Saturn Sky Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
:cool:

Who has the Turbo Pics
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Nice! Just talked to a dealer today, he mentioned they're coming out with this soon. Does anybody have a price on these things and a date? Waiting on my manual's test drive soon, but if these can come stock, that would be awesome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Now for the simple question. Is this going to be an aftermarket addon for the Sky 2.4 engine? And if so, $?

Thanks
 

·
1st Known SKY RedLine Owner!
Joined
·
1,012 Posts
fireman said:
Now for the simple question. Is this going to be an aftermarket addon for the Sky 2.4 engine? And if so, $?

Thanks
I asked my dealer-salesman about getting the turbo for a regular sky and he just flat out said no. He felt it would be too labor intensive and not cost effective. He also felt that adding the turbo aftermarket would void warranty.
His advice was if you want the turbo, just wait for the redline. Perhaps one of the dealers here can be more specific and clarify the warranty part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
Straight up what I was told (and again I am not mechanic) is that the turbo will only be for the Ecotec 2.0 not the 2.4 and that in order to get it that would cost you some BIG $$$ due to compression ratio changes as well as many other parts ont eh standard 2.4. I was told it is best to wait for the RL and just pay the few extra K to get that. I was todl that we do have the option of a SuperCharger (at least the one that is installed on the Chevy Cobalt if you want more hp. I don't know though again I am not a mechanic and I don't want to start a fight on here about tubos over supercharges :lol: I was just told this information and took it for what it was worth!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Ok, I have a basic understanding on vehicles, and Turbo vs Supercharger, but from the tech viewpoints, how bout a laymans terms difference and reason for one over the other. (no, I am not starting a flame here), just looking for best outcome from the 2.4, rather than the long wait for the redline. And yes after 3 months wait, I understand that RL would be many more months of wait, and not really care to wait that long. Also, I remember all the issues others vehicles had as the Turbos got up in age... Opinions...?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
That's cool yeah me either! I do not want to rub anyone the wrong way with saying turbo is better or a supercharger is better. I am in no way, shape or form a mechanic, but I do want to know the exact thing that a bunch of us probably do. How can I make my current 2.4 Ecotec faster? I REALLY do not want to have to sell my car and get the RL when that comes because I love the car I have and have a few memories now :lol: I want to make my car faster and to do this I probably will check back with my dealer and see what their rules are on installing a supercharger and where we will be as far as warranty and service. I think I am extremely happy with making my car custom, but in the back of my mind I know that once you do that you generally lose value if you do not leave as was when you purchased it stock). I have yet to make a change to my car that I can't remove within minutes! I do want a faster car but will probably check into the mentioned option of supercharging it. I personally like that idea because of the fact it is belt driven and to my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) will net results from the second you hit the pedal.

I love turbos and the sound they make (especially w/ blowoff valve) but will be just as pleased to use a supercharger. I have read very little but it seems like we have a very versatile engine int he ecotec 2.4. I read soem posts fromt he previous thread on Superchargers and the 2.0 vs. the 2.4 (Link). I too want to hear from someone's mouth in laymans terms what we will get out of a supercharger and how it would effect the current engine config. I do know the cost will be between $2.5K and $3K (what I was told from the dealer). If I decided to do this and it was covered under warranty, I would like to later (after 36k warranty) get ECM, header and echaust upgrades (already have CAI). This is just my thoughts and feelings, what does everyone else want to do? (Even though, logically, waiting for RL is probably best option it most likely will not be mine at this point!)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,550 Posts
I come from a Supercharged background with the Grand Prix. There are a couple things you have to realize when you talk Forced Induction...which is either Supercharger or Turbo Charger.

First and foremost is Cylinder Pressure. Cylinder Pressure is, in very basic terms here, the combination of compression and boost. Too much and you start blowing head gaskets and other very bad, bad things. However, the higher those pressures, generally, the more power you’ll make. You can make far more power with boost than you can with compression. This is why in most FI (forced Induction) applications you will see lower compression ratios.

The 2.4L we have is designed in a NA (Normally Aspirated as opposed to FI) layout. Thus it’s compression is raised to get more power out of that four cylinder. This is also why, when you look at the aftermarket turbo kit we have, they are running such low boost. Now, the engine could care less if it is turbo charged or supercharge, more boost is more boost.

So what are the pluses and minuses of the different methods of producing boost? (technically producing boost is considered super charging but no one calls it turbo super charging anymore...so I want to avoid confusion.)

