yes b/c all of us catless car modifiers are so worried about emmisions

 

once again please think before you speak, it wasnt becuase the motor motor wasnt turboed. If the same motor came turboed it still wouldnt have met emissions

 

Im sure this will go over like a ton of bricks for him...

 

probably

 

some one has to be worried about emissions. not sure about s/c, but i know for a fact that in the RIGHT use, turbos can raise MPG.

not trying to make anyone mad, i love the s/c cobalt in wish i have the money to buy one, but if i was looking for a really fast car that was semi easy to mod that isn't a V8, it would have a turbo.

i mean i don't see 4-cylinder s/c cars with 350 hp+. i'm sure it's possible though

 

the only reason you dont see a cobalt that is supercharged and at 350+ is becuase of the roots supercharger and internals. They are made more for reliablity and limited maintenance. Look at Centrifugal supercharged cars, they are much more efficent and have a larger aftermarket. If there were more supercharged cars over turbo cars dont you think there would be more support for S/Ced cars? its a matter of supply and demand.

 

true

 

And dont get me wrong Im in no way trying to bash turbos becuase both have their advantages but Im just tired of people jumping on the turbo bandwagon. Just becuase they are used in cars where more power has been achieved does not mean that those same capabilites in a supercharged car are impossible. People just see the crazy HP numbers and automatically think "OMG it must be because its turbo" but really its the whole motor not just the Turbo, and if the same attention were put on supercharged cars Im sure we would see some higher more appealing HP humbers. Now some will disagree with me but thats my opinion

 

Opinions, on an internet forum, NO WAY!! I thought everyone thought the same on here,

 

Thats the way some people would have it I just like to throw that in on the end of my rants becuase people think im just tyring to spit "facts" out of my ass, most things i say are my opinion so i just like to let people know so they dont jump all over me

 

WOW, we have a lotta' paper racers in here! Boooo

The damn car isn't even available yet! But I can guarantee this, it won't be as quick as everyone is thinking... and 2.) it will have just as many problems and situations arise as the LSJ did at first! Sooo, once again wait till the damn car comes out before we start the whole S/C vs. Turbo wars! Can we bring the LNF Cobalt back up in a year when they are starting to become available!

 

im not mad at all, i defenitily think the tc'ed is and really nice upgrade from the the ss/sc i got, i did so many research before buying my ss/sc and i think its a great car, but i also thing that the tc is a better car in overall, i mean stock for stock, the 2009 is better.

the ss/tc will be sucking more gaz than the supercharged. its proven that supercharger is allright on gaz.

 

Yes, the SS/T will probably not run faster than a 13.9 sec. 1/4 mile.

But it will STILL be faster than a stock SC which turns a mid/hi 14 sec. 1/4 mile.

And for the people arguing JUST about the hp numbers, let's not forget the extra TORQUE that the SS/T is going to make.

That's one of the reasons why I just ordered St. 2., so I won't be tempted to trade in when the SS/T is released.

^Yes, that will be the ONLY way we are going to really know the actual whp difference between the two cars.

NO FREAKING WAY!

It's too much fun ...

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

There is no cobalt with only Stage 2 putting down 270whp. Stage 2 does not mean a 2.6" pulley and HPT and bolt ons.

Maybe on some freak dyno that rates 20hp high. Besides what good is a stage 2 cobalt that can still only run 14.3 in the quarter. The SS/TC has modified suspension to mitigate wheel hop and torque steer.

I honestly couldn't care less whether the car came turbocharged or supercharged. I look at the overall package. The ss/tc runs circles around the ss/sc. The handling and stopping power is a huge improvement. Not to mention GM fixing axlehop and torque steer (I never thought torque steer could be fixed on FWD). I currently have a 2.2L, and see this as an oportunity to own a 13 second car from the factory, that handles like cars for 35-40K+, and is still cheap enough for me to afford, 25K or possibly less.

 

i clearly remember running 13.701 with just a stage 2 done to my car. i also remember clearly that a couple stage 2 cars here running 14.0 all day long. if you seriously think the lnf is the answer to the power in the ss. you're going to be sadly mistaken.

 

it's not that the stage 2 can't run better than 14.3, it's that the driver sucks. a good driver can hit a 14.3 stock. a good driver with stage 2 will run around 13.7 - 13.9. throw on a smaller pully and 13.6's are right there, again for a good driver.

 

WOW, a little dense there aren't we! We are talking crank power! First step pull head out of butt, second think a little before you speak!

 

I think that is a load of bullcrap. I have no traction mods/mounts whatsoever in my 2.5 pullied car and I pulled consistant 2.2's at the track with stock pirelli tires that had 25k miles on them...when most people are getting 15k miles out of them (I now have 36k on them). Sure 2.2 is nothing to brag about but it really isn't that bad for fwd...Reason why people don't use slicks is because most of us can't afford the 800 dollar axles that our out for our car.

Well, in my opinion, once they figure out how to upgrade the direct injection and tune the damn thing, it's going to be 10 TIMES cheaper to make 350-400 whp...which means there will be plenty of 350-400 whp tc lnf cobalts running around....again thats when they figure out the direct injection and tuning.

 

you proved my point!

2.2 is not a good 60 foot time for a modded car at all.

also, look at your trap in the time in your sig. 108? that's good for low 12's with traction and a good 60'. so how is it bullcrap? 13.4 vs. 12.4? that's not bullcrap, it's the truth. like i said, people don't want to do the supporting traction mods, for one reason or another.

 

Your just a ss tc fanboy. You are going to be super diappointed when it comes out.

 

my friend ran 14.2 bone stock.

 

low 12's?
with what 60ft?!?!?!
1.0?

 

i bet with a sub 2 second 60 and a trap of 108 you're looking at easy 12's. maybe not low, but i bet at least mids.

 

lets step outside the box a second here sunshine.

lets take my old gsx on pump gas.

12.74@108
1.65 60 ft. not bad, not good either. there is more to mph that most people see anyways.

i ran a 13.70@97 in my gxp with a 2.1 60ft. i also ran the same mph in my ss/sc with a 2.0 60ft, but went 14.6

what happened? the gxp had way more low end grunt than the ss/sc.

 

The LNF is going to lay down A LOT more low end torque then the LSJ but they can use that to there advantage. Most will not order the G85 package and from a stop wheelspin is a killer of 60ft times.