Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

What engine would you want, all else being equal

  • 3.6L DOHC High Feature V6, 250 HP (apx)

    Votes: 19 24.7%
  • 2.4L Supercharged DOHC I4, 250 HP (apx)

    Votes: 33 42.9%
  • 2.4L Turbocharged DOHC I4, 250 HP (apx)

    Votes: 21 27.3%
  • 2.0L Supercharged DOHC I4, 205 HP (Ion Redline)

    Votes: 4 5.2%

  • Total voters
    77
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 151 Posts

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hypothetical situation here.

GM has asked you to chose what engine to put in either the higher output Solstice, or possibly second generation Solstice.

GM has said that price is no factor. All cars would share the same MSRP. All engines would fit satisfactorily, and the chassis would be tuned properly so there is no loss of handling ability regardless of the choice. Take your pick!

The current 2.0L supercharged ecotec with 205 published HP

A turbocharged variant of the 2.4L ecotec, with about 250 HP

A supercharged variant of the 2.4L ecotec, with about 250 HP

A naturally aspirated version of the 3.6L High Feature DOHC V6, 250 HP.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,364 Posts
Fformula88 said:
Hypothetical situation here.

GM has asked you to chose what engine to put in either the higher output Solstice, or possibly second generation Solstice.

GM has said that price is no factor. All cars would share the same MSRP. All engines would fit satisfactorily, and the chassis would be tuned properly so there is no loss of handling ability regardless of the choice. Take your pick!

The current 2.0L supercharged ecotec with 205 published HP

A turbocharged variant of the 2.4L ecotec, with about 250 HP

A supercharged variant of the 2.4L ecotec, with about 250 HP

A naturally aspirated version of the 3.6L High Feature DOHC V6, 250 HP.
A supercharged variant of the 2.4L ecotec, with about 250 HP
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,691 Posts
I have to agree with LatinVenom, here. My experience with current supercharged Pontiacs and having experienced the turbo lag on turbo units, all else being equal, the supercharger is the way to go. Zero lag, not as much heat buildup, easy to get a little more hp by installing smaller drive pulley, and higher mpg---did I mention higher mpg? I have posted my personal results before but over 30 mpg at 80 mph from PA to FL in a family sedan that does 0-60 in under 7 seconds is nothing to sneeze at.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I just can't follow the rules because I know the V6 is heavy :devil

I want the supercharged 2.4 vvt in mine.

If you want to add weight up front lets wedge in a 300 to 400 horse smallblock V8 and put this thing into Shelby Cobra performance range :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
I voted for the Supercharged 2.4 liter. A turbocharged 2.4 liter would be fine as well, it's just that I have a turbo 4 banger in my current car and I'm ready for a change of pace. :)

If I were to ask for 6 cylinders, I'd prefer a de-stroked, higher reving version of the general's Vortec 4200 I-6. Seems like it would be a better fit than a V, and likely smoother to boot.

As for the supercharged 205hp 2.0 liter Ion engine... I know that possibility has been batted about, but I never really saw the point. I couldn't personally justify the extra cost and complexity for ~30 more ponies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
hey this is pretty exciting...everyone here pretty much feels the same way i do! i figured people here would be pro turbo or even pro 6 cylinder...i'm glad to see we're all on the same page! :thumbs

supercharged 2.4 for me please - no turbo lag, easy to tweak and why not use the bigger ecotech vs the 2.0??

i hope GM reads this site :willy:

kris
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I have to admit that I am surprised by the poll results. I figured the V6 support would be much better than it is, and that the turbocharged engine would garner as much support as the supercharged engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
I voted for the supercharged 2.4, but the turbo would be fine also. I'd go for the V6, but I'd worry about upsetting the handling. I really think that a 3.8 liter I6 would be cool, just to complete the Jag image.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Fformula88 said:
I have to admit that I am surprised by the poll results. I figured the V6 support would be much better than it is, and that the turbocharged engine would garner as much support as the supercharged engine.
agreed. but i think people here realize that with a 6 comes more up front weight, which would throw the "near 50/50" distribution. and maybe there's gas mileage factors too(though one would assume that wouldn't matter for a 'toy' car). perhaps there's even the thrill of having FI vs NA?

i drive a V6 and do enjoy the torque etc, but i don't know that i'd miss it with a supercharged 2.4 in such a relatively light vehicle (my current car is ~3400lbs).

kris
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
I went with Supercharged i-4 since I didn't want to look hypicrytical for voting Turbocharger after being such a large suporter of Supercharged. :D

It's gotten to the point that if GM used the correct Tubro setup you can pretty much make turbo lag effectively un-noticable. Also with the VVT implementation done correctly you can greatly mask the spool up time of a Turbocharger. As is the current VVT implementation produces 90% of the Torque at 2400 RPM. Even with the limited boost you get at lower RPM, it'll still help get even more power down low then before.

If the engine is like the 2.0L Supercharged engine, and they let it crash into the rev limiter then the chances of self eating power loss are lowered since you're not reaching the limits of the system, yet. You end up with decent boost down low with an ever increasing amount of power.

