» Wheel & Tire Center

» Sponsors
» Sponsors
Go Back   Pontiac Solstice Forum > Technical Solstice Discussion > Mods - Engine 2.4 l Ecotec > Forced Induction 2.4 l Ecotec
Register Home Forum Gallery Owner Registry Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Please Visit our Site Sponsors

SolsticeForum.com is the largest Pontiac Solstice Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-16-2008, 11:13 AM   #1 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Anyone using the Cobalt IC Intake?

Is anyone using the Cobalt Ss or Redline intercooled intake with an aftermarket supercharger? As I understand it, GM's Stage 3 kit makes about 300 bhp with the stock (smallish) supercharger on those vehicles. It would seem that a larger roots or twinscrew SC on the factory IC intake manifold would work nicelyon the Sol. Anyone?

Last edited by Mileage : 08-16-2008 at 11:15 AM. Reason: Added email notification
Mileage is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 08-17-2008, 08:46 PM   #2 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
From what I understand, #4 cylinders are poping at higher flows. Likely due to uneaven airflow through each cylinder, because of the manifold, combined with the Heaton's...heat (Hahn's theory). I hear the lysholm is maxing out the sensors easily. Not sure if the twin screw kit has figured out it's harware issues as of yet.

I am suprized nobody has even tried it on a Kappa. It will bolt to the head as a few FWD 2.4 guys have used the parts. There might be something else in the way though. I never put any thought into it myself.
Craig Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 09:42 AM   #3 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rochester Hills, MI
I thought RK Sport was originally going to try it on the Solstice, but the intake for the S/C is pretty much in the firewall.

BoostedSol used the intake manifold and intercooler from the SS/SC on his turbo kit and it seemed to work nicely.

Craig - I thought all the Cobalt guys popping #4 were running 60# injectors too. The running theory I heard was they thought there were issues providing enough fuel to the end of the rail and it was running too lean.
Mallard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 10:19 AM   #4 (permalink)
Member
 
idkfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Virginia Beach
It's definitely one of the most efficient heat exchangers on the market and I know boostedsol did a lot of research into water cooling and finally settled on the LSJ setup.

We've been reworking his setup for a little while and I should be starting my engine build with his old hardware here shortly (once i finish the shop's website). Hopefully we can increase the production he saw.

I have all his old posts bookmarked where he talks about it.
Turbo Solstice Dyno plots
Custom Turbo Pics!
Custom Solstice Turbo Pictures!
idkfa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 11:13 AM   #5 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallard View Post
I thought RK Sport was originally going to try it on the Solstice, but the intake for the S/C is pretty much in the firewall.

BoostedSol used the intake manifold and intercooler from the SS/SC on his turbo kit and it seemed to work nicely.

Craig - I thought all the Cobalt guys popping #4 were running 60# injectors too. The running theory I heard was they thought there were issues providing enough fuel to the end of the rail and it was running too lean.
I find it hard to believe that the fuel rail is running out of fuel.

Laminova coolers are certainly proven. It's the limited space that forces the compromise.

I believe someone is developing a new manifold.
Craig Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 11:19 AM   #6 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by idkfa View Post
It's definitely one of the most efficient heat exchangers on the market and I know boostedsol did a lot of research into water cooling and finally settled on the LSJ setup.

We've been reworking his setup for a little while and I should be starting my engine build with his old hardware here shortly (once i finish the shop's website). Hopefully we can increase the production he saw.

I have all his old posts bookmarked where he talks about it.
Turbo Solstice Dyno plots
Custom Turbo Pics!
Custom Solstice Turbo Pictures!
I took a quick look see. I believe hahn was refering to higher flows than that.
Craig Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 11:39 AM   #7 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rochester Hills, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Lewis View Post
I find it hard to believe that the fuel rail is running out of fuel.

Laminova coolers are certainly proven. It's the limited space that forces the compromise.

I believe someone is developing a new manifold.
Just going off what I heard the Cobalt guys talking about. It's a returnless fuel system with 60# injectors and #4 is at the end of the rail. Supposedly the guys running 60#'s that converted to a return style fuel system have not had the same sort of failures, even with the stock intake manifold. If the stock manifold is so bad then why don't the guys running the new TVS blower upgrade have all sorts of problems?

