sorry but they don't. If they do--why do they have different RPO Codes hmm?

Plus the SS NA cas 22mm and 24mm anti roll bars--the S/C has 24mm.

NOt too mention the shcoks and springs are different. I have driven both cars and the S/C is extremely firm--you can really tell over bumps the SS NA rides far better but still has great (not quite as much) cornering ability

 

Avro the struts and springs are identical, I just dropped my 2.4 SS sedan and Devons SS/SC car this past saturday and we measured the ride heights of both cars and they were the same. Then when I removed his old springs I compaired them to mine the part #'s matched same for the struts. I also checked the tag on the sway bar and it had the same part #'s too. The big difference in ride quaility is the sidewall height thats all.

BTW my RPO code on my cars build sheet is FE3 what does your say?

 

Hey lewis how about u post what u cut from my post correctly i was talking about GM parts genius. and GM uses the term "stage" im sorry ive been around chevys and its how i talk IF you have a problem with it...you know what thats to damn bad. You think im stressing u guys on a forum? LOL yea anyways and just so u know there are ALREADY turboed 2.4s so get with the program. If this thread is SOOO stupid..well ya know what...quit reading it and quit posting on it.

"You keep referring to "The engine can handle 16 PSI" means absolutely nothing. You mention no type of forced inducation that this magical 16 PSI is being created by, you mention nothing about CFM airflow, size of the unit or anything. You keep referring to air pressure which is almost laughable that you think that 16 PSI is the magical number to make you run 400 HP in a general aspect."

oh and NJ you might wanna re read the post buddy i said SRT-4 are putting down 400 horses. god u guys are some heavy judges join the supreme court and quit assuming

besides if someone had the "magic forced induction of 16 lbs" LOL 16 lbs isnt hard to make with a turbo with the right set up. So if i baught a "magical" SC or turbo i wouldnt be telling you.

 

WHOE man lighten up! Adam (NJHK) is a personal friend and Lewis is a great guy I was on your side as you can see by my posts but your getting out of hand here. YOU came here asking for advice and then when you got some you didn't like you copped an atitude and thats not nesacary at all! We're all friends here so chill, count to 10 before you post and maybe that will help. Adam has had custom turboed cars in the past, I know I HELPED BUILD ONE! Ok maybe I supervised cause I didb't want to get dirty but never the less he's been there and done that! TAKE HIS ADVICE TO HEART believe me he's only trying to help same with most people here. True you do have a few SS/SC owners that think they're Gods gift to GM but THOSE are the ones you just ignore.

Before you go pissing everyone off beyond a simple "I'm sorry" fixing it maybe you should take a few and calm down.

No hate just my 2 cents trying to help a newbie out thats started out down a bad road.

 

Interesting! I'm really surprised the springs and shocks were the same part number. Maybe one of the GM parts guys on the board can check the listings.

The 2.4 is FE3, the 2.0 is FE5. If you drive them back-to-back there's a definite difference in ride stiffness, so it's amazing they use the same springs and shocks. This difference is one of 3 reasons I bought my 2.4 (the other 2 being 4 doors and auto - if they made an auto SS/SC, even in 2-door I might have lived without the back doors).

 

well assuming and judging will get u know where and thats exactly what they are doing so no respect there i learned my lesson a long time ago on that. them calling the post stupid they can solve it by not reading it. i mean its that simple if im just some idiot about cars that is blabing off at the mouth then they can ignore me it wont hurt my feelings so until they can respect the fact that they dont know who i am or what i even know they should not assume plain and simple and to be honest what i said is just the trust if u dont like it...dont read it. i mean im not trying to hurt feelings or blah blah blah just being honest im not here to be like ohhh look at what i can do the only reason i even posted on here WAS to try and get people interested not have people bashing about stupid stuff...but i will say this...IF you know the 2.4 cant handle a SC/Turbo..id love to know how u know that so if you wanna post about that be my guest

 

Thanks for the support! I probably got a bit harsh myself, but I get tired of "experts" who criticize and don't contribute. Must be that "gettin' old" thing! Some of us who really have been there, done that, have the T-shirt" (not just once - I've owned and modified 55 cars) get impatient with those who refuse to listen to reason. I get that way about people thinking HPTune is the magic solution to all their turbocharging problems. I'm a thorough proponent of fuel and timing control being boost triggered, not just in setting it rich enough to survive boost and to heck with the rest of the time.

 

Remember I used to work for GM in the parts dept at a Chevy dealership, I did check.

Heres another neet little tib bit of info for ya, the SS automatics had DIFFERENT transmissons then the non SS cars! Steeper gears and a different valve body!

The only differences I had ever found in the suspensions were the steering ratio and the axle length. As for the struts and sway bars and springs all I checked on was the SS sedan VS. the SS/SC coupe so if its because the sedan has beefier parts then the coupe that I didn't get into cause I wasn't buying a coupe. It is possible that the sedan has the heavier stuff then the coupe.

 

Ah! That might be true. The sedan FE3 might be a coupe FE5. That would mean the coupe FE3 might be different. It's true that when I did the back-to-back test drive it was an SS sedan vs an Ss/SC coupe. They sure felt different, but maybe I was expecting them to be different. They're both certainly different than the 2.2. If you find out the 2.2 is also the same, them I'm baffled!

thanks, Mr. Lope

 

well lewis i repsect the "geting old thing" you got a little harsh, maybe i did to. fiar enough? im not here to cause drama..BTW like u said about urself...im impatient too:p

 

No problem man sometimes its asy to get caught up. I'm not exactly a youngin either ya know! 35 this July! And I've had 2 cars in HOT ROD back in the early 90's and I can't count how many cars I've modded! LOL! Don't ya love the kids who will argue with you till the cows come home aout something you've done countless times but THEY'RE the experts and you don't poop! LMAO! I wish I could know now what I THOUGHT I knew when I was their age.

