Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello all,
I am new to this forum. I have a 91 Toyota MR2 turbo and am drop'n in a garrett T3/T4 turbo later this year. I know that with an easy fule system upgrade I can run over 300whp at about 15lbs with this turbo with out having to open the engine. Needless to say this makes the little 2 pretty bad a$$.

I love the look of the Solstice. And from all that I have read I love almost everything about it. Sounds like they got it right. But the engine is something about the car that is a bit of a ? for me. I know that my 2.0L 3SGTE can make and take the power that I am looking to get. But can the ecotec revision going into the Solstice stand up to the same HP and TQ levels with out a build up?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
bubbagumping said:
Hello all,
I am new to this forum. I have a 91 Toyota MR2 turbo and am drop'n in a garrett T3/T4 turbo later this year. I know that with an easy fule system upgrade I can run over 300whp at about 15lbs with this turbo with out having to open the engine. Needless to say this makes the little 2 pretty bad a$$.

I love the look of the Solstice. And from all that I have read I love almost everything about it. Sounds like they got it right. But the engine is something about the car that is a bit of a ? for me. I know that my 2.0L 3SGTE can make and take the power that I am looking to get. But can the ecotec revision going into the Solstice stand up to the same HP and TQ levels with out a build up?
The 2.2 ecotec that went into j-bodies last year has been tested over and over again. Lots of people turboed or put nitrous on their car with pretty good shots without much trouble. Some adding over 100 hp on their cars.

The ecotec was built to last, I see no reason why the 2.4 shouldnt be similar or the 2.0 if they decide to use that. Its just at somepoint youll hit a brick wall and its a matter of where!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
I guess we will see where that is. with the 3SGTE 350whp isn't unheard of on stock internals. I only want to get 275whp/tq out of it. seeing that it is a 2.4 making that kind of power shouldn't be too much to ask with a turbo. i think i'll roll around the net and find out the most common problm people face when boosting the ecotec.

BTW, nos is cheating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
This Ecotech is new. You wont find any info on it because it is not even on the road in any cars yet.
The VVT could be a week link? Or it could be no problem?
But the heads are new and so are some intenal components.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
so putting a turbo on the Solstice would be taking ahuge step and all would be looking at me to see how well it worked? Not sure if I am ready for that kind of preeasure but I might like to do it anyway.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
This engine adds VVT to teh ECOTEC line for the vary first time. Depending on how GM implemented it, and how forthcoming they are about it will greatly impact forced induction and various other after market addons construction. Also the 2.0L engine had a majority of its internal componenets replaced with Forged units, and not the cast ones like the 2.4L engine. Also the 2.4L has a fairly high 10.4:1 or 10.6:1 Compression Ratio which is greatly going to impact forced induction applications on stock engines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
brentil said:
Also the 2.4L has a fairly high 10.4:1 or 10.6:1 Compression Ratio which is greatly going to impact forced induction applications on stock engines.
Yikes! Thats really going to effect the extra power you can get out of it. With that high of a compression I doubt to see a aftermarket FI option unless its a very low amount of boost. Which then asks the question why?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
Billabongi said:
Yikes! Thats really going to effect the extra power you can get out of it. With that high of a compression I doubt to see a aftermarket FI option unless its a very low amount of boost. Which then asks the question why?
Raising the compression was one of the ways they apparenlty got the extra HP from along with raising the displacement, and VVT.

However the more I think about it the more confused I get. They've raised the compression ratio either .4 or .6 over the 2.2L, they've increased the displacement 0.2L, and they've added VVT to this engine but all they've gotten for extra power is 32HP and 11 ft-lbs. I guess that's a decent ammount but it doesn't seem like much for making those three fairly big changes. However if they were able to maintain a fairly high fuel economy though with that power gain I could understand it.

