I know that 143 hp for the 2.2 is significantly less than the 171 of the 2.4, but torque is actually really close...155 vs 163. Is the 2.4 really THAT much better? Torque is what makes the car move so it seems to me that 8 ft/lbs of torque isn't worth the extra dough.

Help me understand...

 

I never drove the 2.2, but i own a 2.4 and i've yet to regret buying... its perfect in nearly every way to me for its class.

 

i think you bet better suspension, better wheels and some other stuff, i don't know what all you get since i don't own one.

 

um, more hp... SS badges of course, better 5 lug wheels, front fog lights and lower grille opening with insert... there are other differences... i am just having to think about them.

 

its worth it for the 4 way disc brakes, better exhaust, better rims, the styling is a bonus.... imo you cant go wrong with the 2.4 SS...... Its not much more than the 2.2 with similar options is it.....

 

the brakes and suspension alone are worth getting the 2.4

the tq output on the 2.4 is alot wider accross the rpm than the 2.2's tq output

if your gonna turbo or s/c the motor the 2.2 has a edge , because it doesnt have the vvt , and it has lower compression


me i plan on getting the 2.4 , over both the 2.2 and 2.0s/c

 

I like the 2.4... the engine may not be as easily upgraded, but i like the stock. i am a daily driver, so styling matters more to me for now. after school, i'll get something i can beef up under the hood.... dare i say a new camaro??? COME ON GM!

 

while the 2.4 vvt engine is pretty equivalent to the scion tc vvt 2.4. they both have the same torque at 163 ft.-lb but the scion only has 160 hp compaired to the cobalt which has 171 hp. also the scion weighs about 2970 lbs. our weight is 2991 is the coupes/ 3216 is the sedan.

so i personally think that the base model w/ the ecotec may be able to hang w/ the vvt 2.4. cuz i have raced a scion tc and i was dead even w/ him even tho he did have a heard start w/ the inside lane.

but imo the ecotec would still prolly lose but not by much and also the ss n/a are pretty sweet looking i thnk. much better looking then the ls/lt's.

and also the ss n/a has a sport tuned suspsension. cd.mp3 17" rims pioneer sound system and vvt engine along w/ some more options.



ryan

 

On the surface they seem comparable. But the Ecotec is a much better engine.
6750 redline on the 2.4L Ecotec VS 6200rpm Scion---haha thats low
Higher 10.4 to1 cr, engine oil cooler, forged con rods. All this the Toyota engine does not have. God I wish I lived in the US---I would spend my weekends hunting down those Ugly Scions and destroying them in a race!!!

As for the weights......Noooo......you have then way to heavy.

Here are the correct weights:

SS Sedan 2871

SS coupe: 2815

Learn it and know it!

http://gmcanada.com/english/vehicles...coba_opti.html
(scroll way down)

There is this crazy MYTH they weigh that much. I beleive it somes from the US website
Chevrolet.com <----those fools have no publisehed data on the website for the 2.4L Ecotec.

Rest easy---are cars are not heavy pigs. BTW---Car and Driver tested a Scion and weighed it---a touch over 3000lbs.

And yes---the 2.4L is a big improvement over the 2.2L

 

I own both the 2.2 L62 Sedan and the 2.0LSJ SS/SC and they are different ball parks.

Never drove a 2.4 but it looks like it rides rougher then say a 2.0. Sometimes in my sedan I can't even hear the damn motor it's so quiet.. it needs more noise captain.

2.4 is the way to go if you want more realistic modfications that will get you places. 2.2 has the edge in aftermarket right now even though not much is even out. Most 2.2 parts bolt on the 2.4

2.4 has a more refined torque curve and steady horse power rise while the 2.2 dies in what power it does have stock in the 5,000 ish rpm range.

Hope that does it for you.

