its a odd question but. which car do u think would win if a 2.4 SS raced a 2.0 SS without the Supercharger. i think the 2.0 would still win. what do u think?

 

I dont think you will find a cobalt 2.0 without the S/C. That changes a lot, how much HP would it have without the s/c? But I would have to say the 2.4.

 

I would say the 2.4 When it comes to NA engines the larger CID would win. (most likely) The 2.0 is pushing 12 Lbs of boost for 205. The 2.4 makes what? 170HP. The 2.0 would be your typical honda without the S/C in other words = SLOW

 

Definitly the 2.4.

 

2.4L SS would win. The 2.0L makes 145HP naturally aspirated. That is a fair bit less than the 171HP of the 2.4L.

 

I'd wager the 2.0 makes less than 145 in the N/A trim...... that's what the 2.2 makes.

 

The 2.0 would make about 130ish whp. The 2.4 would waste it but you will never see it!!

 

The 2.0 sits at 120hp without the supercharger...

 

this scenario wont happen for a few years until the superchargers start to break but yeah the low compression of the 2.0 and low cid would make that car a snail

 

whoever said the 2.0 would win is just silly. here's a more accurate scenario that has actually happened. the 1g eclipse came with 3 engines in 4 trims. gsx/gst had 4g63t, gs had 4g63 n/a, and rs had a 1.8(not sure of engine code). ok, my lancer ralliart gets beat up pretty bad by a gsx/gst. i have a 4g69 2.4 w/ mivec. (very comparable to the ss n/a) but if i race a gs eclipse, the eclipse get's MURDERED!!!!!!!!!! so there you go. w/o the supercharger, the ss 2.0 is a str8 up PILE OF ****!!!!! but who in there right mind would go n/a on that engine. hopefully nobody that is sane!

 

I just checked. It makes 140HP without the Supercharger. I have it in a PDF pamphlet from gmpowertrain.com. The link on GM's site is not working. But it states that the 2.0L Supercharged made 140HP before the Supercharger is put on it.

I can e-mail it to anyone who wants it.

Here's a pic from the PDF, since I don't know how to post it:

 

it might have around the same hp as the 2.2 but I bet it's got a bit less torque being smaller and lower compression.

 

^ ^ ^ that "140 jumps to 200" comparison is the 2.2L (same block but stroked and a higher CR) there is absoluetly no way the 2.0 (with supercharger removed) would make 140. It has a compression ratio of 9.5:1 and less displacement. Nobody (excpet GM maybe) knows what a 2.0 - SC would make, i doubt it would even run properly given the fuel managment would have it running so rich. If you could get it to work i doubt it would even put out 100Hp.

 

Yah, I'm sure GM is wrong about their own engine!

Obviously that figure includes them running it with the ECU configured for a NA 2.0L!

That said, there is no way that adding 12.5 Psi of boost adds 105HP the engine? Think about what you are saying!?!?!?!?

Remeber that the 2.2L is tuned more for economy, while the 2.0L is tuned for performance. 140 HP is certainly possible out of 2.0L without the supercharger!

 

2.4, without a doubt.

 

i thought as a rule of thumb that each psi would equal out to 10whp

 

So the SC adds 125 whp? This engine is good for about 65hp with no supercharger?

I don't even know what to say...

 

2.4... no question. but its pointless, there is no such plan for cobalts unless you break your s/c... no good.

 

I'd like to race my SS N/A against an S/C just to see how much behind I was. I know i'd lose, but it would be fun. Anyone know of any race where the two have faced off?

 

I too would like see how far behind a 2.4 is against a 2.0. stock vs stock of course.

 

I just sent you a privat message