i just test drove the SS coupe 2.4 5spd today , and i gotta say im more impressed with the 2.4 vvt than the 2.0 s/c

i know the ss s/c has the fe5 or fe7 , i forget what the designation was for it , and the ss has the fe3 , i personally like the way the car rode , and was alot more impressed with the the 2.4 ss , than the 2.0 s/c


the only bad thing i didnt like about the ss was the size tire they chose for the 17x7 rims , the 205/50/17's look like dam low rider tires , the rim is wider than the tire itself

it need a 225/45 or maybe a 245/40 on it


if i didnt have a proto type gm s/c to put on my 00 2.4 cav , ida been seriously thinking of trading it in on the 2.4 ss

 

wtf a 2.4 SS is nothing compared to 2.0 supercharger owns 170 hp vs 205 hp big difference and even if you F/I the 2.4 the diplacement sucks! but to all there own bro

 

Ummmm not to burst you supercharged dream there...but if you boost the 2.4 @ 7psi it's gonna walk a SS/Sc ...but like you said to each there own

 

Even more so, throw a turbo on the 2.4L and we're going to be seeing Cobalt SS's walk pretty far.



//Saki XL

 

You guys make it sound so easy and accessible. First of all, for the amount of money you can spend on both cars, the 2.0L will always take first place - it's stock internals can handle more boost, no to mention it's lighter and eager to rev. We're talking out of the box - from the dealer's lot. How can you say the 2.4 SS is better than the 2.0L SC - OUT OF THE BOX? There's absolutely no merit to this arguement.

Stock SS/SC > Stock SS

 

I am very surprised to hear that the 2.4 long block is heavier than the 2.0 s/c long block. I would have figured it the other way around, what with the weight of the supercharger and intercooler.

What are the numbers on the weights?

 

I can't even front I saw one when i went to my dealer to get an oil change and i think i like the interior of the ss better the the ss/sc. and im feeling the different headlights

 

you can do a lot of all motor mods to a 2.4L and it would walk a 2.0 SS/SC(stock anyways). VVT is sick! Throw some boost and build the motor to handle an insane amount and you will be leaving all sorts of cars in your dust.

 

my impressions after driving both cars the 2.4(had 20miles) just feels alot better to drive the s/c felt like a heavy slow pig (car had 7miles) , the 2.4 felt a little more peppy , and handled and rode better to me


i think in a red-red race the s/c will have alot of trouble with the 2.4 , stock to stock


the biggest thing that hurts both cars is the stupid drive by wire , it lacks the throttle responce of the cable linkage , the 18's i think are hurting the s/c cars also


both cars have a advantage of the other , and the 2.4 is better suited for the s/c than the 2.0 , the vvt plus the ability to make more power under the redline , help out alot


the 2.4 redlines higher than the 2.0 i think it was somewhere between 6700 and 7000 , its hard to tell with as slow as the tachs are


i do under stand both cars are new , and with most car they need to break in some , my g/f 02 eco cav didnt wake up tell after 3000 miles


i didnt start this to bash the s/c's , just give my thoughts on both , i like the 2.4 better in as tested form

 

Interesting review. I drove the 2.4L SS as well but cannnot compare it to the 2.0L S/C.

Still to boost a 2.4L you'd really have to lower the compression ratio--its 10.4:1. And of course the internals would need to be upgraded too.

Both cars are nice rides--everyone has there own reasons and preferences for buying them

 

That is what my friend told me when he test drove a 2.4 SS and then a S/C SS.

 

Some of us also look at it as a 2.4 with no boost and wont ever see boost. I myself, am looking into the 2.4 becuase of the gas mileage and the horsepower. I think it gets best of both worlds. They also look identical almost minus the bigger spoiler and the front and rear fasica kit. I have yet to test drive a 2.4 and this may all change but im not one to think that ss is the supercharged ss and it should only be that. So what if there are 2 SS models..

 

I own a 2005 SS/SC and have driven 2 SS 2.4.... My SS/SC has alot more power than the 2.4. It feels weak below 4000 and the trans isnt as smooth (and i hate the longer throw shifter).
I'll take the boosted 2.0 over the VVT 2.4 any day. The 2.0 is bulletproof and built for horsepower.

My .02

Jeff

 

I get an average of 34mpg on the highway @70mph. I don't see the argument of buying a 2.4 over the 2.0 because of gas mileage when you're getting that good of mileage in the 2.0

 

well considering the 2.4 will be a boosted motor in the solstice/sky


plus the 2.4 has the oil squirters for the pistons , just like the 2.0 , also it has the engine oil cooler like the 2.0


so the 2.4 is as much a motor or better than the 2.0 , sine it is bigger

 

It may be as well built in a quality way but it isn't built better in a strength way.

And who cares what it can/will do with boost. Just about any car will haul ass with forced induction.

 

...despite the 2.0 have forged internals?

 

i didnt think the 2.4 had the oil piston jet and oil coolers?
also anyone know if the the 2 motors will interchange
2.4L vvt head on a forged 2.0 block with 20 psi sounds nice
ive done it to honda B series motors and my old escort motor (1.9block w/ 2.0 head for lower boost compression)
or all motor 2.0 head/2.4 block for more compression.

 

It does have the oil pisotn jet cooler things for sure.

But I am also wondering if it has an oil cooler???

wait:

http://www.saturnfans.com/Cars/Futur...ecfuture.shtml

it does have the oil cooler.

THe specs on the 2.4L look very impressive. Can't wait to see some published numbers.

 

i saw the cooler on the motor when i was looking it over , i wouldnt have said it was there if i didnt see it


and really no one know to much of what is inside the motor yet , so it might have forged internals , or might not


the head should interchange , but the way GM controlls the cam timing of both cams isnt exactly like the vtech in the hondas , cause the cams are always being adjusted


and im not sure where they get the oil port for the cames from


i think it would be easier to do better forged internals to the 2.4

 

For some reason this thread sounds just like the SS vs SRT4 threads

 

it wasnt originally susposed to come out like that , lol


oh well


i still feel GM did alot of things wrong with the 2.0 s/c , being a 2.0 is the biggest , but i guess we can thank SAAB for that

to me the 2.4 is a better suited motor to be supercharged , due to its ability to make more low end grunt

i think the 2.0 is better suited to a turbo , but needs 7000-7500 redline , the GM drag cars went to the 2.0 to use it as a high rpm motor , they spin them close to 10k


i liked both the s/c and the 2.4 , i just happened to like the 2.4 ss better

 

hay, have you test drove the 2006 2.4 ss cobalt? just do it and you will understand its worthiness.

 

thats what it is then? I knew it was something. when i test drove it i was like, wtf is wrong with it? now i understand. what is the advantage of the electronic throttle over the mechanical? is there a way to convert it to mechanical cable?
p.s. the 2.4 ss is awsome!

 

advantage is emissions , and fuel milage , and its the next step for OBD3 which means the law will be able to shut safely shut your car down , in the terms ofa police chase , or other illegal activivty