s/c the 2.2

ok mayb im missin sumthing here but i gotta ask. the base model cobalt is gonna have a 2.2L egnine the supercharged is only in a 2.0. would it make more sense to take a s/c n put it on the 2.2. or does the s/c model have a bigger tranny and suspension?? ssbigblock thanks for teh help... :grinyes: u seem to b the only person on here that knos much bout the colbalt.

Incorrect; the Cobalt SS will have the supercharged 2.2-liter ECOTEC engine. I dunno what 2.0 Chevy has, but it ain't in the Cobalt.

i jus got off the chevy site n it says it has a 2.2 ecotec dohc 4 cylinder rated at 145hp and a 2.0 ecotec supercharged dohc 4 cylinder rated at 205hp?? u sure that the 2.2 is the supercharged one

Well, either www.edmunds.com (http://www.edmunds.com) has a typo or www.chevrolet.com (http://www.chevrolet.com) has a typo...I don't see why they would reduce it to 2.0L for no reason like that, so I think it's Chevy.

carsdirect.com has it as the 2.2 or s/c 2.0 so i thnk edmounds is wrong but i dont get y they did it... so would i b rite by tryin to get a 2.2 n put the s/c on it????

You're right, it's a 2.0. Edmunds has a typo in their specs sheet, and they clearly state in their Editor's Review that it is a 2.0.

my guess is the reduced the displacement to lower compression in order to run the supercharger, you cannot run a forced induction with a naturally asperated compression, or the engine will detonate its self to peices. the 2.0L ecotec is the one that they use in serious drag racing applications with a large turbo, so im sure they just took it out of the toybox, threw a supercharger on it, and put it on the production line.

ok mayb im missin sumthing here but i gotta ask. the base model cobalt is gonna have a 2.2L egnine the supercharged is only in a 2.0. would it make more sense to take a s/c n put it on the 2.2. or does the s/c model have a bigger tranny and suspension?? ssbigblock thanks for teh help... :grinyes: u seem to b the only person on here that knos much bout the colbalt.

Not a prob man. I'm still trying to do research on it to find out more info. But havn't much time since I started working at a Super Target. Working at night and sleeping durning the day had me a fuckered up. So it leaves me with lil time to do things. :banghead: :smokin:

my guess is the reduced the displacement to lower compression in order to run the supercharger, you cannot run a forced induction with a naturally asperated compression, or the engine will detonate its self to peices. the 2.0L ecotec is the one that they use in serious drag racing applications with a large turbo, so im sure they just took it out of the toybox, threw a supercharger on it, and put it on the production line.


wrong

you can slap on any type of FI on to a N/A car its all about the fuel regulation so some sorta messures have to be taken like a reflashed ecu/pcm or a secondary full regulation system like a fmu and afpr and larger injectors

i did all this straight from a Kit GM made for there N/A 2.4 cavalier im now more then 50hp over stock rating right now and will probley be double that when im done and its all done on a compression of 9.5:1 which is stock

the 2.2 is also getting a supercharger kit this year or early next and will work fine on stock compression and that compression is like 10:1

like i said its all about meeting the fuel requirments/regulation needs and knowing what your talking about which im guessing you dont but its ok there was a point when i didnt know ether so it all good just go read some books about turbos and superchargers or something

btw GM went with the 2.0 because they destroked a 2.2 block so that it would rev faster and higher though they still have a redline of 6500 which beats the heck out of me why they would do that when the s/c 2.0 is still making power when it cuts out at 6500. 7000-7200 is a more practical redline for this engine but this is what gm stated that they didnt have enough time to test it at this level so they are releasing it as is, maybe they will figuer it out someday :(

orange, watch your wording. if i throw out incorrect data, or something you disagree with, than say so, but dont insult me because you disagree.

for you personal information, im an aeronautical engineering major, worked for two years as a corvette, electronics, and driveability specialist, and have been focusing on engine design and combustion mechanics for the past few years. know very well about fuel and spark curves, and tuning fuel injection systems, and will soon be up to programing my own PROM chips for custom applications. so yes, i know what im talking about.

the question was why GM supercharged the smaller ecotec. it was cheaper, because you do have to do alot of work to a high compression engine to run FI on it. its cheaper to put the sqeeze to a lower compression unit. as far as running FI on a naturally asperated compression engine, it will cause accelerated engine ware, due to extream cylender pressures, in fact the ecotec was tested with 10:1 compression and a high boost turbo and they wound up blowing head gaskets because the head was warping from the pressure in the cylender. If you are running a strip only motor, yes you can run high compression and high boost, but if your on the street, and dont tear your engine apart for maintanence on a regular basis, you need lower compression to run boost. im not talking 5:1 or anything like that, but somwhere south of 9.5:1 as a general rule of thumb, like your kit for the 2.4L. i have heard of people running 5psi on a 10:1 LT1 engine, but even the SC 3800 (which has a lowered compression) runs 8psi, so whats the point of 5? oh and if you were trying to say that the 2.0L ecotec was designed for the cobalt, your wrong, it is the drag motor they have been using for years. go check your facts before you attempt to correct me.

oh and while i dont have specific information, the Cobalt SS does come with a stronger five speed transmission specific to that model.

