Saturn Sky Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
"Engineers hint there might be more power on the way: The 2.0-liter, 205-hp supercharged version of the Ecotec could be offered, an engine already in the Saturn Ion Red Line and Chevy Cobalt SS Supercharged."
That's what I am talking about!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Chip said:
"Engineers hint there might be more power on the way: The 2.0-liter, 205-hp supercharged version of the Ecotec could be offered, an engine already in the Saturn Ion Red Line and Chevy Cobalt SS Supercharged."
That's what I am talking about!
:cheers:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
Awesome.
The side air outlets for the front wheels always make me think of a mini-vette sometimes. Then you look at the rear and it's very unique.
Here's a bit a found interesting.
Underneath, Sky is basically the same as the Solstice, with a hydraulically mounted 2.4-liter, 170-hp 162-lb-ft inline four providing power to the rear wheels, linked to either a five-speed manual transmission or an optional five-speed automatic mounted in the rear. Engineers hint there might be more power on the way: The 2.0-liter, 205-hp supercharged version of the Ecotec could be offered, an engine already in the Saturn Ion Red Line and Chevy Cobalt SS Supercharged.
As mentioned above the more power is good. But I agree with kappaman here. I'm not very happy with them just dropping that engine in. They have the possibility of doing so much here. Especially since a poster over at the Solstice forum got a response from someone saying the 2.0L Supercharged engine technically can't just be "dropped in." There's some engineering work required to get it to go from a E-W engine to a N-S.

I'm curous why they mention the automatic will be in the rear, but the manual transmission from everything we know is up front. Moving the auto to the rear would change weight distribution, and also I bet would get in the way of the fuel tnak right above it. Unless they're planning on moving the fuel tank by the time the Sky hits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Unlike you guys, I'd prefer they produce a 199HP version of the engine as:
1. 200HP is the beginning point of huge auto insurance premium increases.
2. 199HP would be all the power this puppy really needs to be a blast to drive.
I've currentlygot 185hp in my Z4 and 0 -60 is approx 7 seconds and that's plenty fast to get from one stop light to the next, so 199hp would be more than you would need or use for 99.9% of your driving..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
SkyHawk said:
Unlike you guys, I'd prefer they produce a 199HP version of the engine as:
1. 200HP is the beginning point of huge auto insurance premium increases.
2. 199HP would be all the power this puppy really needs to be a blast to drive.
I've currentlygot 185hp in my Z4 and 0 -60 is approx 7 seconds and that's plenty fast to get from one stop light to the next, so 199hp would be more than you would need or use for 99.9% of your driving..
hello. :D insurance guy here. i guess this is my cue to step in. they stopped using the horsepower as an issue about 3 or 4 years ago. the turbocharger/supercharger is what will warrent in increase in your premium. not a huge difference, but it could be maybe a 10-25% increase due to that. and it will be derived from the VIN number. so, if it were possible, the best way to get the extra power and still bypass the increased premium would be to order the standard sky, and have the supercharger be an option.

btw, that kinda leads me to my next point. 2.0L supercharged? where did we go wrong? didnt we start with a 2.4L??? if they are going to have to re-engineer the 2.0L to work with our car, why not just use that same engineering instead on strapping a supercharger or a turbo (or heck a twin turbo while im dreaming) onto the 2.4 that they will already be using.

sometimes they just dont make sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
AJC said:
They also mentioned that the Sky would have a softer ride than the Solstace?
Why would they do that?? :confused:
I'm thinking, either:

a) someone mistakenly thought there should be some different aspects to the tuning of the two cars (as if the looks weren't different enough), possibly to justify a premium for the Sky,

b) by "softer" they mean improvements in the general character of the car that for some reason or another couldn't be done on the Solstice, or done in time on the Solstice, or improvements that cost more money and are only justified on a car where you can charge a premium

I'm sure that any improvements in ride would not sacrifice handling or steering - assuming the Solstice comes out well to start with. It would be dumb to make the Sky ride and handle like an old-time Cadillac.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
swatthefly said:
btw, that kinda leads me to my next point. 2.0L supercharged? where did we go wrong? didnt we start with a 2.4L??? if they are going to have to re-engineer the 2.0L to work with our car, why not just use that same engineering instead on strapping a supercharger or a turbo (or heck a twin turbo while im dreaming) onto the 2.4 that they will already be using.

