Thats cool......its just some people automatically think the 2.0t from the sky or solstice would be the one going into the cobalt...obviously that wouldnt fit and if gm wanted to go turbo it wouldnt be that hard....I understand your arguement though...its just that some ss/sc guys on here get their panties in bunch about this whole ss going turbo....this wont fit...that wont work...blah...blah..blah...it'll never be turbo'd...only supercharged....like I said it...it wouldnt be that hard for gm to do and know one really knows whats gonna happen until its offically been released.

 

The GTO is taking a one year hiatus because the current model platform will not pass the new airbag requirements for 07. It is being redesigned for 08. At least that was the informtion GM provided in the new HOT ROD or CAR CRAFT magazine this past month.

 

Here: Use the block and pipeing from the Saab. Turbo, head, CPU, and internals from the GXP/Red Line

 

I kind of got sick of reading all of this because people are just saying the same things over and over again, but I'll chime in.

I have already read a few articles that noted that the GXP version of the upcomming Pontiac G5 will use the 260hp 2.0T motor.

Also, I don't know why people think that putting a turbo is difficult from an engieering standpoint. You have a few mounts and some plumbing to install...not that big of a deal.

That said, I have always liked superchargers better, and BTW, the Cobalt SS is not the first boosted engine GM has produced. The 3.8 has been getting a supercharger on it for 15 years or better, and at one point in the late 80's/early 90's a Pontiac Sunfire could be had with a turbocharged 2.0 liter.

but back to superchargers. I just like them better and I like not having to wait around for the power. And as far as power goes, the argument that a turbo makes more power holds no water. Boost is boost, end of story. Sure, a supercharger takes a little power to turn, but a turbo needs a more restrictive exhaust system to work.

I forget who said it, but if turbos made more power then top fuel drag cars would be using them. Instead, they have big fat blowers sitting on top. Turbos are cheaper, that's all.

 

That isn't true at all. Top Fuel dragsters use superchargers because that is the way it has been done for years, and because they are made for low end power. You can't argue turbos make more power than superchargers as a fact, but they make more PEAK power faster. Superchargers start in the boost and climb up as the engine turns. A turbo takes a bit to spool, then BOOM! all the boost comes at once. think about it this way if peak boost for the turbo and supercharger were 12.

S/C:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12

T/C:

0,0,4,7,8,10,12,12,12,12

you see, Top Fuel Dragsters are geared for acceleration and very constant acceleration. IF they were turbos, they would need massive turbos to make as much power because they are HUGE v8's. The turbos would take so long to spool up, it just wouldn't work as well in the quarter mile. If the race were to be say a half mile on the other hand, a turbo would most likely be the better choice. A smaller, higher revving motor will usually benefit more from a turbo because they will be in boost long enough to compensate for the spool up, and until you need to make HUGE hp numbers (which is very very unlikely on a 4 cylinder) a good turbo will spool up fast enough to not lag much. It is mostly preference, but superchargers and turbochargers have their benefits.


As for the put the saab motor in thing someone brought up- are you talking about the 9-2x? If so, that is a boxer 2.5t...it wont fit.

 

I have to say that I hope the Cobalt remains supercharged. It would not surprise me if they give it the turbo though. It is way cheaper to produce the same engine for 4 vehicles (Solstice, Sky, Opel Turbo, Cobalt SS) than having one of them with a supercharged engine. Also, turbochargers are percieved by the public as producing more power than superchargers (which is incorrect in many cases), so it would make the Cobalt SS an easier sell. Especially when the Mini Cooper, Dodge Caliber, Mazdaspeed 3, etc. will all be running turbos next year!

If I was GMPD, I would want to add direct injection and VVT to the LSJ. The 2.0L turbo is making so much more power stock compared to us because of these additions mostly, as well as running more boost (15-18 lbs so I have heard). If a stg. 2 LSJ makes 241 HP with injectors and a smaller pulley (15 lbs of boost), imagine what adding direct injection and VVT could do! You could easily have the higher torque and matching HP numbers (260HP) as put out by the 2.0L turbo.

