Cobalt SS 2.4 vs. 2.0 SC
01-31-2007, 10:50 AM
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-30-06
Location: West Memphis, AR
Posts: 3,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with both sides. Because I'm all noncommittal and ****. thats just how I roll, sorry ladies.
Anyway.
If you want to argue engine comparisons. The 2.0l is a puny engine. It is MADE into a good engine by a supercharger and bigger injectors. I realize that this is "stock" from GM. But they could have just as easily decided to use the supercharger and build off the 2.4l engine. And I think that had they done that, the SS/SC would easily be into the 300+hp with basic mods and stage upgrades. But then again, they could have also redesigned the car frame and dropped in a turbocharged v-8 that puts down 600hp stock. But this is what we have to work with. and I think GM did a great job with the different car trims. They're all good.
Maybe somebody can answer this for me. I'm not real versed of F/I. but
with 2.0l of displacement, the supercharger doesn't have to pump as much air. So there's less strain on the pulley system if you gear it up some? If this is the case, A supercharger could be more effective and efficient on the 2.0l platform, right?
Anyway.
If you want to argue engine comparisons. The 2.0l is a puny engine. It is MADE into a good engine by a supercharger and bigger injectors. I realize that this is "stock" from GM. But they could have just as easily decided to use the supercharger and build off the 2.4l engine. And I think that had they done that, the SS/SC would easily be into the 300+hp with basic mods and stage upgrades. But then again, they could have also redesigned the car frame and dropped in a turbocharged v-8 that puts down 600hp stock. But this is what we have to work with. and I think GM did a great job with the different car trims. They're all good.
Maybe somebody can answer this for me. I'm not real versed of F/I. but
with 2.0l of displacement, the supercharger doesn't have to pump as much air. So there's less strain on the pulley system if you gear it up some? If this is the case, A supercharger could be more effective and efficient on the 2.0l platform, right?
01-31-2007, 06:18 PM
#77
This will turn into a never ending arguement but just face it guys....
2.0>2.4
nothing against the 2.4, they are a great car but the 2.0 is a better car in every aspect.
2.0>2.4
nothing against the 2.4, they are a great car but the 2.0 is a better car in every aspect.
01-31-2007, 06:32 PM
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-17-06
Location: Moncton Newbrunswick Can.
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
totally agree Rick,except one thing, you dont have vvti,and I see the 2.4 engine giving way less problems than the 2.0 guys are having with theirs
01-31-2007, 06:40 PM
#79
Senior Member
Geffen928 Here- Good Afternoon All......This is my first post. I am considering an 07 Cobalt SS. My dilema is as follows.......I like the looks of the 2.4 SS body much better than the 2.0 S/C. I have never been a big fan of what some would call " body kits " I much prefer the way the 2.4 SS looks...very clean and un-cluttered. No offence to the 2.0 people here. I drove a 2.0 SS S/C 5Speeed today....it was fun. The clutch seemed a little twitchy...like it was a switch that was either on or off. Can anybody comment on how driving the 2.4 compares to the 2.0?? I went to 4 dealers looking for a 2.4 SS 5Speed.....no luck.
Thanks for your time......Geffen928
Thanks for your time......Geffen928
It's more than the engine, it has a different suspension and different 5-speed, and it's about 40mph faster!
I agree with both sides. Because I'm all noncommittal and ****. thats just how I roll, sorry ladies.
Anyway.
If you want to argue engine comparisons. The 2.0l is a puny engine. It is MADE into a good engine by a supercharger and bigger injectors. I realize that this is "stock" from GM. But they could have just as easily decided to use the supercharger and build off the 2.4l engine. And I think that had they done that, the SS/SC would easily be into the 300+hp with basic mods and stage upgrades. But then again, they could have also redesigned the car frame and dropped in a turbocharged v-8 that puts down 600hp stock. But this is what we have to work with. and I think GM did a great job with the different car trims. They're all good.
Maybe somebody can answer this for me. I'm not real versed of F/I. but
with 2.0l of displacement, the supercharger doesn't have to pump as much air. So there's less strain on the pulley system if you gear it up some? If this is the case, A supercharger could be more effective and efficient on the 2.0l platform, right?