Aftermarket can be done, it'll just require more development effort/tuning, or different pistons.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
swatthefly said:
which translates into a much more expensive package.
Yeah, exactly. Either different pistons or a different head is going to run you good money. You can boost what's there already I bet, it's just going to require a system of much higher quality then normal cheaper setups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
the higher CR isn't al that bad. the toyota 1MZ-FE (3.0L V6) takes boost just fine up to about 300hp. With a CR of 10:1. But then it has pretty strong pistons and rods, for a family car engine. And with a turbo you have to keep the boost down but you get a larger gain out of each additional pis of boost. The S2000 puts down about 190whp with a turbo kit it puts out power in the 280-290whp range. CR for the S2K is 11.0:1 So getting 250whp from the solstice shouldn't too impossible. But if it takes a rebuild than I would drop the CR to about 9:1. and then run teh power up to about 350whp and call it a day. why all that work? why not? isn't building the car half the fun? I love driving my MR2. The more I do to it the more I love the car and the more i like driving it. I say lets boost it. Or find some way to fit an LS1 in there. Now that would be a Beast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
brentil said:
This engine adds VVT to teh ECOTEC line for the vary first time. Depending on how GM implemented it, and how forthcoming they are about it will greatly impact forced induction and various other after market addons construction. Also the 2.0L engine had a majority of its internal componenets replaced with Forged units, and not the cast ones like the 2.4L engine. Also the 2.4L has a fairly high 10.4:1 or 10.6:1 Compression Ratio which is greatly going to impact forced induction applications on stock engines.
Dont forget GM has a BAD habit of lowering the displacement of boosted engines. My money says the "boosted" version of the Kappa WONT have a 2.4. And WONT be much over 200HP. The 240HP 2.4 VVT I4 Ecotech would be cool and all but it will never happen as a factory option.
The high HP Kappa's will have to be V6's of the CTS VVT variant:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
bubbagumping said:
Or find some way to fit an LS1 in there.
had to read your post twice to catch that! he he. would be nice to have one of those in a car that light! if we could find wide enough tires to grip the road, you'd be talking 3.5 0-60s!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Rickady88GT said:
Dont forget GM has a BAD habit of lowering the displacement of boosted engines. My money says the "boosted" version of the Kappa WONT have a 2.4. And WONT be much over 200HP. The 240HP 2.4 VVT I4 Ecotech would be cool and all but it will never happen as a factory option.
The high HP Kappa's will have to be V6's of the CTS VVT variant:)
When companies drop the displacement of a motor, they usually drop the stroke, usually switching to a shorter crank and changing the rod lengths.

Who knows, 2.4 may be just a stroked out 2.2, and we may have all the stronger goodies just with a different crank shaft. Nissan did this with the QR25DE and QR20DE. The only difference is crank and rods (since both are naturally aspirated and needed to maintain a compression ratio). Does anybody know the redline of the 2.2? I guess I just found it, and its 6500 rpm. I wonder what the new redline of the 2.4 will be. Also, while surfing GM's site, it looks like the bore x stroke of the 2.0 S/C engine is 86 x 86. Thats kinda small on the bore size, while the 2.2 is stroked out to 94.6mm . I wonder if they'll just bore out the motor, and up its size to 89mm x 94.6, it seems many companies like to have a bore around 89 or so mm (I think I may be right, it equates to a little over 2.48 liters). With a 100mm stroke though, it equates to just under 2.4 liters (2.33). With the lower torque numbers though, I'd venture to guess they punched out the block. If it had a larger stroke, I'd expect torque closer to what my motor puts out. I also find something strange about the 177hp @ 6600 RPM being shown on the spec sheet. Maybe I'm totally wrong, and they bored it to 93mm +, and maintained the 86mm stroke or so. That would mean we'd probably have a redline a little over 7000 rpm. I'm getting even more giddy with the thought of a rev happy motor :)

Back on subject, its always good to have a shorter stroke on a boosted motor. It usually allows to have a higher redline, which allows for a wider RPM band to tune a turbo to spool to, or to tune a supercharger to work with. Its also less stress on the crank shaft, since it won't have to contend with so much of a leverage advantage with a larger stroke, Forced induction already gives this advantage by increasing combustion pressures.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
Jus2shy said:
When companies drop the displacement of a motor, they usually drop the stroke, usually switching to a shorter crank and changing the rod lengths.

