Saturn Sky Forum banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is anyone working on a supercharger for the Sky's 2.4L engine?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
There are two kits in the works. RKSport and Mallett are working on them. RKSport is a centrifugal design and I actually have no clue what type Malletts is.
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
I thought someone said the Mallett was "forced induction"!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
brentil said:
There are two kits in the works. RKSport and Mallett are working on them. RKSport is a centrifugal design and I actually have no clue what type Malletts is.
Thanks. I wonder why they chose a centrifugal design? I would think for a 2.4L 4 cyl that a fixed displacement design would be preferable, to generate power in lower RPMs. A turbo might be a better choice than a centrifugal super charger, although it's total speculation on my part and probably unfair, so I will wait and see what they come out with.

I'm thinking a supercharger is probably the way to go, depending upon the details.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
jarcher said:
Thanks. I wonder why they chose a centrifugal design? I would think for a 2.4L 4 cyl that a fixed displacement design would be preferable, to generate power in lower RPMs. A turbo might be a better choice than a centrifugal super charger, although it's total speculation on my part and probably unfair, so I will wait and see what they come out with.

I'm thinking a supercharger is probably the way to go, depending upon the details.

I'll tell you why.

The 2.4 liter has a 10.4:1 compression ratio, so you are going to be limited to around 5-6 psi of boost, and top out at around a 50 hp gain, unless you swap out for some lower compression pistons.

The 2.0 is a far better engine to boost, with 9.2:1, and thicker walls for the cylinders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
JLB said:
I'll tell you why.

The 2.4 liter has a 10.4:1 compression ratio, so you are going to be limited to around 5-6 psi of boost, and top out at around a 50 hp gain, unless you swap out for some lower compression pistons.

The 2.0 is a far better engine to boost, with 9.2:1, and thicker walls for the cylinders.
Well, can't we reduce the compression ration with a thicker head gasket? I do realize the 2.0 is more robust, with the thicker cyl walls, additional coolent jacketing, forged pistons and that oil sprayer. Still, people have reported that the 2.4L takes to FI well. That being the case, the 2.4 could generate more power than the 2.0, although perhaps at the expense of long engine life.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,550 Posts
jarcher said:
Well, can't we reduce the compression ration with a thicker head gasket? I do realize the 2.0 is more robust, with the thicker cyl walls, additional coolent jacketing, forged pistons and that oil sprayer. Still, people have reported that the 2.4L takes to FI well. That being the case, the 2.4 could generate more power than the 2.0, although perhaps at the expense of long engine life.
You are limited by the compression of the 2.4 but Han has shown with the Stage IV turbo that you can still throw some pretty impressive boost at this thing. Now, how long it will last is still a matter of congecture, but it can be done. On top of that, you can also build out the 2.4 with some pretty robust parts from GM Racing.

The one reason why someone might go with a CSC blower application on this car is mounting options. While not as flexible as a Turbo, the CSC blower doesn't have to be right over the intake manifold. Also, CSCs can make some very nice power. We run them in the Grand Prix community as an alternative to an engine swap for our 3800 N/A motors.

You could do the thicker head gasket thing but that poses some problems too. One is whether or not one is made. Secondly, I wouldn't want to stack gaskets for fear of getting an vacuum leak. Third, you may run the risk of blowing the thicker gasket when you start pilling on the boost. Now, I don't know ANYTHING about the work that has been done on the Ecotec 2.4 or what the problems with putting boost on the other Ecotecs have been but these are just a couple possible issues that would need to be checked out if they haven't been already.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
830 Posts
I'm working with a group that is playing with a whipple, so far the base tests look very good...Seal9:cheers:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,550 Posts
seal9 said:
I'm working with a group that is playing with a whipple, so far the base tests look very good...Seal9:cheers:
Uh oh...why did you have to tell me that? WHY!? Like having one Whipple car isn't going to be enough now!!!!

Damn it Seal!!!!!! :banghead: :brentil: :willy: :jester:



(Note the Sky promo USB drive box in the picture...LOL)

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
It's going to be hard to decide whether to add FI to my base sky or "upgrade" to the RL. The RL has advaatages, but adding FI to a base will probably produce more torque than the RL can deliver. Decisions decisions...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
jarcher said:
Well, can't we reduce the compression ration with a thicker head gasket? I do realize the 2.0 is more robust, with the thicker cyl walls, additional coolent jacketing, forged pistons and that oil sprayer. Still, people have reported that the 2.4L takes to FI well. That being the case, the 2.4 could generate more power than the 2.0, although perhaps at the expense of long engine life.

Trust me. I've boosted cars with compression ratios over 10:1, and unless you rebuild the motor to lower your compression, you are looking at 5-6 psi for big $. For the same money you'd spend to get to 250 hp on a stock 2.4 Sky, you could just buy a 2.0 turbo car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
JLB said:
Trust me. I've boosted cars with compression ratios over 10:1, and unless you rebuild the motor to lower your compression, you are looking at 5-6 psi for big $. For the same money you'd spend to get to 250 hp on a stock 2.4 Sky, you could just buy a 2.0 turbo car.
And in addition, you get bigger breaks, electronic stability control, a CAI, dual exhaust and some other appearence enhancements. I have my RL on order.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
830 Posts
But I don't want a turbo, and I have fun doing it my self, with friend who also have fun .....Seal9:lol: :lol: :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
422 Posts
jarcher said:
And in addition, you get bigger breaks, electronic stability control, a CAI, dual exhaust and some other appearence enhancements. I have my RL on order.
There are the same breaks in the base and in the RL, see spec

http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/events/autoshows/06ny/brands/saturn/06_NY_Sat_SkyRL_Spec.htm

but different suspension (stabilizer and springs), no CAI but an Intercooler is part of the Turbo system.

The brakes are the same but with a better cooling, therefore you got the vents in front bumper. We'll see if that's enough for retarding from max. speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
C20LET_50 said:
There are the same breaks in the base and in the RL, see spec

http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/events/autoshows/06ny/brands/saturn/06_NY_Sat_SkyRL_Spec.htm

but different suspension (stabilizer and springs), no CAI but an Intercooler is part of the Turbo system.

The brakes are the same but with a better cooling, therefore you got the vents in front bumper. We'll see if that's enough for retarding from max. speed.
Ah, I stand corrected. I did read that the brakes have better cooling, not that they were bigger. My mistake. Thanks for clarifying that. Are you sure on the CAI?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
422 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Mallett was claiming 300+ hp and ~8psi boost on the supercharged prototype. Not sure what mods they did to the 2.4L engine/pistons/cam or what type of SC they used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
JLB said:
Trust me. I've boosted cars with compression ratios over 10:1, and unless you rebuild the motor to lower your compression, you are looking at 5-6 psi for big $. For the same money you'd spend to get to 250 hp on a stock 2.4 Sky, you could just buy a 2.0 turbo car.
I think you need to research hahn and others on the sol forum before you try and back up these 5-6 psi max claims on THIS engine. There are already turbo sols using hahn pushing 8-9 psi comfortably with stage I and stage II upgrades with no internals.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top