Alternative Engine for Solstice

[Fformula88]

Originally Posted by SkyCaptain You're right. :embarassment: I speculated. You know me, always shooting from the hip... (at least I have good aim!)

We'll just have to wait for the turbo and see what GM comes up with.

On your 3800 swap, (which sounds intriguing if you do end up swapping the S/C out for a turbo) what kind of power are you aiming for? The 240/280 sounds pretty stock, but you even mentioned the intercooler which can net pretty good gains. Over all, the 3800 is a great platform for modifying and increasing the power output.

[SkyCaptain]

Well, I'd say intercooled turbo should guarantee me 350hp and 400tq on the 3800 SC block. And I'm being extremely overly conservative in that estimate. The GTP community has produced a few different bolt on kits that claim higher power numbers than that right out of the box. That's my "baseline", anyway.

Should be able to tweak a lot more than that out of it with aftermarket cam and heads...

[Fformula88]

Originally Posted by SkyCaptain Well, I'd say intercooled turbo should guarantee me 350hp and 400tq on the 3800 SC block. And I'm being extremely overly conservative in that estimate. The GTP community has produced a few different bolt on kits that claim higher power numbers than that right out of the box. That's my "baseline", anyway. Should be able to tweak a lot more than that out of it with aftermarket cam and heads...

That much from the intercooler and turbo! That is a lot more than I had expected!

I doubt your going to be concerned with what the turbo 4 has to offer, or how it will compare to the stock 3800 S/C. Instead, your going to have the Mallett boys running for cover!

[funkywinkerbean]

Question:

Does a supercharger make more power with an intercooler? Why use a turbo?

I thought superchargers were superior to turbos because they provided power on demand - no waiting!

How about intercooling (whatever that means - I assume that by lowering the temperature of induction air it becomes denser and therefore contains more energy) the supercharger?

[TOY4TWO]

Originally Posted by Greg55_99 Yes... but... isn't that the American way? Big motor... little car.... evil handling... but FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSTTTTT in a straight line. Isn't that how we've always done things.... Greg

Yea and thats why the domestic car manufactuers have done so bad in the last few decades. No one takes them seriously for anything more than a drag race or a nascar oval. The only domestic that gets any respect at the auto x course is the Vette.

I like the direction GM is taking with the solstice.

[brentil]

Originally Posted by funkywinkerbean Question: Does a supercharger make more power with an intercooler? Why use a turbo? I thought superchargers were superior to turbos because they provided power on demand - no waiting! How about intercooling (whatever that means - I assume that by lowering the temperature of induction air it becomes denser and therefore contains more energy) the supercharger?

Both have their technical trade offs. Neither is "better" then the other overall.

Using an intercooler lowers the air temp after being passed through the *charger because a device pumping air that fast heats it up extremely high.

[LatinVenom]

The Procharger supercharger that I want to put on my Solstice with an inter cooler and 6 to 8psi will develop around 275HP to 300HP then add the exhaust headers and new exhaust pipe, dual outlets and it is a done deal without modifying the Ecotec motor.

[SkyCaptain]

Originally Posted by funkywinkerbean Question: Does a supercharger make more power with an intercooler? Why use a turbo?

They both can make more power with an intercooler. Both approaches use mechanical devices to compress air. Gasses can be efficiently compressed, but liquids cannot. The stochiometric ratio between fuel and air is 14.7:1. This is not the point where it is most powerful (approx 12.7:1 "rich" mixture) nor is it the point where it is most efficient (approx 16:1 "lean" mixture) but it is a nice average between the two and is usually the cleanest burning ratio for a given engine. Modern systems adjust the ratio on the fly depending on the instantaneous demands of the engine. The important thing is knowing there is a ratio. Now, if you add more fuel and air to a cylinder, you'll get more power out of the stroke. Easiest method of doing that is using bigger cylinders (no replacement for displacement...) but forced induction uses compression to squeeze more air and fuel at that ratio into a smaller cylinder than it would normally fit. Intercoolers come into play because any time you compress a gas, you create heat. Heating the mixture causes a couple of problems. The foremost, a hot mixture becomes very explosive (we don't want explosion, we want burn... deep technical subject) and will start "knocking" the engine. This has a tendency to burn holes in pistons... Intercoolers take the compressed air and transfer the heat away from the intake charge, by giving heat to other water or air through the "radiator". This takes away the explosiveness of the compressed charge. Not only that, but also a cooler gas allows the molecules to be closer to each other, allowing the gas to be compressed more without becoming explosive. This results in higher PSI levels, which equates to more oxygen, which equates to more fuel, which equates to more power.