Turbo Chargers - For those that may not know how they work, turbo chargers have a turbine (hence the name) that the exhaust gases from the engine pass through and spin. This turbine is attached to a shaft. On the other end of the shaft is a compressor fan that compresses air from the intake and shoves it into the engine (boost). The smaller the turbo, the smaller the amount of boost while the larger the turbo the larger the amount of boost. However, the drawback to a turbo is twofold. First, turbos produce a lot of heat and raise under hood temps. This increases he temperature of the air charge above what compressing the air would normally do and increases the chances of Knock. This is why most turbo applications will run the boosted charge through an intercooler first. Second is turbo lag. Since the turbo runs off the exhaust gases there is a delay between when the engine revs up to when the turbo responds. In addition, it takes time for that turbine, spinning the shaft and compressor, to spool up to the new amount of exhaust it is seeing. The smaller the turbo, the less “lag” there is because the turbine is spinning less weight. However, the benefits to turbos are the fact that they are light weight, can be tucked in many different locations in an aftermarket application, and they can produce a ton of power without taking any power away from the engine through parasitic drag (more on this in a moment).

Super Chargers - Where a turbo charger is ran off exhaust gas, a super charger is driven by a belt off the engine’s crankshaft. There are three types of super chargers as well, the roots type, the twin screw type, and the centrifugal type. Both roots and twin screws are mounted above the intake manifold. A Centrifugal Super Charger (CSC) looks almost like a turbo but rather than having a turbine and compressor the turbine is replaced with a pulley driven by a belt. A roots blower is just that, a blower. Imagine a fan in your house. It blows air but does not compress it per say. A roots blower basically creates boost by blowing in more air than your engine would normally suck in on its own. The downfall to the roots blower is it is very inefficient and will produce a lot of heat. A twin screw acts like a roots but rather than just blowing air in the “twin screws” inside the blower will compress the air as it blows it into the engine. Twin screws produce more power than a roots with less heat but cost much more. CSCs produce boost like a turbo but with a shaft spinning the compressor as was mentioned. While all three will produce heat, the roots and CSC will produce far more than the Twin Screw (which runs cooler than turbos too). Also, with a Super charger the boost is instantaneous and there is no “lag” like a turbo charger system. However, there are two main drawbacks to the Super charger. First, they do not produce quite the levels of boost achievable by turbos for the same cost. Also, like a turbo, past a certain boost level a intercooler will become mandatary. Secondly, since the super charger is ran off the engine’s pulley there is a certain amount of parasitic drag. This means your engine is going to use some of the power that would normally go to the wheels to drive the blower. The faster the blower gets spun (using smaller pulleys on the blower) the more power it takes to spin it.

Which is better for us? Hard saying. The Super charger will give us a lot more torque off the line where our cars need it but will fall flat on the top end. Not only that but parasitic drag is going to affect us more with the Sky’s 4 banger than with the Grand Prix’s big V-6. Looks like the Cobalts handle it well though. The M82 (I think that’s the number) used on the Cobalt SS is a Roots type blower from Eaton and has all the inherent problems that comes with a roots blower. Also there comes a question of hood clearance. I haven’t looked but that might be an issue. I think the turbo will produce more power in the long haul but will not compensate for our week bottom end. Once we get moving though it is going to rip.

Also, something to keep in mind, turbos are harder on a transmission than blowers...in general. I don’t know where our trans stand as far as power handling and I have a feeling we won’t until people really start pushing them hard. Mallet cars swap out transmissions but it will be interesting to see what happens on the tranny front.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
Great read, thanks Robotech for putting that in terms we can all understand! I think that this is going to be REALLY interesting to see what people eventually do to their stock (standard) SKY's and then the RL's in aftermarket. In time I am sure we will have a few options :cheers:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,550 Posts
Glad to help. I know many here already know most of this but I wanted to post it for those that may not be as familiar with the different meathods of Forced Induction. Again, that's VERY basic and generalized information. Whole libraries of information have been written on this subject but I just wanted to lay out the basics.

On my Grand Prix, it came with a roots type blower and I've since switched out to a twin screw type. Had it on for a week before the engine went boom! :( But the power difference was amazing...and we're talking about a car that was quicker than some new Corvettes with the roots blower on it.

But I wouldn't mind trying the Cobalt's blower on our car...could be interesting...just think that a turbo would give better results with less hassle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Adding forced induction to a vehicle that wasn't designed specifically for it always has risks. My high CR LS2 has a Magnuson (roots type) supercharger but only pushes 5.5psi. Any more boost than that and I would have to be very careful to watch knock and detonation to avoid blowing a rod through the block. That seems to be the common limit to n/a non-internally modified motors. The old Saturn 1.9 would take about 4-6psi but after that- kaboom.