Anyway.
If you want to argue engine comparisons. The 2.0l is a puny engine. It is MADE into a good engine by a supercharger and bigger injectors. I realize that this is "stock" from GM. But they could have just as easily decided to use the supercharger and build off the 2.4l engine. And I think that had they done that, the SS/SC would easily be into the 300+hp with basic mods and stage upgrades. But then again, they could have also redesigned the car frame and dropped in a turbocharged v-8 that puts down 600hp stock. But this is what we have to work with. and I think GM did a great job with the different car trims. They're all good.
Maybe somebody can answer this for me. I'm not real versed of F/I. but
with 2.0l of displacement, the supercharger doesn't have to pump as much air. So there's less strain on the pulley system if you gear it up some? If this is the case, A supercharger could be more effective and efficient on the 2.0l platform, right?
The 2.0L is puny in size, but it has much stronger internals, better heads, oil cooling, piston cooling, More HP potential, and revs faster from the shorter stroke. Unless you like to brag about the size of your motor, then the 2.4 offers nothing except VVT. And that obviously does not pick up the slack. The 2.0L under boost has the molecular volume of a 4.0-5.0L engine depending on setup, the 2.4L still only has 2.4L of volume.
Last edited by Psykostevo; 01-31-2007 at 06:41 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
01-31-2007, 07:17 PM
#80
I really don't think the VVTi has anything to do with the probs, It's for fuel economy..... Some of the 2.0 have blown engines because of running lean on a bad tune, most were pushing just under 300whp....which, to get to those levels is also maxing out the M62, creating alot of heat aswell...with a blower swap or turbo swap, the 2.0 should be reliable to about 350-400whp with HG and studs. with only pistons, 500-600whp is what it should handle on the rest of the stock motor.....
Put a M62 that is overspining and pushing very hot air into a 2.4 and you will have way more probs, then add a bad tune too it aswell.....This is why Jim at TAG said the M62 would be great for the 2.4 guys, the 2.4 is a high comp motor....so you can make good power with very little boost and the s/c not spining at 14000+rpm....
Why do youy think some of them redline guys are running +/-350whp on the twincharge set ups on stock internals with no probs.....I think twin charging is pointless but they have a 3.8" pulley so the s/c doesnt overspin(create lots of heat)....the turbo is doing most of the work....
The 2.4L is like going on date with an ugly chick and getting a peck on the cheek at the end of the date, atleast you're dating. The 2.0L with a stage kit is like taking your friends hot mom out on a date, and putting out, and then telling your 2.4L friend that his mom was better than his ugly date.
Last edited by rick1217; 01-31-2007 at 07:17 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
01-31-2007, 10:08 PM
#81
Senior Member
you are correct and long before you came on this site,there was a poll and most agreed that a "rs "or something was more deserving,there are many car brands out there running lower hp cars than the 2.4ss and they call them gt etc...but you can have that much more hp you need to know how to drive it,so unless your an amateur car racer or a truck driver, I,m sure a 2.4 can rat race with a 2.0
The 2.4 vs. 2.0 is not even close. My 2.0 will walk a 2.4. It violates it. I could give the 2.4 a 5 car length advantage in a quarter and still beat it.
01-31-2007, 10:18 PM
#82
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 01-23-07
Location: VALPO, IN.
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel like I need to aplogize for this thread.....all I wanted was some input on the day to day nuances of either car. I sure didn't think that it would turn into a 5 page plus extrapalation. The sad thing is ....I don't know much more now than when we started.
Geffen928
Geffen928
01-31-2007, 10:39 PM
#83
Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: 09-27-06
Location: Michigan
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O.k......
I didn't read the other pages of posts, just the first. I've used mine as a daily driver and came to it from a Land Rover Freelander (!)
You mentioned the age thing - I'm 50+ years......I love my SS/SC.