The difference between superchargers and turbos (and this is a HUGE generalization) is in how the mechanical energy is derived. Superchargers are directly driven by the engine, so power is virtually instantaneous - within a couple of revolutions. However, they are direct driven so you are using some of the engines horsepower to add more horsepower. Turbochargers use wasted emissions gasses to spin up a turbine, so power is never instantaneous. The advantage comes from the fact that it's using no power from the engine (well, a bit of hp is used to overcome the increased backpressure from the turbo that is now "obstructing" the exhaust - but it's negligible) so net peak horsepower is higher.

I thought superchargers were superior to turbos because they provided power on demand - no waiting!

No waiting is very good for a lot of applications. Stoplight to stoplight racing benefits greatly from having instantaneous power. Even in drag racing, superchargers are normally preferred (but not used exclusively) because it's a lot easier to get total power under the curve. Some superchargers are also nice because at cruising rpms you can get your volumetric efficiency above 100%. This means some supercharger systems actually get better cruising mpg than an equivelant NA or turbo application. Supercharger systems are easier and cheaper to upgrade on a budget. Maintenance is also greatly reduced for supercharger systems. So yes, my opinion is that superchargers are all around better than turbos. But....

Traditional turbos have higher peak horsepower. No ifs, ands, or buts. No arguments. No counterpoints. No caveats. If your goal is to get more power, no matter what the other factors are, you can't argue with the turbo. And that's why I'm going with a 3800 turbo...

[SkyCaptain]

Originally Posted by Fformula88 That much from the intercooler and turbo! That is a lot more than I had expected! I doubt your going to be concerned with what the turbo 4 has to offer, or how it will compare to the stock 3800 S/C. Instead, your going to have the Mallett boys running for cover!

http://www.zzperformance.com/latest_news1.php?id=64

Here is the page for the twin-charged gtp that just ran 10.03 in the 1/4.
That's not just 10's, that's a fart shy of 9's.
Imagine that in a lil' ol' Kappa.

It's also a street car with a fwd tranny with less than perfect gearing. Imagine it in a Kappa that was built for the race with the right trans...

[RobRoy]

I would add to the above by SkyCaptain (and the world of today!), forced induction heats up the air two ways. Number one, any time you compress a gas, you raise it's temperature. Air conditioning works on this basic principle, although there is a lot more to it. Also, if you are using a turbo, you get some of the exhaust heat that soaks into the intake charge, so any turbo application gets a big boost from an intercooler. It helps a super, too, but not as much. Because of the heat from the exhaust that drives turbos, they don't last quite as long as superchargers, either, although for max power there is no substitute for a turbo. And intercoolers do not have the lag time of a turbo, although the variable gate turbos that are available are much, much better about balancing lag time with max power.

Instead of an intercooler (which might have space issues on the Solstice, I haven't seen the engine bay yet) you can use water injection, this is a much more compact way of cooling the charge. The benefit of a cooler charge is that it is denser, meaning more oxygen so more fuel can be burned. Nitrous works on the same principle, it is an oxygenate, meaning it provides more oxygen to the air than you would normally get. The danger with any forced induction, if you get more oxygen than your fuel system can deliver, you lean out the mixture to the point where you can actually burn the pistons or valves/seats.