Again, it's just what I've read between a few threads on the HPTuners forum and Cobaltss.net. I don't lurk around the Cobalt forum too much anymore though.
Mallard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 01:07 PM   #8 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
I have yet to hear of any car pushing the stock lsj manifold in a big way. I have been focused on the LNF since I got one, so there very well might be some new info. I took a quick glance at SS.net. I didn't see anyone bragging 400 plus.

I don't know where the thread is that Hahn mentioned his theory. I base my opinion on his in this case. I thought I mentioned it earlier. He states in the same thread that it's unlikely the fuel rail is dry on 4 unless the pump is running out. I believe he is currently building a 600hp car. It's my undertanding that he is not using the factory HE. If I recal, he is running a return, but for his port fueler. If I were to go for 300hp, the H/E has been proven to be effective. A better radiator seems to be a standard upgrade for the Cobalt guys. I can't imagine this part being entirely effective for much more , regardless of hahn's theory. My friends that run the LSJ with the heaton report rediculous heat soak as it is. Even with addtional cooling mods.

I think the lesson learned form all those engine losses is that you must run the car pretty rich overal to compensate for the lean 4 combined with the heat from a fast spinning heaton. I have not heard of anyone trying egt's on all 4 for comparison. The info would be interesting. The few shots that I have seen of busted engines showed tremendous carbon soot in 123 and a clean, but busted #4. Too lean in 4 and too rich in the rest. My conclusion with this information is that number 4 is getting the same fuel as the rest, just getting more air.

Anyway,
I would love to be in a position where the limitations of the LSJ manifold are apparent.
Craig Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 05:12 PM   #9 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rochester Hills, MI
Well at least we agree that #4 runs lean in the cars with blown engines. That's either too much air in #4 or not enough fuel. You seem to think GM built a garbage intake manifold that starves 3 cylinders of air, while I tend to think the insanely large injectors on a returnless rail are the problem.

I tend to think the way I do because the likelihood of 3 cylinders getting that much less air (or one cylinder getting that much more, however you want to think about it) is lesser than the chances of the fuel system being an issue, IMO. I also think that the fuel system is proven to be the culprit if people have converted to a retun-style fuel system and don't have issues.

So on the topic of this thread; I would say you could use the intake manifold and heat exchanger (or an upgraded H/E) from a Cobalt SS, but not the blower. Heck, GM used the H/E on their ~550 HP turbo Ecotec hot rod that was shown at SEMA 2007 and taken on the Hot Rod Power Tour.
Mallard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 06:22 AM   #10 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Mallard and Craig, Thanks for the discussion and other forums to look on.

idkfa, Thanks for the links to bostedsol's pics and info.

It is time to start gathering parts for my 2.4NA for a winter upgrade. I am not looking for 400whp so it sounds like the factory manifold and cooler would work.

Thanks again.
Mileage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 06:43 AM   #11 (permalink)
Member
 
idkfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Virginia Beach
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mileage View Post
Mallard and Craig, Thanks for the discussion and other forums to look on.

idkfa, Thanks for the links to bostedsol's pics and info.

It is time to start gathering parts for my 2.4NA for a winter upgrade. I am not looking for 400whp so it sounds like the factory manifold and cooler would work.

Thanks again.
should. I know boostedsol was planning on that number for his dailydriver project but just ran out of time.
idkfa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 05:57 AM   #12 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Hey guys, I've got one of these manifolds for sale, includes the pump for $250 if anyones is interested. I sold my project car and this is collecting dust.....


Tass
Tass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 04:28 PM   #13 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
I never was able to find flow numbers for the LSJ intake so I built and adapter and took it to my local speed shop for testing on their bench. I believe the machine is a Superflow 601. It is supposed to flow 629 CFM at 28" H20 ( 1 psi ). 28" pushed 290 CFM through it and 40" ( 1.45 psi) pushed 345 cfm through it. That is all their bench would do. I did not have a way to measure the flow through each runner, darn. Using the rule of thumb that it takes 1.6 cfm per HP, this would mean only 1.5 psi loss through the IC at 215 HP. Assuming decreasing return for more boost, 2.5 psi of loss should result in the 300 HP range seen on the Cobalts. Extrapolating waaay out there says 4 psi would provide enough air for 400 HP if you have enough additional pressure to get it into the cylinders! Any thoughts? Anyone have access to a larger flow bench?
Mileage is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.1.0

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2