I haven't driven a stick in 15 years and this thing works well. Look at my sig for the mods. Nothing makes it less than a daily driver for me. If you live in a really urban area, then get something with an auto. I don't need it, so my 5 speed is just fine and the clutch is great - you just have to drive it like you want to, not like a granny (hey, age has nothing to do with it )
It's fast, comfortable, quiet, fast, gives good mileage, rides nice (even on crappy Michigan roads) and can carry 4 people (sometimes). Did I mention fast?
I'm not using mine in the winter - I don't want salt on it and you'd need another set of winter tires - the PZeros are crap in snow!
What else do you need to know?
You mentioned the age thing - I'm 50+ years......I love my SS/SC.
I haven't driven a stick in 15 years and this thing works well. Look at my sig for the mods. Nothing makes it less than a daily driver for me. If you live in a really urban area, then get something with an auto. I don't need it, so my 5 speed is just fine and the clutch is great - you just have to drive it like you want to, not like a granny (hey, age has nothing to do with it
)It's fast, comfortable, quiet, fast, gives good mileage, rides nice (even on crappy Michigan roads) and can carry 4 people (sometimes). Did I mention fast?
I'm not using mine in the winter - I don't want salt on it and you'd need another set of winter tires - the PZeros are crap in snow!
What else do you need to know?
02-01-2007, 07:09 PM
#84
New Member
Join Date: 01-28-07
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the input so far.......I just wanted to get the thoughts of some people that are living with these cars day to day. I just think the 2.4 looks to be a cleaner execution of the design. This might be in part due to my age.....i'm 42. I'm sure that i'm not in the segment of buyers that GM designed this car to appeal to. I don't want a car that's a beast when the throttle is to the floor......I want something that is fun to drive the other99.9% of the time. I bought a brand new '05 GTO 6Speed about 2 years ago....killer HP...but not fun to live with on a daily basis......I took that pig to Carmax.
Anymore thoughts??
Geffen928
Anymore thoughts??
Geffen928
I likes to go fast! I test drove an SC SS and it was actually for fun to drive than the
GTO. Not as fast but more fun. I had an automatic in the GTO s that kinda sucked too.
02-01-2007, 08:33 PM
#85
Senior Member
Hey, you sound like me! Im 43 and also had an 04 GTO. I loved it, but it just was not practcal as a daily driver especially in MI. I traded for a 4x4 GMC but am looking to buy a cobalt next. 1.5 yrs or so but I am waiting on the turbo 260 hp verson.
I likes to go fast! I test drove an SC SS and it was actually for fun to drive than the
GTO. Not as fast but more fun. I had an automatic in the GTO s that kinda sucked too.
I likes to go fast! I test drove an SC SS and it was actually for fun to drive than the
GTO. Not as fast but more fun. I had an automatic in the GTO s that kinda sucked too.
BLASPHEMY!!!!!
and on your first post too!!!!!!!
jj
welcome to the boards
02-02-2007, 04:35 PM
#86
New Member
Join Date: 01-28-07
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats just stock. I'm sure with a few mods I can get over 300HP.
Anyone watch TEST Drive with the Solstice GTP? I wouldnt mind one of those but I would have to shrink about 6 feet.
I'm 6'3" and 220# I sat in one of those and felt very uncomfortable with the top up.
I couldn't even move my legs to shift or accelerate.
02-02-2007, 04:38 PM
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-17-06
Location: Moncton Newbrunswick Can.
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you gotta admit, that car with 260HP will kick some serious but.
Thats just stock. I'm sure with a few mods I can get over 300HP.
Anyone watch TEST Drive with the Solstice GTP? I wouldnt mind one of those but I would have to shrink about 6 feet.
I'm 6'3" and 220# I sat in one of those and felt very uncomfortable with the top up.
I couldn't even move my legs to shift or accelerate.
Thats just stock. I'm sure with a few mods I can get over 300HP.
Anyone watch TEST Drive with the Solstice GTP? I wouldnt mind one of those but I would have to shrink about 6 feet.
I'm 6'3" and 220# I sat in one of those and felt very uncomfortable with the top up.
I couldn't even move my legs to shift or accelerate.
