Does anybody know if GM has any plans to turbo or supercharge this engine? It's the only way we'll ever be on par with the SRT-4. There's no replacement for displacement.

no power adders from the factory. They might have a GM kit for the car later on.

Does anybody know if GM has any plans to turbo or supercharge this engine? It's the only way we'll ever be on par with the SRT-4. There's no replacement for displacement.

You mean the only way it would be on par as in JUST the 2.4L right?

The 2.0 is already on par

You mean the only way it would be on par as in JUST the 2.4L right?

The 2.0 is already on par

Not really. Even the supercharged 2.0 doesn't perform as well as the SRT-4 2.4L, it's been proven. There's not a big difference, but the neon has the edge, and not to mention more potential. The thing that concerns me the most with the 2.0 is the lack of torque. I'm used to driving an old Z24 with a 3.1L V6, that engine makes 185 lb-ft @ 3200 RPM, and keep in mind that car is at least 100 lbs lighter than a cobalt SS, if not more. If you compare that to the 200 lb-ft @ 4400 RPM with the cobalt, I just can't see this car having more low end grunt than my old car, and that's with a supercharger...I don't push my cars that hard at higher RPMs, so low end torque is important to me.

And zinner, assuming GM makes a supercharger or turbo for the 2.4L Ecotec, you'd pretty much have to rebuild the engine with lower compression and a beefier bottom end. Not exactly easy on the wallet. They should just scrap the 2.0 SC and build a 2.4L turbo for the SS, then we'd definitely be #1 in our class.

Would you shut up already. You haven't even driven an SS. You're suggesting they scrap this engine to a car you haven't even been in. That's pathetic.

Go down to your local dealer and drive one. Then if you feel that, fine.

The SS will eat your Cavalier for breakfast. I've driven both an SS and a '91 Z24 Cavalier with the 3.1. Hell the 2.4L late 90's model Z24 will walk all over the '91 and that's only got 150 ft/lbs of torque. I own one of those. The SS will beat the crap out of that one as well.

The SS will eat your Cavalier for breakfast.

Your car eats other cars for breakfast? I just feed mine gas. No offence, but you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? Read my post, I'm talking about low end torque for the purpose of daily driving, not reving it up to 6000+ RPM in a drag race. And this raises a new issue, durability. Nobody knows yet how well the 2.0 SC hold up to high mileage. Now whichever way you look at it, a supercharged 2.4 ECOTEC would be better than a supercharged 2.0 ECOTEC, there's no replacement for displacement. So quit thinking your 2.0 is god-like, and grow up. It's people like you who give the cobalt crowd a bad name.

Yes but the higher the number the lower the sales.... thats the way it works now so get used to finding power in the 2.0

Notice how gas is the biggest concern especially if your talking about "daily driving"

Notice how gas is the biggest concern especially if your talking about "daily driving"

I don't think increasing the displacement by 0.4L would do much to the fuel mileage. Look at the Grand Prix GTP, that's a 3800 supercharged V6, and it's rated at 28 mpg. That's only 1 mpg less than the Cobalt SS.

Not really. Even the supercharged 2.0 doesn't perform as well as the SRT-4 2.4L, it's been proven. There's not a big difference, but the neon has the edge, and not to mention more potential. The thing that concerns me the most with the 2.0 is the lack of torque. I'm used to driving an old Z24 with a 3.1L V6, that engine makes 185 lb-ft @ 3200 RPM, and keep in mind that car is at least 100 lbs lighter than a cobalt SS, if not more. If you compare that to the 200 lb-ft @ 4400 RPM with the cobalt, I just can't see this car having more low end grunt than my old car, and that's with a supercharger...I don't push my cars that hard at higher RPMs, so low end torque is important to me.

And zinner, assuming GM makes a supercharger or turbo for the 2.4L Ecotec, you'd pretty much have to rebuild the engine with lower compression and a beefier bottom end. Not exactly easy on the wallet. They should just scrap the 2.0 SC and build a 2.4L turbo for the SS, then we'd definitely be #1 in our class.

The 2.0 ecotec has a square bore/stroke ratio so it will never be a big torque monster.
Generally if an engine has a longer stroke than bore it will produce more torque than horsepower and vice versa.

Why would you want Chevy to copy Dodge with a turbo 2.4L? Sure they have a bit more power but it's nice having a bit of diversity in life.

As for your comments on the peak torque comment, an I4 is totally different that a V6 in normal driving. I4 is much faster and freer reving than a V6. It's really not pushing an I4 hard to get higher up in RPM's, the engine is designed to do that, on a V6 it's designed to have power down low and not rev as high. They are just different thats all.

At 12.5 PSI your almost cramming twice the air into a 2.0 so it makes raises the effective displacement 3.7 litres at sea level.

The thing that concerns me the most with the 2.0 is the lack of torque. I'm used to driving an old Z24 with a 3.1L V6, that engine makes 185 lb-ft @ 3200 RPM, and keep in mind that car is at least 100 lbs lighter than a cobalt SS, if not more. If you compare that to the 200 lb-ft @ 4400 RPM with the cobalt, I just can't see this car having more low end grunt than my old car, and that's with a supercharger.

Your 3.1 is rated at 185 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm at the flywheel.
The 2.0 is putting about 170 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm to the ground.
Unless you have < 8% parasitic loss, you have less torque.

I have not driven the SS, but I also suggest you test drive
one before you bash the power output. No, it's not as high
output as Dodge's 2.4 turbo, but the SS does have good #s.

an I4 is totally different that a V6 in normal driving. I4 is much faster and freer reving than a V6. It's really not pushing an I4 hard to get higher up in RPM's, the engine is designed to do that, on a V6 it's designed to have power down low and not rev as high. They are just different thats all.


