:06 AM
  #4  
Maverick's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: 08-05-04
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey
If Eaton roots blowers don't make more power with a smaller pulley then why does it seem to work so well with the 3800 S/C?
Well because apparently the blowers on the Cobalt SS and the ION Redline seem to already be set at max 'effecient' boost. Any extra boost will only turn up the heat and not the power. It is obviously very confusing (apparently it wasn't for GM) that they'd put out a 'tuner' car that is hard to tune? There are adds for redlines in magazines with some dude in a garage with a bunch of tools. He must be trying to build himself a new car.
:roll:
Old 08-07-2004 | 01:18 AM
  #5  
Paladin's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 06-25-04
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: Michigan
sigh

i am getting ready to order me my s/c but this kinda has me flipping coins on my decisions like john kerry. hmm, the 2.4 with a s/c mite be a worthy investment, but is it worth the wait? i want that close ratio 5 spd 2, sigh
Old 08-09-2004 | 03:51 PM
  #6  
ufgator's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 08-08-04
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
By saying, its not easy to modify....

Are you saying that it wont be possible to add many more ponies? 205 is nice, but I was hoping to reach closer to 250 with some aftermarket parts.
Old 08-10-2004 | 02:22 AM
  #7  
zstyle's Avatar
Premium Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
I've now read the whole article.... looking at the forums it seems that this guy is a bit sketchy, but his story meshes with what I've read on aftermarket websites. The pulley works well with the 3800 because it's lower engine and S/C rotor speeds allow the boost to be upped without producing too much more heat and without losing much power to inefficiency. Still, the biggest gain is midrange and it falls off at top end due to heat and loss of efficiency at higher speeds. I want top end, so just a pulley swap wont help :P.

Still, a bigger intercooler and hopefully some good aftermarket control modules should be great for big bolt-on power. Of course I guess exhaust, intake and cam work could follow to make some real power.
Old 08-10-2004 | 12:27 PM
  #8  
Impavalier's Avatar
Premium Member
 
Joined: 04-20-04
Posts: 825
Likes: 0
From: Raritan, NJ
if i get one, i'm gonna mod the crap outta it
Old 09-13-2004 | 07:43 PM
  #9  
SilverCSS's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 09-11-04
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: NorCal
There's always the potential to swap to a turbo setup. As most of us know, Chevy's turboed Boneville racer is making somewhere in the range of 1,000 and 1,100 hp. To say this engine doesn't have potential, is foolish. The setup might be a bit difficult to work with, but the guy in the article was a Honda dude. I'd wait and see a few months after the car is released. If extra hp can be squeezed out, it will be. I'll probably do the generic upgrades, some gauges, some exterior...ride it until the warranty expires, then either move to a turbo setup or a centrifugal supercharger. For a daily driver, it's going to be a beautiful thing.
Old 09-13-2004 | 08:47 PM
  #10  
BigRed's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 06-27-04
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
From: Newfoundland
why not just go with turbo, on top of the s/c?

It's been done to the 3800 before, and seems to work quite well - the s/c gives a good amount of power at lower rpm's, and a relatively big turbo spools up to give an excellent top end.
Old 09-13-2004 | 08:50 PM
  #11  
SilverCSS's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 09-11-04
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: NorCal
I don't have a lot of experience with a twin charger setup. The closest to it I can think of is sequential turbos. I guess if you could fabricate a twin charger setup, it'd be cool. But given the limited space of the engine bay with the m62 draped across the front, I sincerely doubt it.

Also, any good tuner with a Turbo setup will be able to match the appropriate size to meet their functions, making lag almost negligible. It'd seem a much simpler and more direct method to turbo, rather than try and supercharge with a turbo. My opinion, I guess..then again, as I said, I have no experience with twin charging.
Old 09-13-2004 | 09:20 PM
  #12  
BigRed's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 06-27-04
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
From: Newfoundland
quite simple actually; turbo on back of engine, plumbing going around engine on passanger side to front mounted intercooler(air to air, for the turbo only), then from driver side of i/c to the throttle body/intake on the s/c. simple as that. put an intake coming off the turbo to the driver side(stock location, just replace with a cone filter).

