Forseti

Car and Driver's Oct 2006 issue lists performance figures their drivers acheived with a Solstice GXP...the one with the 2.0L turbo Ecotec. So, performance for this car should be roughtly equivalent to what we would get with a Cobalt turbo 2.0....if GM decides to release one....

1) Weight is 3031 pounds for the Solstice
2) 0-60 was 5.6 sec
3) quarter mile in 14.2sec at 98mph.

They got 26mpg on the hwy, 18mpg in the city.

HackAbuse

Solstice is RWD, you cant compare RWD to FWD accurately

PauL500x

Will the mpg be the same/close? Six speed instead of five speed?

05BlackCobaltSS

This is the thing i'm really looking for. Weather or not the Turbo'd balt will get a 5 or 6 speed....I'm hoping they give it a 6speed, but i dont thing GM has a FWD 6 speed Tranny....

steddy2112

iTrader: (1)

I don't think GM will release a Turbo Cobalt period.

THey went through all this time to R&D the SS/SC and all this time to R&D all the trubo RWD Kappas...why arent we hearing about a turbo Cobalt?

Because it won't exist

Until HRC releases the turbo kit

Forseti

For straight line accelleration there would be a big difference between FWD and RWD?

Just wondering why....never heard that before. I can understand there would be a handling difference, but just going forward?

RaineMan

Yeah they do.... the G6 GTP is available with a 6-speed manual. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Forseti

But that's a 6sp on a V6, in a bigger engine compartment....it may not fit correctly in a Cobalt...

And if it is much heavier than the current 5sp tranny, it could affect weight distribution...(and slow the car down)

RaineMan

Not saying that it would be a good thing.... or that it would even work... just saying that a FWD 6-speed does exist.

ggarcia86

rwd is better in a straight line b/c the when you are acelerating from a dead stop the weight gets transfered to the rear wheels and gives better traction than fwd

mi6_

Some things to consider please:

1) The HHR SS has been photographed running the 2.0L Turbo. If the HHR (on the same platform as the Cobalt) can run the 2.0L, so can the Cobalt.

2) If the Turbo is going into the Cobalt, GM won't say anything until it happens. They wouldn't sell any 2007 Cobalt SS/SC with 205 HP if you could wait a year for 260 HP!!! Think about it!

3)Who care if it has a 5-speed or a 6-speed. In most 6-speeds, the sixth gear is too tall of an overdrive gear to be used and is there for fuel econemy only. The Cobalt SS wouldn't be any faster with a 6-speed than with a 5-speed. Unless you have a very narrow torque band (which the SS/SC certainly does not have) you have no advantage going to a 6-speed. The Civic Si and Corvette are examples of this. Top speed is reached in fifth gear, because 6th is too tall for the engine to use, so its only purpose is for fuel economy. If the Cobalt SS had a 6-speed it would basically be adding a lower 6th gear ratio for economy (you wouldn't be any faster).

4) The Solstice GXP (3031 lbs) is over 100 lbs heavier than a Cobalt SS/SC (2925 lbs) and has a 5-speed with a 3.91 axle ratio, versus the 4.05 axle ratio in the SS/SC. Also, the Solstice is RWD and the Cobalt is FWD. It is not really fair to compair these vehicles. That said, so far, I have to say that the 2.0L turbo looks a little dissapointing. The LSJ may be just as powerful. Clearly the lower time in the quarter mile is due to the RWD launch ability. The slower trap speed is showing the effects of the weight and probably not much more power than an LSJ. Cobalt SS/SC can trap a 14.4 sec. quarter-mile at 100MPH. So with 55 less (claimed) HP and 106 lbs less weight, we are pretty damb close, especially considering we are FWD (RWD has better weight transfer to the rear resulting in better traction on the drive wheels)! A stage I or II Cobalt SS/SC would be faster than a GXP!

Forseti

On the traction issue...that would be the case even with all the weight bearing down on the front wheels due to the engine/tranny being right there? I would think it is possible a front wheel drive car might have better traction....

EvlPeanut

I've seen the photographs of a HHR SS online... but nothing that confirmed it was the 2.0L Turbo under the hood... For all anybody knows the HHR SS could be the HHR LT with the 2.4L engine just rebadged with the SS name plate.

mi6_

No....

FWD is absolutely the worst drivetrain you can get for straight-line performance. Most FWD cars have at least a 60/40 front/rear weight balance. When you accelerate hard, all the weight shifts to the back of the car. This means that all the engine wieght up front lifts off the axle, causing the front wheels to have traction problems. FWD offers great traction at slow speeds in rain, snow, mud...etc., but under hard acceleration it is a scurge.

mi6_

It was photgraphed with the front mount intercooler of a ECOTEC 2.0L turbo! The 2.4L is already available an available engine on the HHR. All the current SS models have an engine that is exclusive to the "SS" trim level. They wouldn't use the 2.4L that is already offered in the HHR and just stick an "SS" badge on it tro trick buyers! Besides, you don't run a front-mount intercooler with a 2.4L ECOTEC!

LINK

EvlPeanut

They would trick buyers if they thought it would work.

You're right about the intercooler, but that doesn't mean thats the final build engine. We will probably find out more info on the Cobalt SS and the HHR SS at the auto shows this coming winter, hopefully anyway.

Falcon Fixer

Man that HHR is VERY, VERY UUUGGGLLLYYY !!!

Forseti

Falcon Fixer, I agree completely...that is one vehicle in need of a new front end. Rest of the exterior is ok...but the interior is pretty bad too...

an0malous

hmmmm so a RWD 2.0 turbo ran basically the same 1/4 mile time as a stock ss/sc

So much for the vaunted power of this amazing 2.0 turbo.

sounds like its running 220 at the wheels to me.

RaineMan

The front end of the HHR is just a "chop job" to fit the intercooler in there without seeming like a "different" vehicle. Some sort of disguise is used on all test/pre-production vehicles.

Badmunky

I think you guys are mossing something here. A turbo will have a more pickie power band and will not pull as hard in lower RPM as an S/C. There for the turbo car could make alot more power and not be any fast if the tourqe curve looks like crap!
I dont know much about the turbo motor but I know that the S/C gets beter fuel mileg then the turbo will.
I get 30mpg average with stage 2 and other bolt ons.

Later

Forseti

Can't speak for fuel flow through the injectors, but shouldn't a turbo motor get better fuel economy while at highway speeds/rpm's? Since there is no parasitic loss through the supercharger....?

mi6_

Yeah, I am starting to think the same thing. The Turbo may not be as good as it first sounded. So far it is barely faster than a stock SS/SC, and considering they weigh nearly the same and the Cobalt is FWD, that is pretty sad.

And yes, I agree 100% that the HHR is ugly. Wont see me drving one of those anytime soon!

steddy2112

iTrader: (1)

Hey mi6 way to shut me up

The thing is about a trubocharged car is that its easier/cheaper(?) to make go faster so let it run as fast as a stock SS/SC.

Besides most mags are not getting 14.1 out of a SS/SC they are getting more like 14.5...so we may see the 2.0T getting into the 13s stock eh?

thunderbalt73

I think that the turbo is going to suck plus has anyone acctually seen this motor in person im just curious alot of peeps are sure talkin like they have seen it in person.. I don't think it exists or will ever exist because chevy likes to be different they always have so why turn somethin different into a neon or evo or sumthing of that nature when they are selling the hell out of these cars