:cheers: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!
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.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.
hello. 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.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..
I'm thinking, either:AJC said:They also mentioned that the Sky would have a softer ride than the Solstace?
Why would they do that??
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.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.
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.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.
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."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
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.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."