A fully loaded LT is priced right up there in 2.4 territory, and it still won't have the upgraded brakes and suspension that the 2.4 has.

 

well after reading how much controversy my post has had...Ill just say after i get my headers/downpipes and new MAF sensor(my other one got fried from the intake), plus the tune with the new headers will defiently give me at least 200whp...we will see though.

Quick story (not revavent)- I dont know but i thought it was funny today when me and my friend in his 325i were having a 'rev' contest and when i went the car alarm next to me went off. Im sorry but i didnt know that i could do that!! My other friends sets off alarms left and right with the 2 12's he has in the trunk. Oh ya, from a dead stop at a stop light, i killed him by at least a car length, as well as my friends 2005 BMW x5....2.4 POWER!!!

 

Oh Boo Freeking who! God forbid ANYONE say ANY other Cobalt besides a 2.0 sc is a nice car.

Sorry but the coupe doesn't make sence for me so I didn't buy one, I got the best GM made, its my 2.4 SS sedan. Noone likes it then buy me a new one.

Jesus Christ! my 2.0 is better, no my 2.2 is better just slap on a turbo, yeah well for a few grand I can get 300 hp, Oh yeah well I got a 12 inch dick! Yeah well mines 12.5 and 4 inches round!

Got a news flash for ALL of you! ITS THE SAME ******* CAR!!!

Dear God this **** gets old.

Ok thats my rant for the day.


The 2.4 SS IS a nice step up from the LT and LS cars. SOME people seem to think the engine is the only differece, its not. The 2.4 SS has a nicer interior, better brakes, factory ground effects and handles better. Yes the 2.0 cars are better in the HP department but thats about it. Don't let the haters get you down, remember their awesome SC cars aren't even built anymore, while ours just got a name change.

 

HAHAHAH

 

why you hating on guys with 12 inch dicks?

not my fault that i can't wear shorts.

 

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000




That was a good read

 

Cause you got such a small dick! 12 incher *giggles* PFT! Call me when you get to 16 and we'll talk.


bTW thats 16inches SWINGIN!

 

best song lyric ever "i'll hit you upside the head with nine inches of limp dick"

 

I'm honestly surprised chevy didn't just turbo the 2.4 and drop the 2.0 entirely...waste of time in my opinion....or for that matter...go back to original and turbo the 2.2 and keep the 2.4 the N/A.

 

X2000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000!!!!!!

 

Hmmm, no.

 

dude get it..that **** moves much nicer than the 2.2 auto..i had a 2.2 auto until some dude drove 80mph into me in a 30..well thats a diferent story..well u can tune the 2.4 u cant the 2.2..bigger block.better internals..VVTwhich is real nice low end n top end..dude do it up nice..hptuners can change that rev limiter...its the same on the 2.4..if u have ne questions pm me.

 

and why say that?

 

Because he's one of the ones that views the 2.0 sc as the be all end of of the sport compact world I guess.

And why would ANYONE want to put forced induction on a 2.4? I mean just cause Mopar does it and gets so much out of thier non VVT 2.4's I honestly can't imagine why anyone would waste thier time doing it to the 2.4 ecotec.

 

Because the 2.4 has weaker internals, higher compression and a weaker transmission. It wasn't developed for boost. Why would GM want to warrenty something may not be strong enough to hold up to their own warrenty?

Look past displacement.

 

Exactly why they took the SS name away....

 

ah but I'm saying the 2.4 should've been the true SS all along. it SHOULD have had the internals and tranny the weaker motor has... dumb choice to make from the beginning on chevy's part.





*calmly un-packs flamesuit...*

 

I'm sure there was and is reason behind using the 2.0 other then what I listed. Maybe to make models and get more sales? Who knows.

 

weaker tranny. i'll give you that.. but dont even start spouting BS about weak internals and higher compression, hahn stage 4... stock engine.. because there are so many 2.0's that are running 400 hp... yea thats weak...

 

could be. maybe gas mileage as well. I just never understood why they made their "powerhouse" vehicle...the weakest vehicle in that line (from the start, not after the s/c)

edit - it was dumb that they put a weaker tranny on the other vehicles anyway...why make something crappy like that you know?

 

Proof? And there is people working on making 400 whp 2.0's.

 

get the 2.4 they are fun motors. i have the 5 speed so i cant talk on how a auto one would drive like. but i have raced a 2.2 and beat it like nothing. when i was stock i did 153whp. once i get more stuff done im going to dyno it again and take it back to the track. 3rd gear will put a smile on your face. thats when the car pulls the hardest and it will put you back alittle in the seat. for 173hp there fun.

 

well the 2.4's are getting much higher much faster than the 2.0's did, there is no argument there, proof of 400whp or not, but lets not start slapping each other with our dicks here. I think the original issue was should he get the 2.4... I would, when I had my 2.2, i loved it, and when I got my 2.4 it was like a totally different car. whether you get the 2.0, 2.4 or 2.2, you can make some serious horsepower, that's not the issue here really. what is important are the handling, the wheels, the interior, etc.etc.... all the stuff that cost a bunch to have done after you get the car that comes standard on a 2.4 and you can hardly even find on a 2.2. imo, that makes the 2.4 worth it, if not...keep the 2.2 and build that baby!


eidt: GET A MANUAL...YOU WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.

 

This is your brain on Nitrous Oxide........you really begin to see "things" out of context.....

 

What cast instead of forged rods? PFT! The 2.4 stock rods can handle 400 hp so I don't see a problem with the internals. Any more then that and seriously your begging to have to re-build the engine every year anyway. Now true the 2.4 does have higher compression......and?

As for the transmission being weaker I have yet to hear of ANY 2.4 transmissions failing due to too hp. Now lets compair that to haw many 2.0 manuals die from roasted clutches or the synchros blowing out on on them. It would seem both your points are moot.

As I said before ALL levels of Cobalts are nice cars in thier own rights, why do some of you insist upon pitting one trim level against another?