I agree totally, especially with push-rod V6's. I went from a 3.8 liter V6 in my camaro to the 2.0 in my SS. While the V6 had a little more power below 3000 RPM (and I mean very little difference), it also HATED to rev any higher. When that car was doing 5000 RPM, it felt like it was gonna blow. My SS, on the other hand, is smooth as butter above 3000 RPM and takes off like a rocket from that point on. Anyone that doesn't want to rev their engine high should stay away from 4 cylander engines all together.

Due to the inherent quick response from a supercharger---I have read the SS has very good low end torque. The SRT-4 has lag from the turbo and is peakier (although redlined at a pathetic 6000 rpm!)

I bet GM pumps up the 2.0 S/C in a year or two. It could easily do 220-230 hp--but the torque would likely still be less then the SRT-4. Still torque is not everything and niether is horsepower. A great engine has a broad powerband--with torque and hp in the right rpm ranges.

Also I have driven a 3800 Camaro---hate to rev is not a phrase I would use. Went up to 5500 rpm. Not the most refined engine for sure.

I'm sure GM will make the ecotec engines more economic, more powerfull and more efficient. It will just take a couple years. Its just refinements. remember, the 2.0 has just come out and the 2.4 isnt even around yet. improvements will be made.
but i do like low end better than high. its just amazing how torqy engines can cruse up hills in a high gear. just perrrs along.
I have noticed that the ecotec 2.2 is snappier than the old 2200 cavalier engine. feels like it "engages" latter and feels like the flywheel or something is lighter.
This is one example of how GM improved their l4. its a big improvement. just remember more is to come from ecotec engines. :cool:

Your car eats other cars for breakfast? I just feed mine gas. No offence, but you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? Read my post, I'm talking about low end torque for the purpose of daily driving, not reving it up to 6000+ RPM in a drag race. And this raises a new issue, durability. Nobody knows yet how well the 2.0 SC hold up to high mileage. Now whichever way you look at it, a supercharged 2.4 ECOTEC would be better than a supercharged 2.0 ECOTEC, there's no replacement for displacement. So quit thinking your 2.0 is god-like, and grow up. It's people like you who give the cobalt crowd a bad name.

I know you were talking about low end torque. And I think the SS feels as though it has more than the Cavalier 3.1. My problem with you is you think the engine is so crappy and you haven't even driven it. If you want to argue about no replacement for displacement, why stop at a 2.4L engine? Get a GTO with the 6.0L and go drive that. You don't even need a supercharger for your torque there. Better yet, keep going and go drive a Viper for 500+ft/lbs of torque. You can ALWAYS get vehicles with bigger engines and more torque. Does that mean any engine with less torque should be canned?

I'm fairly certain the supercharger will provide more low end torque than the SRT-4. The SRT-4 is still prone to a bit of turbo lag. Your 2.4L Turbo would actually give you LESS low end torque.

I'm fairly certain the supercharger will provide more low end torque than the SRT-4. The SRT-4 is still prone to a bit of turbo lag. Your 2.4L Turbo would actually give you LESS low end torque.

The SRT-4 toasts the SS when it comes to torque. They're very torquey.

Weird that he is bashing the 2.0 when it puts down more torque than the
3.1 V6 he's bragging about. It is clear he has not actually driven the SS.

The SRT-4 toasts the SS when it comes to torque. They're very torquey.

Weird that he is bashing the 2.0 when it puts down more torque than the
3.1 V6 he's bragging about. It is clear he has not actually driven the SS.

I would have to question that at the very low end. I haven't driven an SRT-4, but every single turbo car I've ever driven just doesn't have anything on the extreme low end which is actually used often for crusing around town.

I would have to question that at the very low end. I haven't driven an SRT-4, but every single turbo car I've ever driven just doesn't have anything on the extreme low end which is actually used often for crusing around town.

SRT-4: 245 ft-lbs @ 2400 rpm (flywheel)
SS: 200 ft-lbs @ 4400 rpm (flywheel)

Both cars are known to be underrated a little bit.
Hard to argue that the SRT-4 does not have more
torque than the SS... even down low with its turbo.

I'm puzzled as to why the redline on the SS and SRT4's are so low. I'm sure there are reasons for it but hell, my 4G63 is turbochraged and has a readline of 8K. The thing just loves to wind up.

Did they configure the SS like this due to the fact that the S/C loses efficiency at higher RPMS?

SRT-4: 245 ft-lbs @ 2400 rpm (flywheel)
SS: 200 ft-lbs @ 4400 rpm (flywheel)

Both cars are known to be underrated a little bit.
Hard to argue that the SRT-4 does not have more
torque than the SS... even down low with its turbo.

No, you're partially wrong. Go to the Dodge website. The specs on the SRT-4 are:

245 ft-lbs @ 3800RPM

Yes, the SRT-4 has more torque when the turbo has kicked in, but maximum torque still comes in at close to 4K RPMS.

Based on that, I would really question the amount of torque the SRT-4 has at and below 2500 RPMS as opposed to the SS. I would imagine the turbo is pretty ineffective in the lower RPM range. I've never driven a single turbo based car that wasn't, but I haven't driven an SRT-4.

I have just yesterday. its nice. i dont know what to compare it to. its a bit fast, probably the fastest thing i've driven. The turbo lag comes quickly, right after 4,500 rpm. shifting right at 4,500 is the best thing, a bit jerky though. The clutch is ver very easy to controle. very predictable throtle and braking. my knees hit the dashboard though, not much leg room. the seeting felt more up right than layed back and relaxed. the steering wheel was a little out of reach, too far away. it rides really smooth on smooth pavement, but one little crack and your spine will shutter. either way i am surprised it is a neon. I would rate it very good for performance.