Who knows, 2.4 may be just a stroked out 2.2, and we may have all the stronger goodies just with a different crank shaft. Nissan did this with the QR25DE and QR20DE. The only difference is crank and rods (since both are naturally aspirated and needed to maintain a compression ratio). Does anybody know the redline of the 2.2? I guess I just found it, and its 6500 rpm. I wonder what the new redline of the 2.4 will be. Also, while surfing GM's site, it looks like the bore x stroke of the 2.0 S/C engine is 86 x 86. Thats kinda small on the bore size, while the 2.2 is stroked out to 94.6mm . I wonder if they'll just bore out the motor, and up its size to 89mm x 94.6, it seems many companies like to have a bore around 89 or so mm (I think I may be right, it equates to a little over 2.48 liters). With a 100mm stroke though, it equates to just under 2.4 liters (2.33). With the lower torque numbers though, I'd venture to guess they punched out the block. If it had a larger stroke, I'd expect torque closer to what my motor puts out. I also find something strange about the 177hp @ 6600 RPM being shown on the spec sheet. Maybe I'm totally wrong, and they bored it to 93mm +, and maintained the 86mm stroke or so. That would mean we'd probably have a redline a little over 7000 rpm. I'm getting even more giddy with the thought of a rev happy motor :)

Back on subject, its always good to have a shorter stroke on a boosted motor. It usually allows to have a higher redline, which allows for a wider RPM band to tune a turbo to spool to, or to tune a supercharger to work with. Its also less stress on the crank shaft, since it won't have to contend with so much of a leverage advantage with a larger stroke, Forced induction already gives this advantage by increasing combustion pressures.
BoreXStroke | 88mmX98mm (2.2L=86mm X 94.6mm)
Displacement | 2384cc (2.4 liter)

Everything you wanted to know about the 2.4L VVT ecotec (found in the Tech FAQ). http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/events/racing/ecotec_24L.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
ah ha ha ha, I'm such a dipstick :lol:
thanks for the referral

I still wonder what redline is though. Redline on my current motor with 100mm stroke is 6250, and at that speed, the motor is out of breath, even though the QR head is noted by many engineering rags as one of the best mass manufactured heads in the industry. The pistons move at a velocity akin to an F-1 car redlining at 16K rpm with that kind of stroke, anything faster and most N/A motors are short of breathe. I'm such an engineering geek, I wish I could read more about this motor than the PDF. Especially to find its true redline, if it makes 177hp at 600 more rpm than the one in the cobalt. I also want to calculate the piston velocities at its redline as well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,691 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
achieftain said:
Everthing you wanted to know about building an ecotec way past destruction limits can be found here http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3026&postcount=37 thanks to Darkhamr. BTW my local NAPA has NOS kits highlighted in front window. I, for one, hate nitrous outside my dentist's office.
Yeah, I read that article, and its a fine article. I'm just wondering what is new on the 2.4. Did they maybe change any manufacturing processes being a newer engine? Did they move away from cast bits to forged bits, to micropolished crankshafts? And that redline is still nagging me ^^. Personally, this 2.4 seems all set for F/I, with oil squirters et all (on dodge neons, its been proven that composite intakes can hanld atleast up to 12psi of boost), features common to only F/I motors. I just wonder if the lower half of the motor is tougher in this newer version of the ecotec, which would be important. I'd love to custom build a F/I motor if the bottom end is tough enough to take 400whp ;) .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
It defintly seems this engine will be fun yet interesting to work on. I just hope it can retain its torque when modding. Im coming from a supercharged Grand Prix so im not to anxious to drop 70 tq lol.

Stupid question which im sure has been answered but I havent run across it. Has there been talks of the MPG for the solstice?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,691 Posts
Jus2shy said:
Yeah, I read that article, and its a fine article. I'm just wondering what is new on the 2.4. Did they maybe change any manufacturing processes being a newer engine? Did they move away from cast bits to forged bits, to micropolished crankshafts? And that redline is still nagging me ^^. Personally, this 2.4 seems all set for F/I, with oil squirters et all (on dodge neons, its been proven that composite intakes can hanld atleast up to 12psi of boost), features common to only F/I motors. I just wonder if the lower half of the motor is tougher in this newer version of the ecotec, which would be important. I'd love to custom build a F/I motor if the bottom end is tough enough to take 400whp ;) .
Well, until you re-engineer the chip and bypass the rev-limiter, redline is going to be at a level safely below where the engineers feel the engine would fail. As you build the engine up you can increase the practical redline. Consider the lowly american V8, A consumer V8 from the 60's would top out at about 4500 rpm with no rev limiter. Today you will reach 6500 with a limiter, meaning it would go much higher. Similar engine, although built and tweaked in Carl Edward's Scott's special will easily hit 12000. I asked my Dodge dealer why there was no redline on the tach on my hemi ram. Answer was it was not needed, I can rev as high as I want up to the onboard limit.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top