the beautiful thing about turbosuper charging is a bigger turbo can be fitted, as the s/c makes up for turbo lag( with a big turbo, the engine is essentially a poorly tuned n/a motor{lower compression, etc} untill the compressor spools up).

not sure how well it would work on the LSJ, but i've seen it on 3800's, and on aircraft.
Old 09-13-2004 | 09:26 PM
  #13  
BigRed's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 06-27-04
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
From: Newfoundland
by the way, sorry if I overly-dumbed it down there; I've spent the last 4 hours trying to rack my mind around a bunch of chemistry formulas.
Old 09-14-2004 | 04:02 AM
  #14  
SilverCSS's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 09-11-04
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: NorCal
I appreciate the response. Sounds like a sweet setup..expensive, but sweet. I just don't see the space in the engine bay. If it worked, somehow, there'd be zero clearance for even a pinky. And, you'd probably have to switch to either a centrifugal S/C, or a smaller roots unit like an M45. But, it's worth looking into.
Old 09-14-2004 | 08:55 PM
  #15  
BigRed's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 06-27-04
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
From: Newfoundland
no clearance issues at all really, depending on how much room is under the hood to start....

go on google or JBO and look at some turbo setups on the old 2.3 Quad four, they have the throttle body in the same place as the LSJ, due to a large intake manifold(i'd say just as big or bigger than the M62); lots of people set them up(or a 2.3/2.4hybrid, which uses the quad head and IM) with turbo, it doesn't really take any room at all, just the 3" piping on the passenger side, and from the I/C to the IM.

the best example I xan think of is Crash on JBO, he has a hybrid with turbo.
Old 09-14-2004 | 09:22 PM
  #16  
BigRed's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 06-27-04
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
From: Newfoundland
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.ph...&t=56409#56658

here are some pics of the manifold on a 2.4, it shows the position of the throttle body pretty good in the second pic.

now just picture a pipe going from where the cold air intake joins the im, foreward to just behind the radiator - empty space right? now take another back from there on the opposite side, or under the first tube, to the turbo, which is tucked away behind the block; then put another from the turbo to where the air filter is in the pics.
Old 09-14-2004 | 09:33 PM
  #17  
SilverCSS's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 09-11-04
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: NorCal
Very interesting. It's funny how certain setups are almost standard with one engine, but completely unknown to another. Thanks for the information.
Old 09-17-2004 | 03:59 AM
  #18  
zstyle's Avatar
Premium Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Also look at the engine bay pictures for the Cobalt SS speedster thing that set the record on the salt flats (front page story). I dunno how much they changed the engine bay, but the turbo is between the engine and the firewall.
Old 09-17-2004 | 08:34 AM
  #19  
JonyyB's Avatar
Site Founder
 
Joined: 03-17-04
Posts: 7,650
Likes: 2
From: NE OH Near Cleveland
They moved the firewall back on the turbo car
Old 09-17-2004 | 01:13 PM
  #20  
zstyle's Avatar
Premium Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Ah, I see.
Old 09-17-2004 | 01:52 PM
  #21  
BigRed's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 06-27-04
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
From: Newfoundland
I doubt it was absolutely necessary though; many MANY people have rear mounted turboes on J's, with no clearance issues.

but like I said, the cobalt may have a smaller compartment(seeing how you can fit a 3800 in a j).
Old 09-17-2004 | 10:57 PM
  #22  
zstyle's Avatar
Premium Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
You can fit a 3800 in a J but you have to do quite a bit of tubbing... an if you can open up that bay to fit that big of an engine some extra space for a turbo should be no big deal.
Old 09-20-2004 | 08:32 PM
  #23  
BigRed's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 06-27-04
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
From: Newfoundland
yeah that's what I was poking at - the J was designed from the get go for the 60 degree 6's; the cobalts compartment might be smaller.
Old 10-03-2004 | 03:10 PM
  #24  
SS32687's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 10-03-04
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
From: Kentwood michigan (right next to GR)
DOn't worry guys they should have lot more mods on that SS but you just have to wait in about year to make some mods in it so just relax 8)
Old 10-25-2004 | 03:10 PM
  #25  
FullThrottle's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 10-25-04
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
The blower seems OK I have heard that the intercooler core is a little small. So an improvment there will allow a puley change with good results
Mike



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:27 PM.