If I could choose between the 2.0L turbo, or the 2.0L supercharged LSJ with VVT and direct injection, I would take the LSJ any day of the week! Superchargers are way more interesting to me than turbos!

 

Saab 9-3. BTW, if they did decide to keep a S/C over the turbo, because of pacaging problems with the turbo and piping ect, put a S/C on the 2.0t, out come being: beefed internals, VVT, direct injection, S/C so it makes it's self diferant than all the other cars out there. Would that make ppl happy?

 

ok if chevy is going to go turbo why do they have like a whole lineup of s/c including the ZO6 R which will be a s/c zo6

 

V8's will supercharged .

The un-naturally aspirated Ecotec's will turbocharged .

There is no Z06-R , the car hasnt been named yet . Anything your seeing there is pure speculation . Chevy has not said where the new supercharged engines are going exactly . Its just known what they are and the LS2 is replaced with the LS3 in 2008 . The highest output of the 3 called LS9 is the "blue devil" engine , but it does not replace the Z06 . It will be a model above the Z06 , and a price to match .

New LS series engines that are coming . The LS2 is going bye bye .

LS3 - 6.2 , NA , vvt and cylinder deactivation 450 hp

3 supercharged versions of that 6.2L engine

-Base low output , supercharged , no intercooler . No hp figures
-Mid level , supercharged and intercooled
-Then the LS9 , high output , supercharged and intercooled .

 

i'm just glad gm is going with the turbo,,,but i think they are doing this because,when people see a fast car the say "it has a TURBO", no one even thinks about the supercharger!!,,,the turbo will increased the SS sales!

 

i heard it going to be a Corvette SS!

 

i read in gm high performance that it will be ZO6 R

 

so is like everyone going to trade in there CObalt SS's now for a 08?

 

The 3.8 was also turbocharged in the late 70's, and also up until 89 in the grand national/turbo regal line. (Which was faster than the 89 corvette) Pontiac also offered a turbo trans am in 1980, 81, and 89. The 80 and 81 models had the pontiac 301 in them, and were complete pieces, because of poor engineering. (the 301 is a small valve economy motor, and they used the turbo setup off the 3.8 V6 in the turbo regal, and also did a lot of other bullshit to make the turbo sound unnoticable, as well as using a draw through setup, just like on earlier turbo regals.) A drawthrough carb. turbo setup is poor, I'll give you that much...

Top Fuel Drag cars DO use turbochargers. I don't know where you get off saying turbos are cheaper, or easier to engineer either. A ball bearing ceramic turbo can range drastically in price, but is usually $1500+. So thats just the turbo. Then you need your piping, intercooler, blow off valve, wastegate, turbo manifold, and then depending on whatever else you want to add such as fuel management, and etc. Id say that depending on options, both a supercharger and turbocharger can cost about the same when it comes down to it. There is a little more to it than just mounting some pipe and whipping a turbo on there and going down the road. Have you heard of Trim, A/R, etc.? ALSO, with standalone engine management LAG can be eliminated entirely because of anti-lag capabilities, that way I already have full boost when I leave the line....

RESTRICTIVE EXHAUST for a turbocharger? Ok.... Then tell me why they make 3" or larger downpipes that come right off the turbocharger? Or why aftermarket turbo exhausts are larger than others? You want LESS backpressure and LESS restriction when it comes to turbocharging. Just replacing the exhaust system on a 88 Mazda RX-7 turbo with a full 3" system produces over 60 extra horsepower.

If you really want to compare two setups, you have to calculate the adiabatic efficiency, plain and simple. Until you have a full understanding of thermodynamics and engineering, then getting either of the two setups 100% dead on is going to be a little more than waving your wallet around and swapping parts.