<b> The 2.2 Litre Ecotec is being dropped by roughly 200cc in the stroke via shorter piston rods. This is to drop the compression ratio, which will compliment the Eaton Roots type blower's torque capacity. It is also getting a transmission with a modified final drive ratio, tighter 1-5, throw shorter by 1 inch, carbon fiber/bronze gears to dissipate more heat (prolong life).

In short:

The engine will lose 200cc to increase the torque output of the blower.
This is because more bore to less stroke = more torque (its a law of physics... fluid movement).

The drop in 200cc will help put more torque on the ground and sacrifice some hp, but 205hp in a 3300 lb car isn't too shabby for $22,000.

It will be an SRT-4 stomper, to say the least. NO TURBO LAG!!!!!
</b>

my guess is the reduced the displacement to lower compression in order to run the supercharger, you cannot run a forced induction with a naturally asperated compression, or the engine will detonate its self to peices. the 2.0L ecotec is the one that they use in serious drag racing applications with a large turbo, so im sure they just took it out of the toybox, threw a supercharger on it, and put it on the production line.



exactly! Sorry, I saw the first two posts on here and pounced on a reply

89iroc knows his stuff

*shakes DSM3000gt's hand* thank you my good man :evillol:

FYI the compression ratio was dropped from 10:1 to 9.5:1. In a GM test the 2.2 EcoTec simultaneously blew all 4 rods at 283 hp! Not good so It's not just a case of air/fuel! Your SC is running 7 psi which is a small amount of boost! The ss S/c runs 12 psi! That's 171% the boost you are running. A small amount of boost like you have isn't enough to do too much damage albeit that you have a completely different motor. In stock 2.2 form don't be expecting to top 9psi on stock internals without some serious reliability problems. Sure GM blew the rods at 283 but this was instantaneous catastrophic failure and not to be confused with increased wear from use. The Big ends will probalby give out if the wrist pins don't do so first, result! F*cking Mess!

FYI the compression ratio was dropped from 10:1 to 9.5:1. In a GM test the 2.2 EcoTec simultaneously blew all 4 rods at 283 hp! Not good so It's not just a case of air/fuel! Your SC is running 7 psi which is a small amount of boost! The ss S/c runs 12 psi! That's 171% the boost you are running. A small amount of boost like you have isn't enough to do too much damage albeit that you have a completely different motor. In stock 2.2 form don't be expecting to top 9psi on stock internals without some serious reliability problems. Sure GM blew the rods at 283 but this was instantaneous catastrophic failure and not to be confused with increased wear from use. The Big ends will probalby give out if the wrist pins don't do so first, result! F*cking Mess!

the 2.0 doesnt have the same interals as a 2.2 so the 283whp doesnt apply and besides that was on n20 not boost

and 89IROC&RS your a very jumpy person how was i supposed to know you knew your stuff im not physic all i seen was you said it couldnt be done on stock compression which we all know isnt true,also GM used the smaller engine for quite a few reasons higher and quicker reving,less compresson = less ware and the 2.0 has a special oil cooling system for the interals and was fitted with forged everything

did i ever say once that the 2.0 was developed for the Cobalt lol nope y because i know it wasnt it was developed for the drag strip, and then stipped down to go into a turbo'd sabb and from the sabb it went into the redline from the redline into the cobalt lol
so i dont see where any of my facts where wrong...

the 2.0 doesnt have the same interals as a 2.2 so the 283whp doesnt apply and besides that was on n20 not boost

and 89IROC&RS your a very jumpy person how was i supposed to know you knew your stuff im not physic all i seen was you said it couldnt be done on stock compression which we all know isnt true,also GM used the smaller engine for quite a few reasons higher and quicker reving,less compresson = less ware and the 2.0 has a special oil cooling system for the interals and was fitted with forged everything

did i ever say once that the 2.0 was developed for the Cobalt lol nope y because i know it wasnt it was developed for the drag strip, and then stipped down to go into a turbo'd sabb and from the sabb it went into the redline from the redline into the cobalt lol
so i dont see where any of my facts where wrong...

the test on the ecotec were performed with a turbo from garrett.

still wasnt on the 2.0 different setup Forged everything helps alot lol

the 2.2 doesnt have that thus it fails at 280whp

still wasnt on the 2.0 different setup Forged everything helps alot lol

the 2.2 doesnt have that thus it fails at 280whp

yeah my point was that they changed the 2.2 to make it handle boost and still run 87 octane! This thread is called why not s/c the 2.2 and that is why! it can't handle it the way it is and they sdon't want to put buyers off by making it premium only

well it has already been explained in mechanical terms why the drop in displacement. But in GM's mind it probably went a little something like this:
"why s/c a new engine, when we can just use the 2.0L s/c from the ion redline?"
-economics of mass production-

well it has already been explained in mechanical terms why the drop in displacement. But in GM's mind it probably went a little something like this:
"why s/c a new engine, when we can just use the 2.0L s/c from the ion redline?"
-economics of mass production-