I drove one and I,m not tall
02-02-2007, 07:22 PM
#88
Senior Member
you gotta admit, that car with 260HP will kick some serious but.
Thats just stock. I'm sure with a few mods I can get over 300HP.
Anyone watch TEST Drive with the Solstice GTP? I wouldnt mind one of those but I would have to shrink about 6 feet.
I'm 6'3" and 220# I sat in one of those and felt very uncomfortable with the top up.
I couldn't even move my legs to shift or accelerate.
Thats just stock. I'm sure with a few mods I can get over 300HP.
Anyone watch TEST Drive with the Solstice GTP? I wouldnt mind one of those but I would have to shrink about 6 feet.
I'm 6'3" and 220# I sat in one of those and felt very uncomfortable with the top up.
I couldn't even move my legs to shift or accelerate.
youll be very dissapointed.
that 260 number gets tossed around alot....
but its not like the ss/sc.....its far from 260 at the wheels.
And so far the little RWD sky is barely cutting times better than a stock ss/sc.
Ive also heard quite a few people say that its pushing 20psi stock....so likely that thing is gonna need a bigger turbo VERY early in its modding future.....
on the other hand im pretty sure it will respond better to modding than the lsj,
and if they put the LNF into the Astra, instead of the cobalt....like i think they ARE doing....thats where ill be going.
02-03-2007, 04:03 AM
#90
06-08-2007, 11:02 PM
#92
Here comes the ultimate slap to the face of the few ass hat 2.0 owners out there (you know who you are) Hahn just released thier 2.4 turbo kit for the automatic Cobalt SS 2.4 and it puts down between 230 and 240 WHEEL HORSE POWER at between 8 to 10 psi! Total cost is projected at under $4000! So for the difference in price between the two SS's the 2.4 with the Hahn will be faster.
And with the automatic we have no missed shifts, remote start from the factory, and we can drive in rush hour traffic without making our left legs tired.
That is all have a good night.
And with the automatic we have no missed shifts, remote start from the factory, and we can drive in rush hour traffic without making our left legs tired.
That is all have a good night.
06-08-2007, 11:15 PM
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-25-07
Location: glens falls
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here comes the ultimate slap to the face of the few ass hat 2.0 owners out there (you know who you are) Hahn just released thier 2.4 turbo kit for the automatic Cobalt SS 2.4 and it puts down between 230 and 240 WHEEL HORSE POWER at between 8 to 10 psi! Total cost is projected at under $4000! So for the difference in price between the two SS's the 2.4 with the Hahn will be faster.
And with the automatic we have no missed shifts, remote start from the factory, and we can drive in rush hour traffic without making our left legs tired.
That is all have a good night.
And with the automatic we have no missed shifts, remote start from the factory, and we can drive in rush hour traffic without making our left legs tired.
That is all have a good night.
06-08-2007, 11:20 PM
#94
I couldn't help it! True the warrenty issue does suck ass, but the gains look to be awesome! We'll be hunting for SRT-4's in our 2.4's!
06-09-2007, 01:42 AM
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-23-06
Location: Passaic, NJ
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here comes the ultimate slap to the face of the few ass hat 2.0 owners out there (you know who you are) Hahn just released thier 2.4 turbo kit for the automatic Cobalt SS 2.4 and it puts down between 230 and 240 WHEEL HORSE POWER at between 8 to 10 psi! Total cost is projected at under $4000! So for the difference in price between the two SS's the 2.4 with the Hahn will be faster.
And with the automatic we have no missed shifts, remote start from the factory, and we can drive in rush hour traffic without making our left legs tired.
That is all have a good night.
And with the automatic we have no missed shifts, remote start from the factory, and we can drive in rush hour traffic without making our left legs tired.
That is all have a good night.
06-09-2007, 07:34 AM
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-28-06
Location: United States
Posts: 1,216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-09-2007, 08:23 AM
#98
Senior Member
Platinum Member
06-09-2007, 08:45 AM
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-14-05
Location: www.mp5t.com
Posts: 4,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-09-2007, 01:41 PM
#100
Senior Member