Just wondering which engine would have more an advantage of a turbo. Now we all know the 2.4L will produce more, but which is more turbo friendly? I can not think of the term right now...I mean the part...but responds better? I believes its the throws...or the throttle body....

Oh anyone know if SEMA (by Philly) this April will have turbos for the Cobalt? Thanks!

 

Depends on the compression ratios. I'm not sure of the math, I'm far from being an engineer. l

 

we dont know yet to be honest, some people think the vvt will work to the 2.4 advantage (me) and some think it will be a disadvantage but only time will tell

 

alright, yea cuz im lookin into the mazda3 and the 2.0L engine has better ratios for the turbo than the 2.3L...but of course the 2.3L produces more...got the 2.0L up to 350whp, and 2.3L up to 500whp

 

theres no replacement for displacement

 

Engineering

 

Bingo, hence why honda's s2000's 2.0L makes 240hp and my 2.2 only makes 145.

 

Well, the things is with a bigger 4 cylinder engine like the 2.4ss, there might be a possible reliability issue because the 2.4 has a bigger bore than say a 2.2 or 2.0 from the cobalt, so because of this, the cylinder walls are thinner thus not as efficient as taking heat out as a car with a bigger cylinder wall. In a 4 cylinder application, the bigger the displacement usually the harder it is on the rods so if you were boost a 2.4, you'd prolly need to internals to accomidate boost levels higher than say 6-8lbs id say.

 

2.4's have forged rods. 2.4 is definatly a more advanced engine. With a good tune, the 2.4 can handle 8psi all day long, with higher octane gas, you could see as high as 12-14. Both will need internal work once gone past the 300 mark.

 

Also s2k is 32-34k.....yea...

 

i saw somewhere that cylinder walls being big making the engine stronger and less heat was actually proved wrong

 

Dont mistake that for better enginerring .... just enginered with a different purpose in mind

 

yeah i think the 2000 has super high compression to make those numbers as well as an abnormal ammount of hp loss to the wheels

 

The 2.4 will make more power if the compression ratio is low enough to allow high boost levels and the rods and crank and pistons are all forged pieces. However it would be interesting to spend time on the Dyno at a cam grinding company. the VVT valvetrain could create a situation where you might not make optimal power at all rpm levels. Generally turbos do not like a lot of overlap between the intake and exhaust valves closing. (Flames and Backfiring in the exhaust) a lot of unburned fuel. If I were turboing a VVT ecotec I would be calling some of the big Cam companies to see if they have done any R&D on these motors with a turbo. This is new ground to cover.If Comp Cams, and Crane, and Edelbrock get enough requests they will develop some performance cams for the VVT Ecotec. anyways because it's bigger than the Honda motors it should waste em'.

 

well there are cams out for the ecotec motor but im not sure if a 2.4 can use them or not due to vvt

 

I could be wrong but I think that VVT turbo cams could be the answer to getting rid of that little bit of lag that even ball bearing turbos have. they could be designed to bring on the power at a more even rate instead of being kicked in the rear the application of power might come on smoother.This thought also comes to mind, staging a low boost turbo for around town and a high output turbo for the track. It seems to me that VVT could make that work really well. What do Ya'll think about that?

 

it also has like 130TQ, 11:1 compression and makes its peak power at around 8K rpm, thats not engineering thats reving the **** out of a car to acheive power.

Obviously from 2.0L to 2.2L to 2.4L is the order of which would be most turbo friendly for compression reasons. Yet because of the increased compression you can make more power on less boost, you just can't run as much boost which may cancel out any advantage on that part. However, as said before there is no replacement for displacement, I'd put my money on the 2.4L. Especially if you bring in built bottom ends to the equation...

 

yo that SEMA show is gonna be sick man, there will most likely be turbos where in PA are you?

 

Yeah, there is a post about the SEMA show having a turbo Cobalt. There is also a list for the people from these forums that are going. Including me

 

how would the 2.2... or 2.4 for that matter be the best for turboing?? GM usues a 2.0 to drag race with... and over 1,000hp, tuens it into a 2.2 for a lil more power. Id put my bet on the 2.0 being the best motor to turbo, which is Y i'm buyin the SS S/C, so i can turbo it down the line.

 

stock for stock the only reason the 2.0 would be better is because of its bottom end (which is NOT forged btw, just learned that recently) which will allow you to throw more boost at it. My guess is that a stock bottom end 2.2 or 2.4 would make similar numbers to a stock SS/SC but with more TQ. With all having built bottoms ends though I'd put my money on the car with the most displacement.

 

the 2.2 is very turbo friendly and you can get a lot and a lot of power with turbo on it

 

Well then if you had a 2. and a 2.2 you could do they same things and the 2.2 would make more power...so it is displacement.

 

True but it also means more rotating mass, thus slower revs. Won't hurt HP but will hurt track times.

 

hate to break it to everyone but the vvt used on the 2.4 does NOT increase power, it is responsible for the improved fuel economy. a version of vvt like the one used on hondas and ferraris would provide more power. the reason for the extra power in the 2.4 versus the 2.2 is displacement and not vvt.

due to the higher compression ratio on the 2.4l, a turbocharger providing the same boost would offer a greater % increase in power. if adjusted to the same compression and displacement, the 2.2 would be fairly equivelant to the 2.4 in power, but would offer fuel economy benefits.