Consider it will cost ~$3000 more for a SRL than regular SKY
Aftermarket supercharger or turbocharger will run $4-6000 plus install and tune and if not done right- kaboom and you buy, I say YOU BUY a new motor.

As long as you are aware and educated about the risks and rewards though, go for it. Properly reinforced, the 2.4 with boost will outperform the 2.0, but probably not see as nice gas mileage...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,550 Posts
:agree:



And it can happen quickly. That damage there took all of 1 second at WOT. Which led to:



So that it could be sent off to the machine shop to be rebuilt. If you want to play, you have to pay, it's just that simple.

Of course, the good news to that was that breakage is what motivated me to finally go out and get my Sky. :)

On that note though, I'd love to learn more about the options in our 2.4s as far as boosting goes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
The Red Line's 2.0L is bringing a lot of new technology to the table:
#1 Direct fuel injection, this puts the fuel injector directly into the cylinder with very high fuel pressure. This creates a better/faster fuel burn which allows the spark to fire sooner for more aggressive timing. This also allows a much higher compression ratio for better mileage, power, and faster boost. Direct injection kills many cons that Robotech stated above (turbo lag, low compression ratio, etc)

#2 Dual scroll turbo charger, using separate exhaust pulses from each cylinder the turbo will spool faster and more efficiently. The turbo is also sized properly for the motor, this isn't an aftermarket turbo that can support 400 horsepower that takes forever to build boost. The Red Line turbo will max out at about 320 horse power but it will spool extremely fast and at right off the line.

#3 Variable valve timing, with an infinite amount of valve timing the computer will utilize the best overlap and duration for quick spool, low end torque, high end horsepower, mileage, etc.. This isn't like Honda's VTec that just switches back and forth between two sets of cam shafts; GM's new valve timing can change timing/duration for what ever is required.

You can slap on an aftermarket turbo kit (you'll never see a good supercharger kit) but you'll lose mileage and reliability. You're a fool if you think you can just slap on a turbo kit and drive it like a stock vehicle. Expect things to wear out twice as fast and make sure you always have enough money in the bank for that new motor you'll need down the road. To replicate the Red Line's power/mileage/reliability you'll have to spend at least $10,000.

Turbo lag will not be an issue and you guys will soon see GM phase out all four cylinder supercharging in the next couple of years. The HHR, G5, Cobalt SS will all soon be using this new turbo 2.0L. Superchargers are terribly inefficient and when ever possible it's a wiser decision to go a with a turbo. Do you guys realize that if you're making 300 horsepower with a supercharger you’re losing a good 30-60 horsepower by using belts and pulleys that are attached to the crank? A turbo at 8 PSI is going to make 10% more power then a supercharger at 8 PSI because it uses the exhaust pressure that the motor is already pumping out. A turbo feeds off of itself by creating boost which creates more exhaust pressure which creates more boost pressure which creates more exhaust pressure etc... Turbos have waste gates to let the exhaust bypass the turbo so you don't over boost the motor. If you let the turbo create as much boost as it could with out restraint it would blow your motor by 4,000 RPMS. Turbos create boost in an exponential fashing while superchargers are stricly linear. A turbo will also be easier on the drive train with smoother power delivery. You won't have instant boost right off idle to tear up transmissions/rear end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,550 Posts
bradyb said:
#1 Direct fuel injection, this puts the fuel injector directly into the cylinder with very high fuel pressure. This creates a better/faster fuel burn which allows the spark to fire sooner for more aggressive timing. This also allows a much higher compression ratio for better mileage, power, and faster boost. Direct injection kills many cons that Robotech stated above (turbo lag, low compression ratio, etc)
I'll admit I'm not completely up to snuff on the new technology coming out in the 2.0L Turbo, but when does how you inject fuel affect turbo lag or compression ratio? Now, granted, a cooler cylendar temp will give you more room to increase compression in the design of the engine...I know that...and I'm assuming that what you meant but please elaborate if that's not what you meant and about reducing turbo lag just from direct injection.

You can slap on an aftermarket turbo kit (you'll never see a good supercharger kit) but you'll lose mileage and reliability. You're a fool if you think you can just slap on a turbo kit and drive it like a stock vehicle. Expect things to wear out twice as fast and make sure you always have enough money in the bank for that new motor you'll need down the road. To replicate the Red Line's power/mileage/reliability you'll have to spend at least $10,000.
I'd say that's a fair assessment. I'm not up on pricing for aftermarket parts for the Ecotec but I'd see forged pistons, possibly better rods (need to find out what's in this thing for certain), etc, etc, etc, would all be necessary to run a decent amount of boost.