 

you are right, it is going to be the corvette ss, but it isn't just a new vette with a different engine. They completely reworked the chassis to accomodate over 600hp. One of my good friends' dads was one of the designers of the interior on the newer model vettes and he is in speculation with other designers on the ss corvette. I talked to him about it and he told me that they aren't posotive, but it will most likeley be a lighter vette, with reworked suspension, tranny, and dynamics to accomodate extra power. The original idea of throwing a higher power motor in the z06 was scrapped because it can't use much power with the design it has now. Just look at the linginfelter c6. it has 1000hp, but it isn't much faster than the z06 at all because the vette design just can't handle that much power as is. You can expect at least 1/2 a second quarter time being dropped and it should be just over 100 grand. It is going to be a full out track car made street legal.

 

not if you can't spell it right. camaro.

 

i'm with you, buddy.

 

I might trade in my ss/sc for the 08. I just hope they don't cost that much more. Also does anyone know if it will be rwd and have a 6 speed or is it to early to answer that.

 

This is all interesting.Im hopeing this all flows out .I read that also in the magzine.Makes you wonder if its worth modding your car at this point if you plan on getting something nicer on down the road.Im just happy to see the cobalt 2.0 SS SC and ion make a mark on the performance road.And sure theres alot more to come in the future. After talking to Yanks i just put in my order for the 2010 cobalt quard tubros one per cylinder the tranny in this is a 7 speed air shift with a auto clutch the gears are split lower side for raceing apps and top side for city and highway driveing and towing.With the fuel mileage hitting over 40 mpg on this multi fuel motor.yes you can run what ever will burn in this puppy from gas to diesel and everthing in between.

 

yeah, i heard that gm is thinking of making A new Grand National GNX

 

Hot Rod Magazine did a comarison test a few years back of several forced induction methods, IE a turbo, and roots type and centrifical superchargers. They ranked: 3rd roots type S/C, 2nd centrifical S/C, 1st Turbo. And It all has to do with how much air is fed to the engine and how fast. Superchargers have a mechanical limitation, your crank. A turbo is only limited by how well your engine breaths, aside from its own mechanical limitations, IE size of turbine and/or compressor. The beter youre engine breathes the beter a turbo works. The only benifit od a roots type or screw type blower is its a positive diplacement pump, instant boost and torque.

 

Firstly, the bolded statement...these are large benefits that shouldn't be just ignored...

It's a tradeoff...this has been hashed and rehashed for quite some time...Roots type S/C is only efficient up to a certain PSI, after that it's just shooting warm air into the engine...the use of an intercooler or aftercooler can be used to combat this...somewhat

Centrifical S/C's are more efficient are higher RPM, and are notoriously good at spinning very fast, but aren't so great at lower RPM...the mini uses this type of SC

Turbo's are more efficient, but they also cause backpressure which is harder on your engine, and are limited as well, a big ass turbo on a 4cyl engine will take forever to spool. Other disadvantages include HEAT (turbo's create a ton of heat), issues with boost leaks, hoses blowing off, and turbo's are harder to tune for...S/C's are alot more predictable from an engineering standpoint.

I like both Turbo's and Superchargers, FI ftw...I just get tired of all the turbo envy that there seems to be on this forum...if this was the case..no one would use superchargers.

 

Unless they make the redline higher turbo'n it aint gonna do ****... it wouldn't hit full boost untill like 5K anyway... so off the line we'd still smoke 'em.... They'll have so much lag! You'll have to keep it up to redline the whole time to make decent power! I'm not much on turbo'd cars and I have had 2 of them... 90 Eclipse GST and a 95 Talon TSi... Both of which redlined 7200 or more! I prefer supercharging, and its more reliable!

 

errrr , no . The 2.0t DI has its full 260 TQ rating from 2500-5300 rpm . U do the math on that . You really dont even start to the feel the torque come on until 4K rpms on a stock SS/SC .

 

Also it puts out 220 tq @ 1800 the LSJ's only 110tq @1800.