 

take it easy there. i got my weights from gm also on there american webstie

http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/specifications/

Coupe Sedan
Seating (front/rear) 2/3 2/3
Fuel tank capacity (gal./L, approx.) 13/52 13/52
Curb weight, estimated (lbs./kg) 2,991/1,356.7 3,216/1,458.8


ryan

 

I know, its okay I am relaxed. I just hope you that those weights are wrong. Impossible to make an SS sedan 300lbs heavier then a normal one. Its all aout education

 

"There is no replacement for displacement"

 

Seedy salesman told me yesterday that the 2.4's powerband was MUCH higher in the RPM range than the 2.2, so you'd have to really ring it out to feel the extra horses. What do you guys think of that?

 

Ring Ring.. ****! That's why they made it...

 

i have driven both extensively and my friend that has the 2.2 drove mine and said its way faster, i thought the difference would be small but its not they are way different engines

 

You said ****!

His point was that there was very little difference in everyday driving and that the 2.2 actually was "faster" when you kept the speeds lower...now that I've typed that, it doesn't really make sense at all. What a jerkoff! I'm pretty sure I'll be dealing with someone else when my wife's HHR gets in...

 

This is true the 2.4 is a more high end performer than the 2.2. The 2.2 has it torque band lower in the RPMS while the 2.4 has it higher much like the 2.0. If you look at the numbers you can get a good sence at the powerband.

2.2 more tq than HP

2.4 More HP than Tq

2.0 Mor hp than tq

If a engine has more torque its almost always has a good some of torque off the line. When it has more Hp then your torque won't get as high until later in the RPM range.

My truck has 325 HP and 375 Tq, it flys off the line but it doesn't have much top end.
My cobalt gets off the pretty fast but you don't really feel a hard pull until 3500 RPMs

 

the 2.4 vvt , has the vvt for a reason , it helps keep the power range alot wider , which allows the 2.4 to have a wider power range and the higher redline


for example (not actual range) say the 2.2 has a power band from 2500 to 5500 , the 2.4 would have a range of 2000-6500

so the 2.4 would be a better choice for some one that drives more spirited

 

I have driven 5 speed coupes of both engines down the 1.4 mile in stock form

2.2L = 16.1 (probably 15.8 with practice)
2.4L = 15.22 (15.05 with WAI)

There is a big difference.

 

So.. "There is no replacement for displacement"

 

turbo and s/c replace displacement

 

The pionere system and reciever is an option.
But, yeah I think the 2.4 is worth it only if you can get a deal on it. right now i think its 2,000 off. I have controled both engines, family owns a couple 03 cavys (auto) and the other 06 cobalt (auto) I test drove. From what i felt the 2.2 is snappier off the line. i couldnt get the 2.4 to light up at all.
One a reltaed note the 2.4 polluts less then the 2.2 and gets just the same gas milage.
I read that the 2.4 was a second faster than the 2.2 in 0-60.
Can anyone confirm?

 

the 2.4 ive driven would smoke the tires with ease , both the auto and the 5spd


but the auto you had to put it in 1st gear to shut the trac control off

 

You would have thought that Me being a Turbo guy would have thought that one through. I used to believe fully that all people who made the statement that I made were old school gearheads that just didn't know due to ignorance what was possible from a 2.0L motor. I see your point, but Go toe to toe with a Chrysler 300-C SRT and tell me that you wouldn't rather have the 6.1L on the line. I would...

Although they are good power adders, They increase the strain as well. Currently the fastest available Porsche Carrera GT is Normally Aspirated at over 600+BHP.






Here is the car I sighted as an EG..

The ten-cylinder power unit with dry sump lubrication behind the cockpit of the Carrera GT is based on a 5.5-litre V10 normal-aspiration engine which might well have been raced in the 24 Hours of Le Mans, given its qualities as a genuine racing machine. Engine capacity has been increased to 5.7 litres for the production car, enabling the power unit of the Carrera GT, with its tremendous performance, to meet all requirements for circuit racing and at the same time providing all the qualities required in everyday motoring.