But usually supers are less efficent and create more drag on the motor than turbos.

 

Turbos get more power than superchargers.....

 

hmm, thats weird. I don't get all the bad rattles and stuff that some people talk about. My car seems to be pretty tight all the way around. Some say/believe it really all depends on what day the car was built on, some days are better than others. As far as the the Mexico out sourcing goes, I don't really know about that. The Cavalier was built out of 3 plants, one in canada, Mexico, and the US. I saw some where that the majority of the cars that were built in the Mexico plant had problems with them. Just my thoughts.

 

^ ur right, i totally forgot about the cavalier... i had a cavalier a couple of yrs ago as well.... and yes, it was plagued with rattles as well.. and it could have been built in mexico, or here, who knows.

either way, outsourcing would still be cheaper than building it here, and hopefully translate into lower prices...... but again, its just my wishful thinking.

 

I agree with you on the cheaper prices but people will love the lower prices and then bitch because it doesn't ride like a Cadillac. Unforchanetly that is just how alot of Americans are, wanting something for nothing. As far as the Cavalier goes the only one that I know that was built in the US were the ones that started the VIN with 1G1, and were built in Lordstown, OH where the Cobalt is being built at today. If I am not mistaken the 1G2 was canada, and the 1G3 was Mexico. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on the other 2.

 

Yes and no depends on what you want to accomplish. Turbos do have lag but if you are after power on a street able application I think turbo would be better. Compare apples to apples not apples to oranges. A supercharger isn't necessarily better just different.

A turbo with a perfect map, and correct setup would spool quick enough, and produce more power than a supercharger that is smaller and less efficient. But a poor setup with a small turbo and a large properly tuned supercharger would be much more powerful.

Yes but if the turbo is too large or the impeller and propeller are not the correct pitch, the map for the turbo is not right for what you are doing, or some other part of your system is off, it will cause problems with your air flow thru the engine and will not run properly or may cause catastrophic failure. The turbo setup in my experience tends to be more tedious and require more skill to setup, and maintain. Not to say its not an excellent solution.

Incorrect statement. If you had two vehicles of equal displacement, and both the turbo and supercharger were capable of the same amount of airflow the equal amount of fuel available. The supercharger will produce a flatter torque curve and produce peak power faster. Where as if you were shooting for peak power in both apps the turbo would take longer to spool and at the lower rpm range the power would be significantly lower. And the supercharger would have a flatter line. I would even speculate that it appears that as people tend to use larger turbos but lack engine displacement the engine will produce good peak hp numbers but tends to lack tq. Where as the supercharged applications the tq numbers will will not be as far behind the hp. I dont have an ex to back up the numbers on the supercharged side yet but take a look at the diff in displacement for these two applications. The tq numbers are much more consistent for the larger displacement engine The other thing I have noticed looking at dyno graphs with alot of large turbo supras has been low low numbers till 3500 rpm like 110 hp from idle to 3500 rpm then a power spike to 750hp in less than 200 rpms and then over 1000 hp peak between 7500 and 10000 rpms. In my experience because a supercharger has no lag the power is much more linear. All that said I do prefer a turbo setup to a supercharger depending on the cost per hp involved prior to tuning. All in all it depends on your goals. Some of my hypotheses may be wrong so please feel free to correct me where needed. For your reference I have not seen the map on either turbo used below so perhaps i have compared apples to oranges, but in my speculation the below example seems to be the trend as it relates to forced induction and engine displacement.


3liter supra with single 74gts turbo 1000 hp // 823 tq
7liter Z06 Vette Twin Twin Borg Warner S365R 1518hp // 1400tq

http://www.houstonperformancedriving...ad.php?t=13009

http://www.supercars.net/cars/3977.html

 

oh christ. why don't we just get a 1.6 v-tech ffs

 

1.4 L well that might be 140hp and thats not too bad

Kinda funny when the harrop blower alone is 1.32L lolz

 

Fixed...

 

thats true, a 1.4 with 140 hp is definitely not bad at all.... i dont know what everyone is complaining about.
the L61 makes 145 being a 2.2, thats .4 displacement less, and less that 3% decrease in horsepower. not bad at all.
not to mention, it will probably get better gas mileage

 

well assuming its getting 100hp per liter might be a bit optimistic but who knows this motor isnt being built for power like the LNF is, its built to not be totally gutless yet get good gas mileage, might even be just 125hp possibly

 

First of all, let me start by saying I used to own a 2002 Cavalier Z24, and it was/is the worst car I have ever owned, bar none. It had 11000kms on it and was already rusting on the hood and quarter panels under the paint. Dealer had to fix under warrantly. The powertrain was rickety at best, and the fit and finish inside was poor. The Cavalier throughout it's lifespan was based on a platform that date back to the mid-1980's, which explains most of the lackluster finish, not the geographic location where it was built. You can only do so much with such dated technology, no matter what body you put on top of it to make it look modern. As a GM guy, I was extremely disappointed with that car.

Secondly, where is your nationalistic pride? You honestly believe in your heart that just because something was built in a different country that it's built better? These are the same parts going to different factories that can only fit the same way. Sure, we've all heard the horror stories of people sleeping on the line, or going to work under the influence, but that doesn't change the fact that for all those slackers, I'm sure there are some hard working men and women assembling these cars, Cobalts included, that take pride in their work. Let's also take into consideration that the HHR is a couple years newer, and with GM interior quality rapidly improving, each vehicle is only going to get better one after another. I believe you've laid down a poor stereotype on these people, but that's just my humble opinion.

 

Motor Trends timeline is wrong . That moderate facelift is the all new car ...no clue where they got the 2013 # from . No comment on the 1.4 , there just isnt enuff info about it other than the fact it will exist .

This gen Cobalt was designed mostly by OLD gm before Lutz got there . All Lutz really did for this car was to make sure it didnt get cheaped out more that it already is . The next Cobalt will be more dramatic of a comearound than the 08 Malibu was .

 

it will have rockets
with sold fuel
from cow poo poo

 

I had a 02 Z24 LD9/5sp and was quite happy with it , i sold it with 60,000 miles on it and never had one issue with it . No rust no driveline noise . Fit and finish was.... well.... a cavalier lol.

 

Thank you for correcting me.

 

Which would be an impressive feat in its own right, considering how much of a revolution the new Malibu is from the old one. We can only hope to be thrown such a bone.