sometimes they just dont make sense.
This is what lead to many long discussions on the Solstice forum. What the higher powered version would end up being. There's the 2.0L Supercharged ECOTEC from the Cobalt SS/ION RL (205HP), the 2.2L Supercharged engine from the Concept cars (240HP), Supercharged version of the 2.4L VVT engine (if the 2.2L Supechargd wasn't this engine already), Turbocharged version of the 2.4L VVT engine, and the most recent heated discussion v-6 engine. I think at this point a lot of us are starting to lean towards the Turbocharged as being the option from what we're hearing from certain members and various magazines. But truthfully we really have no clue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
I am not an expert on it but from the way I understand lowering it from 2.4 to 2.0 some how helps the engine to work more efficiently with all the internal mods they have to do to handle the higher pressure pumped in from the charger. Just bolting a charger up to a 2.4 might give you a little more power but it might wear the engine down a lot quicker than the 2.0 because the 2.0 has been optimized for the boost. I cant say that I fully understand it but they have a legitimate reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Also since they have the 2.0 version already in production it will almost bolt right up, not like they have to rework a whole lot to replace the 2.4. With that said I think most of us would love to see them leave that engine for the cobalt and the ion and invest a little more time and money into developing a boosted version of the 2.4 without driving up the price of the vehicle.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
The Supercharged 2.0L is actually the 2.2L ECOTEC not the 2.4L VVT ECOTEC engine. Lowering the displacement is one way of lowering the compression ratio of the engine. By having a lower compression ratio you can force more air into the engine in a more reliable and safer manor. What I'm personally hoping for is an all new platform (either Supercharged or Turbocharged) based off of the new VVT engine. If done correctly this would permit for more Torque in the lower RPM range prior to full boost due to the VVT, and at the same tiem increase fuel economy.

We've touched on it a couple times, but there are some problems that stop you from just dropping the 2.0L Supercahrged engine into a Kappa car. Due to the current engine being a E-W layout (left to right in the engine bay) the transmission mounts differently to it then it would a N-S (front to back) layout like the Kappa cars are. So things like how the transmission mounts up, intake manifold possibly, and the exhaust manifold would have to be redesigned to allow this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
brentil said:
The Supercharged 2.0L is actually the 2.2L ECOTEC not the 2.4L VVT ECOTEC engine. Lowering the displacement is one way of lowering the compression ratio of the engine. By having a lower compression ratio you can force more air into the engine in a more reliable and safer manor. What I'm personally hoping for is an all new platform (either Supercharged or Turbocharged) based off of the new VVT engine. If done correctly this would permit for more Torque in the lower RPM range prior to full boost due to the VVT, and at the same tiem increase fuel economy.

We've touched on it a couple times, but there are some problems that stop you from just dropping the 2.0L Supercahrged engine into a Kappa car. Due to the current engine being a E-W layout (left to right in the engine bay) the transmission mounts differently to it then it would a N-S (front to back) layout like the Kappa cars are. So things like how the transmission mounts up, intake manifold possibly, and the exhaust manifold would have to be redesigned to allow this.
that was the engineering that i was talking about. if the redline sky has a 2.0L engine, id say screw it and i would mod a SC or TC onto the 2.4 i just cant see justification in lowering displacement. horsepower may increase some, but torque prolly wont go up much at all.

does anything we say here actually make it to saturn or are we kinda venting to each other?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
There is absolutely no question both forums are troll by GM, they do not have to pay a dime for the type of valuable information they get out of forums like these. You and everyone else on these forum are their potential customers, if you were them wouldn't you be reading the posts?.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
If they do, don't ever expect them to ever post here though. For most companies it's against policiy. However we've speculated that our moaning about the car show reps having horrible speels and us uncovering new info like the very small trunk have helped work changes into the car show speels. They always seemed to change riht after we'd have several discussions about them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
and they know all the company secrets and they are prolly getting giggles watching us try to figure them out. oh well :) so long as they are listening :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
swatthefly said:
and they know all the company secrets and they are prolly getting giggles watching us try to figure them out. oh well :) so long as they are listening :D
Yeah exactly. On several occasions when I've made a guess at something or made an educated guess I think to myself, "somewhere at GM some engineer is reading my post and laughing at me, because they know what's true, and I'm just ohhhh so wrong."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
brentil said:
Yeah exactly. On several occasions when I've made a guess at something or made an educated guess I think to myself, "somewhere at GM some engineer is reading my post and laughing at me, because they know what's true, and I'm just ohhhh so wrong."
That may be true, but as you mentioned in your previous post about the shows, the marketing arm of the company are the ones most probably trolling these sites and have the final say so, and these forums plus Lutz blog is what gets the attention of these people. Our comments and observations may sound silly at times, but is our geniune comment about what we like or dislike about the car, that gets carried back to GM and the marketing arm of the company.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top