Saturn Sky Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Autoweek posted this Sky writeup this morning:

"A high-performance model with a turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine will be available late in the model year. A supercharged model will follow in the 2008 model year."

Is this correct - turbocharged now and then supercharged later?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
Yea, I started an engine poll to discuss this. It may be true.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
That really makes no sense at all. The new Turbocharged platform is meant to be far more powerful then then current Supercharged platform, and in general offer a higher top end HP value for most systems just due to their nature. I really don't expect GM to spends thousands of man hours and $$$ on developing a more powerful Turbocharged version just to replace it with a Supercharged version a year later.

I think they already learned their lesson with the Supercharged 2.0L ECOTEC. It makes good power, but the crowd they designed the car for is defintely more interested in having Turbocharged engines then Supercharged.

Unless there's some magical Supercharged 3900 series engine specificaly designed to fit in the current Kappa architecture I'm not sure what they're talking about. Because even if the Supercharged 3800 fit, it's power levels are fairly close to the supposed Turbocharged RL engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
brentil said:
That really makes no sense at all. The new Turbocharged platform is meant to be far more powerful then then current Supercharged platform, and in general offer a higher top end HP value for most systems just due to their nature. I really don't expect GM to spends thousands of man hours and $$$ on developing a more powerful Turbocharged version just to replace it with a Supercharged version a year later.

I think they already learned their lesson with the Supercharged 2.0L ECOTEC. It makes good power, but the crowd they designed the car for is defintely more interested in having Turbocharged engines then Supercharged.

Unless there's some magical Supercharged 3900 series engine specificaly designed to fit in the current Kappa architecture I'm not sure what they're talking about. Because even if the Supercharged 3800 fit, it's power levels are fairly close to the supposed Turbocharged RL engine.
Does your ring of NaCl protect against the automotive industry press, too? :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
Actually it does make sense, but they left out key information. You would turbocharged the 4 cylinder engine and supercharged the 6 cylinder engine. :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
Delnari said:
Actually it does make sense, but they left out key information. You would turbocharged the 4 cylinder engine and supercharged the 6 cylinder engine. :D
Yeah, that's what I was eluding to with the 3800/3900 comment. The only reason a supercharged engine would make sense is if it was far more powerful then the Turbocharged ECOTEC, meaning in the 300 HP range.

I will admit such a engine would make an awesome BMW/Porsche fighter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
you have access to the internet young grasshopper.. I bet you could find a few things about turbocharging and supercharging doing a google search..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
richmcc said:
I'm confused, I thought that Super-Charged was more powerful/better than TurboCharged. What exactly is the difference between the two?
In a quick nutshell, factory superchargers are typically ran under 10 lbs of boost on larger displacement engines (i.e. 6 and 8 cylinders). Due to their lack of displacement, factory turbocharged 4 cylinders will run boost levels at 12 lbs and above. Forced induction increases the performance of the engine by forcing air into the engine under pressure. This pressure increases the amount of burn in the engine combustion chamber creating more horsepower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
brentil said:
Because even if the Supercharged 3800 fit, it's power levels are fairly close to the supposed Turbocharged RL engine.
I beg to differ. I'll put my 3600 lb GTP up against your turbocharged RL any day of the week. Ecotec fanbois like to tout the 1000hp engine without noting that it's life span is 40 runs down the 1/4 mile, while 1000hp 3.8s can be daily drivers (i.e. modified grand nationals and aussie monaros). And comparing the "peak hp" is setting yourself up for a big embarrasment. The ecotec hp curves looks like a playground slide. The 3800SC curve looks like a table. Comparing correctly with power under the curve, and the comparison is laughable. Comparing under the curve is also the reason that 1000hp supras pull the same times as 600hp mustangs. Don't even get me started on comparing torque...

I'm currently putting a sIII 3800 supercharged, converted to turbo, into a chevette. This is my "expirament" prior to putting one into Sky. And when I'm done, I fully expect to be running numbers on par with anything coming out of Mallet's shop.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
SkyCaptain said:
I beg to differ. I'll put my 3600 lb GTP up against your turbocharged RL any day of the week. Ecotec fanbois like to tout the 1000hp engine without noting that it's life span is 40 runs down the 1/4 mile, while 1000hp 3.8s can be daily drivers (i.e. modified grand nationals and aussie monaros). And comparing the "peak hp" is setting yourself up for a big embarrasment. The ecotec hp curves looks like a playground slide. The 3800SC curve looks like a table. Comparing correctly with power under the curve, and the comparison is laughable. Comparing under the curve is also the reason that 1000hp supras pull the same times as 600hp mustangs. Don't even get me started on comparing torque...

I'm currently putting a sIII 3800 supercharged, converted to turbo, into a chevette. This is my "expirament" prior to putting one into Sky. And when I'm done, I fully expect to be running numbers on par with anything coming out of Mallet's shop.
I agree with what you're pointing out, but the real world scenarios between the 3800SC and a Turbocharged ECOTEC are not what sell cars to most people. It's the spec sheet numbers people look at that they make decisions off of. If both make near #'s in output it's harder to sell someone a car for several thousand more if it only makes 10-30 more number wise is worth it to them.

The topic of this discussion was a Supercharged engine a year after the Turbocharged, and I was pointing out that numbers wise it doesn't make sense to put an engine in the car if it's rated near the other one sales wise. You might know the difference but your average Joe unless he's test driven a 3800SC and the ECOTEC back to back wouldn't have a clue. They look at the spec sheet and see comparable numbers. I was in no way talking about the Turbocharged engine being better then the 3800SC engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Gotcha.

But in that respect, consumers should start paying attention to the 1/4 mile numbers, skidpad numbers, etc. that actually mean real world performance instead of the misleading peak hp numbers. Some of us already do that, but the U.S. automakers need to make it a selling point. Instead of grand prixs losing sales to nissans like they did at the turn of the millenium because the 265hp nissan engine had 25 more hp, GM should have been showing the real world performance stats on how the GTP ran circles around it, even with more weight and "less" horsepower...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
The new corvette advertising is heading that way. This month's car and driver had the Z06 insert, one side with a big red 3,132 lbs, and the other side emphasized 11.7 Seconds @ 125 mph in 1/4 mile, 1.04 g on skid pad, 3.7 seconds 0-60, lbs. per hp of 6.2...
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top