A cobalt SS/NA gets the turbo kit that came out and goes against a Cobalt SS/SC and wins???

 

2.4L Turbo vs 2.0L SC. If the SS/SC is stock or only mildly modified then yes the Turbo SS 2.4 would probably win.

 

Think of it as a Cobalt SSRT-4... 2.4L engine already pushing out 170hp, then slapping a turbo on it...major ownage will shortly ensue...

 

There are too many variables to say yes a turbo 2.4 will be faster then a 2.0SC. It's almost absurd to ask this questions. How much hp is the 2.4 putting down? Does it have traction mods, how about a clutch that won't explode during a boosted launch?

I know there's this large group of kids here that instantly think a turbocharged car is better and faster then a supercharged car but it's not that simple.

So we need more info before we can say one way or another.

 

First off, I'm 30... not a kid.

Second, I agree completely. However, motor to motor the 2.4L TC will more than likely be putting down better numbers than the stock 2.0L SC. No the Turbo does not own all but it is more efficient than the SC when properly configured and the extra CI/CC of the 2.4 makes for a strong starting platform for a high performance application.

Third, I owned a 13psi 1.8T Passat that was very quick but it had nothing on my SS/SC so no I don't automatically think that a turbo car is better or faster in general.

 

OMG! OMG! ZOMG!

AFKDSJF;LKADJ;FLKJAD;JA;DADS

HE SAID IT AND NOT ME! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

The point is that there are too many variables though...

Say someone gets this incredibley efficient turbo kit, right?

But they run the car at 10.0:1 a/f ratio. That could would probably run like a slug on a highway. This is just one example of a variable.

 

Again I am in full agreement. That is why I qualified my statement... "when properly configured"

 

Gotcha.

 

It would make sence that a turboed 2.4 SS would act much like an SRT 4 does. There are some SS/SC cars that can take an SRT 4 so theres no definent answer.

But a 2.4 turboed SS would kick some ass thats for sure!

 

Well actually...

The only thing in common they share is the same displacement.

The SS has VVT, they don't.
The SS has 10.4:1 compression, SRT-4s are much lower...

This isn't really directed towards you Terry but just stating in general because I know others are thinking this or comparing to the SRT-4.

It would be interesting to see if the right person is doing it.

 

Also would like to point out that the 2.4 cars come equipped with an auto tranny only, so they will suffer a greater percentage of power lost to the ground. As stated above the displacement would be the only thing even in the realm of similar to the SRT-4. It will be interesting to see though.

 

Que?

Dude, they have manual 2.4s...

 

Sorry, your 30 my apologies, my comment didn't apply to you obviously because I said kids.

Anyway, you are still making a lot of assumptions, like that this turbo kit will be extremely well configured and engineered. I know from my past experiences of the shelf turbo kits aren't exactly extremely well engineered. They work and are reliable and all that but they aren't necessary made to be super efficient.

I agree that the 2.4 is a fine starting platform and with all the percautions, supporting mods, and tuning a turbo 2.4 could be a real monster, but you are talking about a ton of money and time and then it could argued that the same results may be achieved with the SS/SC for less money.

I don't know, we are talking really abstract and hypothetical here. Like I said before there are too many factors to really get an answer here and I honestly don't have much faith in off the shelf turbo kits. I would much rather build my own, but I understand most people aren't going to tackle that job. Kits are a good start though, but there's so much more stuff that should be done to compliment the kits that never get done and so the kit doesn't get fully taken advantage of.

Ok I'm off on a mega tangent. lol I'll stop.

 

Adam, true about our VVT and higher compression so it would seem the VVT would help us but the higher compression would hinder us. And you should know I don't take anything you say the wrong way bud! Hell your one of the few member I actualy know in the real world! LMAO! I've NEVER heard you ever say anything "wrong" to anyone ever!

 

I don't know about the higher compression hindering, it would definately take some better tuning and higher octane though. Then you have to think, with that high of a CR, how much boost can you run w/o blowing out your crank bearings...like already said, it just has to been done to see the outcome

 

Actualy blowing holes in the piston tops would happen before the bearings would crap out. Most turbo cars run around 8 or 9 to 1 compression. 10 to 1 is a tad high. I'd say a set of pistons and then do the turbo and you've got it!

 

yeah, my bad piston too...definately. But, i've heard of 10:1 turbo apps, but they're running 104, who tf would want to do that every fill up?

Edit: the SRT-4s are like 8.8:1 right??

 

Yeah 104 octaine as if the 93 stuff isn't expensive enough! LOL!

Don't know nothing about the Neon's man, sorry.

 

Yeah...I wouldn't worry about it the bearings either.

Compression isn't that big of a deal if you have the proper tools of adjusting and knowledge. I think some people make a bigger deal out of compression being some type of problem then it could possibly be for their ideal power goal.

I think it is....damnit, I haven't been on the SRT forums in a while lol

The need for a higher octane might not even be necessary depends on the persons goals and their tuning. If they want to advance timing more, then yeah, I'd say higher octane would help them keep their engine from going bye bye lol.

 

Ok now that everyone understands that my inital post in this thread was qualified on the setup being well made and tuned...

This would be an interesting test but the question isn't if it would do it, it is more of is it worth doing it? Like previously said the SS/SC performance could be taken to better levels for the same amount of cash.

 

But isn't the SS/SC limited cause its blown and not turboed? Wouldn't an intercooled 2.4 turbo breathing 18 psi of boost be quicker then a SCed 2.0 with even 20 psi? No I AM NOT HATING I'm just asking.

 

I think it would be worth it to do it. I mean why not? Build the car you have and don't look back. It will be cool to have some boosted 2.4s out ripping up the tracks, I just hope I don't run into one. lol

Not necessarily. Again there are too many factors. With the current SC on the 2.0 at 18psi you are making a lot of heat, but if you go with a more efficiently blower that can make more horsepower with less heat then the game changes. That's why it's so hard to compare turbo and SC applications. There are just too many x factors, and that's why I say each power adder is equal.

 

umm what IMADreamer said lol

 

Oh you don't know! You can't even build a car yourself! You come here and act like your a tuner........Oh wait wrong forum, my bad. LMAO! JK Adam! I had to do it tho!

Give you any JBO flash backs?

 

...more like JBO heatflashes LOL