[SkyCaptain]

I had considered water injection, but the 3800 SC motor hasn't responded that well to those that have tried it over at clubgp. Yes it works, but it presents a couple of problems. First, if you put water injection (or alcohol injection) in front of the supercharger, it flakes off the teflon coating of the supercharger blades. This apparently has no effect on the ability of the supercharger to compress, but it's never good to let anything other than your fuel mixture into your combustion chamber...

If you inject water after the supercharger, then you have to install a spacer plate for the injector - which presents you with the same clearance problems that an intercooler would present. Obviously, an intercooler > water injection in virtually all cases so we can pretty much say that water injection for a supercharged 3800 application should only be considered by those on a bare bones budget (but it still has its place for those people).

In the turbo application, it would be easy to use water injection, but then again, an intercooler wouldn't present any bonnet clearance problems so, again, an intercooler > water injection unless you're trying to do it on a budget.

One other issue is that water injection needs to be re-filled, but an intercooler is "install-and-forget".

Of course, for those on a budget, or even for those who want to try intercooler + water injection, it's a feasible approach. But I think I've presented the logoical reasons why I won't be using it on my first Kappa swap.

[Critterman]

50/50 weight distribution is not all it is cut up to be unless you are a professional driver. The average driver will never know he is on the edge until he sits on the strecher watching his Sol being pulled out of the woods.

Audi TT came out with a 50/50 car for the first six months. The recalled all the cars that where sold and retrofited them with a small spoiler and a different front end package. This was done to induce understeer and warn the driver he was getting into trouble. Even if you didn't want the change done to your vehicle, you had to have it done. Every one produced since then has this change.

[ninjarider85]

Anyone thought about the MOPAR 3.5L Aluminum-Block V-6 out of the 2001+ Intrepid R/T? It's a pretty light motor, damned-near bulletproof, and with the dual throttle-body setup it's got, makes an EXCELLENT candidate for forced induction. I've worked with this motor on a project car before, and it's a very nice piece of equipment. Also, aside from being pretty easy to locate, it's already designed for N-S powertrain. All you'd need is a suitable transmission and bellhousing, I think.... You'll also have no problem with hood clearance since it's designed for LH body cars with the long, sloping front profile. The only downside to this motor is that it's not got a whole lot of aftermarket, but that's placement error by MOPAR group, if ya ask me.

The 3.5 is a really excellent motor. (See http://www.allpar.com/mopar/33.html) Personally, I love the Solstice enough that I'd rather modify the existing motor in mine when it finally gets here in December.. maybe do some swapping for parts from the SS Cobalt/Saturn Redline, but engine swapping seems a little extreme. The general word is that that Ecotec's just not that bad a motor. ...I do love the 3.5L though, and if I were gonna consider desecrating a Solstice's bonnet area, it'd be with that motor and the lovely V-6 rumble it gives. Anyway, thought I'd add that. I CAN HARDLY WAIT FOR MY BABY TO GET HERE!

- Rob

[Solstice Lover]

Originally Posted by Critterman Audi TT came out with a 50/50 car for the first six months. The recalled all the cars that where sold and retrofited them with a small spoiler and a different front end package. This was done to induce understeer and warn the driver he was getting into trouble. Even if you didn't want the change done to your vehicle, you had to have it done. Every one produced since then has this change.

That recall was actually done because of high speed stability. When the car got up to speed, the "boat tail" rear end had WAY too much lift. This caused the car to be unstable, hence the recall and the spoiler. You'll notice on similar rear ended vehicles, Crossfire and Boxster come to mind, they at least have a motorized spoiler to counteract the rear end lift of that design.

[Critterman]

Originally Posted by Solstice Lover That recall was actually done because of high speed stability. When the car got up to speed, the "boat tail" rear end had WAY too much lift. This caused the car to be unstable, hence the recall and the spoiler. You'll notice on similar rear ended vehicles, Crossfire and Boxster come to mind, they at least have a motorized spoiler to counteract the rear end lift of that design.

Could be because the article I read was about them swapping ends in Germany on the Autoban in the curves, so that does make sense.