 

hey hey now i didnt exactly say he had no idea what he was doing:P lol

 

Very welcome friend. :::takes a bow::: As for the 2.2 cars, they're totaly different! Maybe share the same bolts but thats about it. And I just thought about the sedan VS. coupe thing it could be the difference. Remember our sedans weigh a little more then the coupes do so GM would have to put beefie stuff under it. I wish I still worked for GM right now so I could look!

Squeek, getting better. Now concentrait on punctuation and capitalization and we're getting somewhere! Spelling we all suck at so no biggie there just do your best.

I was generlizing Squeek not finger pointing at you. Its all good man

 

lol its a post im not worried about proper grammer and punctuation its a forum not a college paper

 

Ahhhhh, I used to think the same thing young Grass Hopper but then I re-read some of the things I had written and I realized I could hardly read it myself! Then it occured to me how others must see me as someone who knows no better. Its difficult to try to carry on an arguement or discussion when you can not be understood. Its not that your being graded its rather the fact that we are trying to read it.

 

LOL... Young grass hopper. Wow. I haven't heard that one in a LONG time.

 

solstices are already doing this.

 

this is a totally different case than a 305 vs a 350. as far as big pushrod v8's go, usually higher displacement will be better, but you are missing something here. Longer stroke = weaker when it comes to boost, and higher revving engines work better with turbo setups. Longer stroke takes away from how high your motor can safely rev. The lsj has been taken to close to (if not over) 300whp on the stock eaton...with the horrible efficiency of it at that level, and the already decently large parasitic loss of the third gen eatons, you could see an extra 40 to the wheels even with a turbo system that has exactly the same flow characteristics. Now get a more efficient setup and with the same amount of stress being put on the engine you could be seeing 350whp. See how long that would last on a 2.4. Now another note, most of the increase in displacement of the 2.4 is in stroke length. If you are going built internals, you can change that... but the thing is, you wont want to. The square design of the 2.0 can rev higher, more easily than the 2.4. Increasing displacement to a 2.2 would be better as it is a more stable design for high boost applications, but will still have slightly higher displacement. Does that mean the 2.2 has more potential? NOT AT ALL! Some people here really get too caught up in stupid numbers like psi. PSI doesn't mean jack ****, and higher displacement is not always better depending on the way that displacement is gained.

 

The Turbocharged SRT-4's 2.4L stroke is 101mm compared to the Ecotec 2.4 with a 98mm stroke. You just have to have strong internals!

I'm still gonna try and boost my 2.4L, if it blows then I'll build it stronger!

 

oh you can for sure still boost it, but what i am saying is it is not necessarily correct to say the 2.4 has more potential.

 

35? I wish! Add 20 for my birthday in May

I wish I had pics of all my cars. We had a 180 HP factory turbo '65 Corvair with higher boost and water injection pushing out about 250 HP - at the time it ran well with Porsche 911's. Those were the days - what's a blow-off valve? What boost control? But GM did have a slick mechanical way to reduce timing under boost. Since then, in the 55 cars, I've had a Renault Fuego Turbo (Renault knew turbos - they dominated Formula 1 in the mid-80's), Shelby CSX, LeBaron GTS with Shelby Lancer suspension, Eagle Talon TSI, and Volkswagen Beetle Turbo S (just to mention the turbo cars). It's all fun!

 

Sounds like fun Lewis, iv'e had a few projects of my own. From a 72 chevy, a 95 celica, a 72 240 SX dotson, and now my cobalt i would love to get my hands on one of thoes 55 models in good condition now a day though

 

The point was you were comparing your build to the SRT-4s around you that were doing 400 HP like you needed to catch up to them.

As far as the 16 PSI, you're still not getting the point. 16 PSI is just a reference to air pressure....doesn't mean anything. Take a turbocharger that is the size of my hand and then a turbocharger the size of my head and put them both at 16 PSI, which one do you think has a higher CFM? That's the point I'm making. You're making no reference to what you plan on doing yet you're using the # of 16 PSI.

I don't care what you tell me and I really don't care how your build ends up. I'm replying so other people don't read what you say and think this is how forced induction works and there are too many people that think air pressure is what determines how much power you make...including yourself.

Like Jackalope said, I've been through all of this. I don't care what you think about me but I come on here to help people. I've tried being nice but your attitude towards people who are making points and trying to give you advice is plainly not wanted. You ask for help but then at the same time you act like you know what you're doing when it is evident that you don't. You make claims of people you know with a 2.4 ECOTEC running extreme amounts of horsepower yet you're asking us where to buy parts? Why not ask them?

And grammar is important so you can actually understand what people are saying. Sorry but it doesn't take extra time to use periods, commas and capitalization and if you think it does then you have more issues than finding 2.4 parts.

But whatever, you do what you want since you know so much.

 

...Your wrong and you should be punished by a spanking.

Correctly, it should of been: "yung gras hoppa"....you gotta get the Mr Meyogi or however the hell you spell his name... Miogi? Meogie? Yogi? Booboo?

 

The 2.0 and 2.4 both have excellent potential, they are the same base engine! Depends on how and what is done to them and what your intended use is for them. The 2.0 will definitely be safer in the higher RPM range, but I never go above 6300 anyway. With VVT and 20% more displacement of the 2.4L it is a plus for my intended use, should make good low and mid range power with the M62! Just gotta get a good tune to prevent knock destruction. The 10.4:1 stock compression of the 2.4 will defintiely be an issue with FI.