errr no! the EcoTec has been arouind in FI applications long beofre th redline! it has been in europe in the Astra Coupe Turbo since about 98 and in the VX220 Turbo! it is ecatly the same block at the 2.2 with the same bore but the internals are differnet and the stroke is elss hence the smaller displacement. displacement = 3pi(bore/2)squared x stroke! less stoke, less displacment! All of the turbo units makes upwards of 220hp and the New Astra VXR will have 245 hp form the same motor and a turbo'd solstice to run alongside the s/c'd solstice rumoured to have 300hp may be produced! This motor witb the internals that it has is capable of much more than the pawltry 205hp it makes in both the redline and SS s/c! That was my point on the whole comp ratio thing! with it making little power compared to the turbo'd units it could have been made with the s/c with forged internals and keep the 10:1 comp ratio, make it premium only and then it would produce 220hp or more! This is why I called it comprimised! I think also that this motor has been built for longevity more than power! who wants that?!?!

[QUOTE=noshun]errr no! the EcoTec has been arouind in FI applications long beofre th redline! QUOTE]
ya know what i mean... why S/C a different engine when they already have one ready and being produced... it would be economically stupid!

[QUOTE=noshun]errr no! the EcoTec has been arouind in FI applications long beofre th redline! QUOTE]
ya know what i mean... why S/C a different engine when they already have one ready and being produced... it would be economically stupid!

yeh that is true but yeh the turbo would have been better still would have a SRT-4 over it!

yeh that is true but yeh the turbo would have been better still would have a SRT-4 over it!
I dunno, GM has a bias against turbos for some reason. Only real turbo cars they have made were the Grand National and the Grand Prix SE's back in the early 90's. Also, (in another thread) they compared the Cobalt SS and the SRT-4, and they perfom very close... just cuz i like GM i'd stay with the Cobalt.

I dunno, GM has a bias against turbos for some reason. Only real turbo cars they have made were the Grand National and the Grand Prix SE's back in the early 90's. Also, (in another thread) they compared the Cobalt SS and the SRT-4, and they perfom very close... just cuz i like GM i'd stay with the Cobalt.

countless opels/Vauxhalls and Saabs! SO that's untrue Maybe in North America but not in Europe. They have been mnaking turbo'd cars in Europe for years! It's not like they just recently bought Vauxhall/opel

i think the mystery behind the supercharger instead of the tubo in north america may be about marketing. All the import cars are running turbos, i think it would make sense for gm to go with the supercharger to set itself apart. From a performance aspect, with modern turbo technology a turbo is actually a better choice, but they may have felt the supercharger offered better reliability. Also, there may have been a factor of emissions and CAFE ratings because North America has much tighter emissions regulations than foreign markets. Im not entirely sure what those would be but im just saying it may be a factor.

the cars manufacturers i mentioned ARE all GM. Also the emmissions standrds in most of Europe are very strict.

i didnt mean to imply that you were mentioning non GM brands, i was referring to the North American market. The cars running turbos here are mostly imports, GM may have felt that the supercharger was more american, and decided to run with it rather than do like they were in other world markets.

regarding emissions im not really gonna argue that one, because i dont really know specifics, all i know is there are several vehicles available in europe that are not allowed in the North American market due to emissions regulations (aka Landrover Defender) So i was saying that could have been a reason they didnt use the same drivetrain from their export units.

well i just recently bought myself the 2007 cobalt ls...not a bad looking car..i had to get 4 door cause i have gf with baby...anyways my question is...what performance mods can i get for the ls...to up the hp? i find the car isn't very fast off the line..any suggestions?

gm performance parts Eaton M-62 Supercharger kit

gm performance parts Eaton M-62 Supercharger kit

there isnt a supercharger kit from GM for the 2.2L cobalt. . .

No there is not... the compression sucks for that anyways, those cars are not meant to be force inducted. Hence why they saved you the trouble and SC'd the SS for you :)

No there is not... the compression sucks for that anyways, those cars are not meant to be force inducted. Hence why they saved you the trouble and SC'd the SS for you :)

bah the compression is fine, its only 10:1. The 2.0 is 9.5:1 so compression really isnt a problem. In actuallity the 2.2L is just as capable for boost as the 2.0. They are essentially the exact same engine, just being that the 2.0L has been destroked with forged rods and crank. But otherwise its the same block and ive seen this motor handle boost very well. 300HP is doable safely on the 2.2L motor

maybe I was thinking about the 2.4?

maybe I was thinking about the 2.4?

the 2.4 is higher compression 10.5:1 but realistically that really isnt too high either, considering LS2s are like 11:1 compression and people boost those. And in certain cases higher compression actually works better for boost, the higher the compression ratio, the more power that is produced per pound of PSI. Its just harder to tune, you cant run as much boost, and you really need to watch for knock or detonation.

I just like to keep it safe :) either with low compression or already stock boost. I would fail epicly if I tried to boost something. Predetonation up the wazoo.