Saturn Sky Forum banner

1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
whoah... 11.0! 253 sounds better once im reminded the car only weighs 2880lbs. oh, and if we trick around with it and squeeze it up to 300hp with aftermarket work, that would put us around 9.0! aaaaand that would beat a GTO! woohoo!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Just keep in mind the source is not official GM. But no matter the size, Redline version and GT or whatever version of Solstice will certainly be welcomed with open arms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
i wouldnt be surprised if it was 253 though. 200 would be too low a number, and sadly enough 300 would be too much for GM. my only quelm would be the 2.0L part. i really dont want to sacrifice torque for HP. GM would end up charging about 30k for this, i assume, and i would rather pay the 25k and put an extra 5k into aftermarketing a F/I kit for the car that uses the 2.4L. that way, i know ill still have that extra half liter of displacement to work with. and then i wont be always kicking myself in the shins wondering if i could have had more. if i could have a 2880lb car running at 300 or 325hp, that means ill be doing roughly a 9 second quarter mile. i would love that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Well then I guess that I will have to wait for 6 more months. I would much rather have the red line. It is not like I plan to drive it every day any way. I only have 25k miles on my '00 Eclipse GT. and I got that in july of '99. I would love to be first on the road again but I want to be the way I want it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
Posted on solsticeforum - http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1537

From the rumor mill at GMI:
http://forums.gminsidenews.com/showthread.php?t=12564&page=1&pp=20

My experience is they've been very hit and miss - from adamant posts of supercharged solstice engines, to a Sunfire off the Kappa :lol:, to the "absolutely confirmed return of the Camaro," but thought it might be interesting, anyway. I think similar article was posted at skyroadster.

From that thread:

GMI Exclusive: Saturn SKY Redline and Vortec 6000 Gen II said:
...Source: Undisclosed

Saturn SKY Redline:
6 months after the production of the Saturn SKY, GM will introduce a Saturn SKY Redline, which will be powered by a turbocharged 253HP 2.0L Ecotec engine. Can you say Miata eater?
and a later post
...ALSO NOTE: The 2007 Solstice GT will also be powered by the same Turbocharged 2.0L...
Remember to take these statements with a grain of salt - GMI has a history of trying so hard to be the absolute "first scoop" that their information tends to be inaccurate. Fast and timely but half accurate information is not that useful - but if this rumor ends up being anywhere close, maybe that 5.4 second Solstice isn't too far off.

Chalk another up on the turbo side... don't worry SC fans, it ain't over till we push the accelerator and smell the tire smoke!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
Just wanted to put the root source of the information in the thread - so far there is no other confirmation that this engine is truly in existence. GMI also had a thread dedicated to "Solstice to have a V6" quite a while ago.

So, until we really hear from GM Powertrain and get a true engine code, take this not as news, but as rumor. The source is listed as "undisclosed", for all we know if might have come from someone who knew someone, who went to the bathroom next to Bob Lutz's administrative assistant...

NaCl.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
I do not understand why GM does this type of stupid decissions,
the SKY/SOL come with 2.4VVT motors why not take advantage of this motor and try to get 300 + HP. The competition (Ford, Honda,BMW etc) will be putting the HP numbers up, just look at the announcement of the GT500 with 450HP, GM had to bump the GTO to 400HP to make people take a second look, WAKE UP GM (LUTZ) if you want to stay in the competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
i agree... i will be severely disappointed if they switch to a 2.0 turbo. i currently own an SRT-4, so I know first hand that a 2.4L is a GREAT size for a turbocharged engine. it has enough low end tq on its own accord to have great power without boost, then once you hit boost hold on :) adding VVT on top of that will make this QUITE an amazing car. I personally will be holding out for the redline version, and i'm hoping for 250+ hp turbocharged. with a factory turbo it is EXTREMELY easy to squeeze more power out of the car for very little money. so a 2.2- 2.4 turbo in this car would be great, and would pretty much dominate all of the available competition
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
one more thing... with 253 hp, the sky should see 1/4 mile times in the very low 13's, 300 hp would get it into low to mid 12's... not bad at all for factory either way
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
punkrokdood said:
...i currently own an SRT-4, so I know first hand that a 2.4L is a GREAT size for a turbocharged engine. it has enough low end tq on its own accord to have great power without boost, then once you hit boost hold on :) adding VVT on top of that will make this QUITE an amazing car.
Welcome punkrokdood! I would agree that we dont really want to be slipping down to a 2.0L, even if it is getting us 253hp. i dont see whats so hard about putting F/I on the current 2.4L. that would be a wicked engine! i bet you could easily get 300hp factory, and if you did it yourself, i bet you could get anywhere from 300 on up. i know with about 5k of aftermarket work, you could do a very good sc or tc setup and rip out around 350hp!

and it says a lot that you are willing to go from an SRT4 to the sky!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
swatthefly said:
Welcome punkrokdood! I would agree that we dont really want to be slipping down to a 2.0L, even if it is getting us 253hp. i dont see whats so hard about putting F/I on the current 2.4L. that would be a wicked engine! i bet you could easily get 300hp factory, and if you did it yourself, i bet you could get anywhere from 300 on up. i know with about 5k of aftermarket work, you could do a very good sc or tc setup and rip out around 350hp!