Turbo lag will not be an issue and you guys will soon see GM phase out all four cylinder supercharging in the next couple of years. The HHR, G5, Cobalt SS will all soon be using this new turbo 2.0L.
God I hope so. Never did understand a Supercharged 4.

Superchargers are terribly inefficient and when ever possible it's a wiser decision to go a with a turbo.
Don't exactly agree here. Depends on the application. When you get into large displacement engines I think you see certain benefits of supercharging. Top Fuel dragsters come to mind with their large displacement engines and short ETs. With an engine running a 1/4 mile in 6 seconds or less lag does play a big part in it. But for 4 and 6 cylendar engines Turbos are a far wiser investment.

Do you guys realize that if you're making 300 horsepower with a supercharger you’re losing a good 30-60 horsepower by using belts and pulleys that are attached to the crank? A turbo at 8 PSI is going to make 10% more power then a supercharger at 8 PSI because it uses the exhaust pressure that the motor is already pumping out.
Good explination of Parasitic Drag. A very big drawback to Super Charging.

A turbo feeds off of itself by creating boost which creates more exhaust pressure which creates more boost pressure which creates more exhaust pressure etc... Turbos have waste gates to let the exhaust bypass the turbo so you don't over boost the motor. If you let the turbo create as much boost as it could with out restraint it would blow your motor by 4,000 RPMS.
But whether that is from boost or detonation because your intake charge will be so overheated would be left to the autopsy. Once past a certain boost level you must intercool...with either power adder...and if you don't detonation will kill the engine just as surely as blowing a head gasket from over-boosting. However, Turbos are known to produce a LOT of heat...perhaps more so than a roots blower and certainly more than a twin-screw blower.

Turbos create boost in an exponential fashing while superchargers are stricly linear. A turbo will also be easier on the drive train with smoother power delivery. You won't have instant boost right off idle to tear up transmissions/rear end.
I would disagree with the part about being easier on the transmissions. When you launch with a Supercharged car the boost is right there. You've already preloaded the transmission with the power. With a turbo, when the boost comes on it comes on hard and fast "snapping" the transmission. In the Grand Prix community we've seen a lot of transmission issues when people go turbo while the Supercharged guys...running similar ETs...tend to see fewer transmission issues. Also, it is because of the Super Chargers linear boost that makes them fantastic when you are launching the car. One of the fastest cars in our Grand Prix community (mid 9s) uses the stock M90 to launch. Once the turbo spools up, the boost of the M90 is bypassed and the boost from the turbo is delivered in its place.

Now, I'm no expert in any of this. All that is written here is just from what I've seen in the Grand Prix community, reading a TON of articles about the subject, and trying to learn all I can.

I will say though that I believe the 2.0L Turbo will be a far better, more efficent, and more reliable motor than the 2.4L with a turbo because it is designed as a FI application from the start. The new technologies we see here make up for the smaller displacement easily. We'll see if the new design has any bugs in it (wouldn't surprise me but GM will work them out) and you will have to put more money into the 2.4 to keep the reliability...you will never match the claimed ecconomy of the 2.0 though if it will do what folks say it will. That's my opinion and nothing more.

Also, bradyb, please do not take this as a personal attack against you...I just quoted the areas I was wondering/extrapolating on to make it easier to follow. Any input you have on it would be very welcomed. Best way to learn is through posts like this that are kept civil and open minded. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
Robotech said:
I'll admit I'm not completely up to snuff on the new technology coming out in the 2.0L Turbo, but when does how you inject fuel affect turbo lag or compression ratio? Now, granted, a cooler cylendar temp will give you more room to increase compression in the design of the engine...I know that...and I'm assuming that what you meant but please elaborate if that's not what you meant and about reducing turbo lag just from direct injection.
Essentially you get a faster burn rate which allows you to run more timing and run a higher compression ratio. More air compression creates a bigger pop which increases the exhaust pressure. Driving a high compression turbo motor is a lot of fun, "snappy" is a good adjective.

