What was Gm's thinking behind having a 2L Blown 4cyl that puts out 200 horsepower and a N/A 2.4L SS that puts out 170? Wouldn't it have been smarter to produce the 2.4L SS with atleast something close to 200 horsepower?

I wish i could run Gm. Cobalt would have gotten a straight six and Rwd.

 

Ya' know.... I think the 2.4SS Cobalt was an afterthought... I figure GM made the engine for the Solstice roadster, then they took a page from Chrysler and put it in the HHR so it wouldn't be quite as weak.... since it was in the HHR.... the Cobalt becomes kinda logical from there.

 

I like how you think. The balt should have gotten a straight six with rwd and twin turbo like the skylines or supras. Damn I love those cars

 

I just thought about this in the shower.

The 2L SS could have stayed like it is but they could have offered a "Stripper" 2.4L SS. Would have had 200 horsepower, Cloth recaro's, 5spd manual or 4spd auto, sunroof, and high end stereo for like 20K.

 

I think GM went a little overkill with having 3 different engines for the Cobalt. It's probably driving the aftermarket companies a little coo-koo. IMO.

 

Same thing witht he G6.... 2 different v6 engines and now a 4-banger too. Shoulda put the LSJ in a g6 while they were at it....

 

I don't have a problem beating Civics with my ONLY 172 hp 2.4 SS.

 

Well look at the Integra GS, GSR, and Type-R, the civic DX, SI, and SIR(canada), and Corolla CE, S, and XRS...its not a bad idea to have a base model and a sport model...then a limited production top of the line model with all the goodies...

 

GM-Chevy won't produce two 200hp cars that are almost identical (redundancy).

Diversity in the model line up increases marketability.

 

if they bumped the n/a 2.4L to 200 hp they would have to bump the supercharged "SPORT" engine to at least 240hp in order to maintain the differentiation between the 3 engines.

 

Well the 2.0L is closer to 245 crank HP in real life.

GM under rates, Imports overrate.

It's documented pretty well in the media, especailly after honda has to change the HP rating on just about every motor. I don't think any of the 2.0L I-VTEC Honda motors Dyno at 210 HP.

As for the I6 RWD Cobalt, I disagree, now a I6 RWD Monte Carlo or Malibu I would be on board. Cobalt is a compact car and is well served by the LSJ and FWD IMO.

 

Yep Honda definetly does a great job marketing and selling cars. But they also market to a different segment of consumers. I don't even try to understand how many different variations of the I4 honda has. But with 3 I4's of it's own now GM is catching up

 

I was kidding about the straight six but Rwd would be a definate.

 

Keep in mind that the 2.0 is around 230 to the crank, and 205 to the wheels.

 

I think the only logical difference would have been to incorparate AWD into the platform. RWD is retarded for the segment the cobalt is placed in. Its not a muscle car, its a sport COMPACT. If I had my way, we would've had an m90 and a 6spd AWD drivetrain.

 

I'm sure down the road the n/a SS will put out 200 hp, and the SS/SC could get a sc 2.4 instead (or bump the hp on the 2.0 up, but the 2.4 seems like a better choice now that it's here). Seems like the next logical step to me in the years to come.

As far as RWD, not on a compact car that is filling the Cavalier void. The SS models are nothing more than a souped up version of Chevy's compact line of cars, so Chevy is going to cater to the compact crowd first, and then to the much smaller tuner crowd next. RWD would be nice, but save it for a Camero-like model.

 

I'm pretty sure GM didn't go with RWD because of the type of consumer they are targeting w/ the CSS (young adults)...I'm sure there would be a lot more wrecks/insurance claims because of inexperienced drivers.

I would LOVE it if it was rwd though lol.

 

Because they wanted to make a SS that was cheaper than the SC SS. If it where to be 200 HP it would cost more and thus either cancel the whole idea of making a cheaper SS or boost the cost of the SC/SS. Basically if you ask me its for ppl that want a SS but dont want to buy the SS/SC not bashing it or anything. But they say that the "Watch very closely what they put the SS symbol on" i just dont see anything better in the N/A SS from the N/A LS other then like 20 hp of course all the features is nice. O also the need for "Premuim gas for a Premuim engine" if you ask me all they wanted was another way to make money. GM is in need of $$$ bad from what all the dealers are telling me cuz they hardly selling vehicles. But im glad cuz the more i wait the better the deals get But thats why they didnt make the 2.4 200 hp they wanted to have a "affordable" SS for ppl that either didnt want a SS/SC or couldnt afford it.

 

Plus with a FI engine you can get better MPG since you don't always have to run boost. But with a powerful N/A engine the MPG goes down quickly.

 

Chevy did the same thing with the Cavaliers in 2002 having the plain 2.2, Z 2.4, and the Ecotec 2.2. Its nice to have choice but, it confuses the dealers too much.

 

Anyone else find it amusing that GM chose the smallest of the ecotecs to be the most powerful?

 

The 2.0L is brand new.

It was designed specifically to be F/I.

 

this is a good discussion. The only question i have is this. Are the blocks of these three engines the same and the different sizes are made by changing head sizes and piston sizes? It would explain a lot. Stronger pistons and smaller chambers on the head to lower compression on the f/i 2.0? Different head on the 2.4 for bigger chambers to take advantage of the variable vale timing (VVT) that doesnt come on the 2.2?