and it says a lot that you are willing to go from an SRT4 to the sky!
well, from what the SRT-4 has (sorry i'm using this as a reference, but i'm VERY familiar with it lol) i believe 300 hp from the factory should be NO problem for the sky.
consider this: sky has higher redline AND VVT. srt-4 has lower redline and no VVT, but makes 230 hp, 250 tq (both underrated) so i see no reason that a 2.4 turbo eco tec shouldn't make about 300 lb tq, and 275-300 hp from the factory with no worries on reliability. as far as a s/c goes, IMO i tend to stay away from them on an I-4 engine. with the parasitic drag of the s/c and the already low displacement, the ONLY reason i would consider one is if its a 2.0L and you are trying to gain more low end tq. that's why i would prefer a 2.2 or 2.4 turbo. all the low end tq you need to get around, with MASSIVE amounts available when you step on it. for a 2.0 to feel much faster, it would have to use a pretty small turbo to gain the low end tq that is missing from a lack of displacement, so your high end tq (and as a result the overall horsepwer) will be lacking. Either way, I LOVE factory turbo cars since there are SO many bolt ons that will dramatically increase your horsepower for very little money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
as far as switching from an srt-4... well, i'm getting a little old for my srt-4. its a fun little car, but lacks any and all refinement. after seeing and reading about the sky, it looks like the perfect car for me. it has the performance potential i like, but in a much classier looking package. if i can pull it off, i'd like to just have both :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
Actually a lot of the stuff you guys are throwing around is fairly incorrect.

The current 2.0L engine is actually a far better platform then the soon to be released 2.4L VVT ECOTEC engine for boosting. The one thing it lacks is VVT over the 2.4L. Which having VVT on an engine can actually make it hard to design reliable Forced Induction system for due to added engine and ECU complexities. If done correctly the VVT can help imporve fuel economy, but the added complexity to the system it contributes has to be overcome first.

The 2.4L engine uses a 10.4:1 or 10.6:1 Compression Ratio compared to the 2.0L's 9.5:1 CR. This creates a much higher level of pressure in the combustion chamber so that with out very good tuning, knock detection, and intercooler setup you're going to cause severe engine knock at anything above 1 BAR of presure. With such a high CR you're greatly reducing the ammount of boost you can apply to the system. Don't expect GM to make anything over 8PSI boost on something like this.

Also the 2.0L engine has had a majority of its internal components replaced with forged internals instead of cast. The 2.2L ECOTEC began failing at about 280HP without replacing the internals in the 800HP+ ECOTEC buildup GM did. The 2.0L more then likely can handle 300HP+ compared to the 2.4L which still only uses cast parts.

The issue of the 2.0L being Supercharged and parasitic loss is supposedly not really even an issue with that engine. From all the reports the Supercharger is still building boost and power at a rate that is greater then the loss and crashes into the rev limiter before it has a chance to start working into the negatives.

The 2.0L engine currently dynos near 200HP. For anyone who knows dyno #'s that means this engine is actually producing anyhwere from 5%-20% more power at the flywheel then the dyno value due to drive train loss.

Unless GM reworks the 2.4L engine to lower its compression ratio, and change the internals out for forged ones you're never going to see much power from it. I'm hoping for a GM Performance Parts Supercharger/Turbocharger kit for this engine, but as I mentioned above the CR will be a great hinderence for this happening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
^^^ i do realize that it will take more work to turbo the 2.4, but in all reality, all that would REALLY be need to be done to it is drop the compression ratio, wich is jsut a matter of using different pistons. yes, the VVT can cause issues if its a stock 2.4 and you add a turbo. If it came fro mthe factory, it would just be a matter of tuning the VVT to accomodate the FI. with those changes to the existing 2.4 (which in reality is not that much to be changed at a factory level) they could very easily turbocharge the 2.4 possibly as high as 15psi if the heat can be kept down (and judging from the oil system, it should do a fairly decent job of keeping the cylinder temps down.) Yes, it would require some modification to the existing 2.4, but 2.4 turbo> 2.0 turbo in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
that can be true because hp is actually just an expression of tq vs. rpm, so you can make hp by higher tq, or higher rpms. i'd rather have more displacement to gain more tq because it allows for faster acceleration. a prime example of this is the SRT-4 vs. the S2000 in a 1/4 mile. the S2000 weighs less, has more horsepower and is RWD, but it is slower in the 1/4 mile because it makes SO much less tq. and in all honesty, 6800 RPM's is not really THAT high for the stroke in the 2.4 ecotec. Yes, it is easier to achieve with the 2.0 because of the shorter stroke, but it is attainable in the 2.4. It would be harder to rev that high naturally aspirated, but since it has variable valve timing, it is able to adjust the duration or lift (i'm not 100% sure on how the ecotec system works, i'm still new to it) so it can get the required air in at higher RPM's. i still think that it wouldn't be too difficult for the factory to modify a 2.4 for a turbocharger. it would be a LOT more difficult to do as effectively in the aftermarket though. although... you MIGHT be able to swap in the 2.4 block (upgraded with forged internals and low compression pistons of course) and use the 2.0 turbo's heads, turbo system, and intake manifold to make some good gains in the aftermarket. Its still all a lot of speculation at this time though. when it actually somes out we'll see. honestly, even if it is a 2.0 turbo, as long as it gets around 250 hp, and 200+ lb of tq at 2500 rpms or so to 5000 rpms or so, i'll be completely happy with it. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Well I think the idea is that since it doesnt have to draw in its own air, it can get all the air it needs at the higher RPM, so a shorter stroke will allow it to get to its peak power faster and hence make a faster accelerating car. Versus say the S2000 which has to wind its way up to its powerband naturally without the air of the shorter stroke.

Dont know if anyone else thought about it, but if the numbers are right it makes 126.5 HP/L.
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top