Robotech said:
I'd say that's a fair assessment. I'm not up on pricing for aftermarket parts for the Ecotec but I'd see forged pistons, possibly better rods (need to find out what's in this thing for certain), etc, etc, etc, would all be necessary to run a decent amount of boost.
Not to mention a gear driven fuel pump for 130 PSI, infinite valve timing and the engine management to run it. You also get a sweet digital boost gauge that is integrated with the factory gauges. ;)

Robotech said:
Don't exactly agree here. Depends on the application. When you get into large displacement engines I think you see certain benefits of supercharging. Top Fuel dragsters come to mind with their large displacement engines and short ETs. With an engine running a 1/4 mile in 6 seconds or less lag does play a big part in it. But for 4 and 6 cylendar engines Turbos are a far wiser investment.
Top Fuel dragsters need to ram so much fuel and air together that you don't have much of a choice fro that much volum other then a giant blower. Don't forget that the world's fastest door slammers are turbo cars!

Robotech said:
But whether that is from boost or detonation because your intake charge will be so overheated would be left to the autopsy. Once past a certain boost level you must intercool...with either power adder...and if you don't detonation will kill the engine just as surely as blowing a head gasket from over-boosting. However, Turbos are known to produce a LOT of heat...perhaps more so than a roots blower and certainly more than a twin-screw blower.
Using an intercooler/heat exchanger is a given and I didn't think it had to be mentioned. Remember that a turbo is only going to get as hot as your exhaust manifold so it shouldn't increase the under hood temps, but with many aftermarket kits you're putting the turbo in strange places like out in front of the motor or way up high almost on top of the motor where it can melt things or burn things. High intake temps don't come from the engine bay being hot usually. There is an incredible amount of air friction involved in air compression and this is usually what heats up the air. Think of the friction that is involved with a twin scroll compared to just a turbo compressor; you have a ton of surface area that that is compressing the air.
..on a side note go see how scram jets work.

Robotech said:
I would disagree with the part about being easier on the transmissions. When you launch with a Supercharged car the boost is right there. You've already preloaded the transmission with the power. With a turbo, when the boost comes on it comes on hard and fast "snapping" the transmission. In the Grand Prix community we've seen a lot of transmission issues when people go turbo while the Supercharged guys...running similar ETs...tend to see fewer transmission issues. Also, it is because of the Super Chargers linear boost that makes them fantastic when you are launching the car. One of the fastest cars in our Grand Prix community (mid 9s) uses the stock M90 to launch. Once the turbo spools up, the boost of the M90 is bypassed and the boost from the turbo is delivered in its place.
What do you want, a hard launch or smooth power delivery as boost increases? Boost does not come one hard and fast if you size the turbo correctly, it will go from -10 inches of vaccuum to 20 PSI from 1,000 to 4,000 RPMS nice and smooth.


Robotech said:
Also, bradyb, please do not take this as a personal attack against you...I just quoted the areas I was wondering/extrapolating on to make it easier to follow. Any input you have on it would be very welcomed. Best way to learn is through posts like this that are kept civil and open minded. :)
:cheers:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,550 Posts
I only mention the intercooler because there are a number of folks here that may not know about such things. I know when I first got into this a lot of things that folks thought I would know I didn't. I like to cover all the bases...if just lightly. :)

I didn't know that about the connection between boost ramp rate and turbo size. I mean, I knew a smaller turbo would spool faster but figured all turbos had some sort of snap when the lag caught up. I use to have a '92 Talon that was Turbocharged and I remember the kick in the azz that you got when that turbo spooled up.

All I know is I'd like a Redline but I think I'm going to be stuck going aftermarket on this 2.4L...unless we figure out how to do a 2.0L turbo transplant...I'm ALL for that! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
Robotech said:
Mallet cars swap out transmissions but it will be interesting to see what happens on the tranny front.
Mallet is using the stock transmission.

To answer some of the other questions;

Are there/will there be turbo kits for the 2.4L?
-Yes. Stay tuned for more info from me on this later in the summer.

How much will they cost?
-About as much as the price difference between the Redline and the 2.4L.

How much power?
-About 260-280HP on the stock engine. If you want to go big, build a lower compression engine with stronger rods and pistons and boost 400HP.

Is it worth it?
-If you want more HP then the stock Redline, then yes. The Direct Injection engine is capable of a lot of power, but there is no way to tune it. (No larger injectors or fuel pump)

Will it void the factory warrenty?
-Yes, any portion of it that covers the engine and parts of your powertrain. (clutch) However, anyone that modifies their car for more power has to be able to accept the consequences. Some people will be perfectly happy running with stock S2000's...others won't be satisfied until they're passing Corvettes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,086 Posts
Doesn't Hahn Turbo's offer a turbo for the Solstice? Thought I read something over on their forumns, it was $3995. So like 1K more than the Red Line.

Then again,, I might be dreaming. I'll try to find the thread when I get a free minute.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top