Looking at what Mitsubishi, Subaru, Dodge, and several other companies can do with an i-4 engine I have no worries that GM can produce with it either. I also have no worries that a well done forced induction engine can outperform a majority of v/i-6 engines that aren't class leaders (and pretty expensive too probably).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
Yeah, I wish I could've voted twice (maybe I need to move to Florida :smile ) I wouldn't mind if it was a well engineered turbo or an efficient supercharger. But either way, I'd want a liquid/air intercooler with it's own radiator.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
Fformula88 said:
I have to admit that I am surprised by the poll results. I figured the V6 support would be much better than it is, and that the turbocharged engine would garner as much support as the supercharged engine.
I think there's a couple factors involved. I think this being a Pontiac has a lot to do with it. If you look at most Pontiacs they've all been Supercharged vehicles, and not Turbocharged. So over time people will associate these things with the brand name. Also being a Roadster it appeals to an older generation. The younger generation is very heavy into Turbochargers, and in general 9 out of 10 flaming trolls (no relation to RODEO :D) will initiate a knock out drag down fight in a forum about how Turbocharged beats Supercharged. A lot of times I asociate Supercharges with older iron then I do Turbochargers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
527 Posts
V6.

Only because you didn't offer a V8.

I won't bother to defend my choice here, as the majority of the forum gets.... hostile .... to anybody who feels differently.

My $0.02 - don't like it ignore me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
SkyCaptain said:
...
I won't bother to defend my choice here, as the majority of the forum gets.... hostile .... to anybody who feels differently...
Sky, I hope you really don't feel that way. Everyone's opinions are welcome here.

If you could buy a V8 Solstice (5.3L? 6.0L? 7.0?) what do YOU think one would cost? How much would you pay for a V8 Solstice?

Knowing the Solstice weighs 2860 lbs now, how much do you think a V8 would add for weight? I'm not bugging you, just wondering if you think the tradeoff of low end torque is worth the increased weight and weight distribution toward the front.

IF it were offered, I'm sure a V-6 would be very popular option - but only up to a point. I just can't see GM being able to command a near-$10K premium for a 6cyl. Offered for $26K nicely equipped, they'd get away with it. Much more and they have an SSR. I think it's a fine line in a limited "toy-niche" market.

Besides, when you stuff the V8 in and everyone gets rides - you'll be able to brag that nobody else has a Solstice like yours. :D
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
4,592 Posts
brentil said:
9 out of 10 flaming trolls (no relation to RODEO :D)
Hey, I resemble that remark :jester
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
527 Posts
Edit: In response to Solsticeman:

If it were anybody but you to respond, I wouldn't even bother, but since you asked...

Yes I really do feel that way - and I know for a fact I'm not alone.

Now, I would be the first one to point out how silly it would be to put a v8 into a solstice - not from a technical or price standpoint cuz that could be handled with GMs plentifully abundant cheap v8s and a little engineering. But from a marketing stanpoint a v8 kappa would be much more than just a "poor mans" answer to owning a vette, and that is platform suicide.

But, a V6 Kappa pushing ~280hp NA would fill a niche that GM is sorely lacking since the demise of the camaro/firebird and virtually every other GM performance car. As much as most of the forum wants to think that 177hp is enough, or even 240hp in upgraded engine, it's still barely adequate in todays market.

Where is the "performance" of 177hp when the same price gets you 200-230hp in other platforms? V6 mustang, cobaltSS, ionRL, etc.

Where is the "performance" of 240hp when the same price gets you 240-300hp in other platforms? V8 mustang, Altima, V6 Accord, Acura...

The normal answer here is that it's a two seat, 4 cylinder, "under 20k" (yeah, add the optional ashtray to blow that one), perfectly balanced, convertible, back-to-basics roadster, and to compare it to anything that doesn't fit into exactly that mold isn't "fair" (aka miata). But the simple fact of the matter is that if I simply delete the least important item (to me) on this list - "aka 2 seater" - I open up a plethora of competitive products. Delete a different item - "aka convertible" - and another list of highly competitive products pop up. What exactly would I give up for my desired level of performance? Convertible? sure. Gain of a back seat? sure.


My point is that if this were not an "extra" car for me, that I fully intended on putting a v8 into, regardless of price or common sense, .... Well, I guess my point is moot because of the very reason I will be buying it... catch 22. The car simply could not perform to my desired levels and I would buy something that would....

Yet if it had a 280hp v6.... I would...

but it doesn't, so I will anyway, just to do the swap....


:crazy

If you don't get my point, I think I lost it in there too....

And if I'm coming off to brash today, sorry. Found out today that my employer didn't take out any Fed Income Tax for the past year so I don't think I could humor Bill Cosby himself.... Grrrr.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
4,592 Posts
SkyCaptain said:
Found out today that my employer didn't take out any Fed Income Tax for the past year so I don't think I could humor Bill Cosby himself.... Grrrr.
Ouch, me and wifey work for the same place, and that happened to us a year ago, OOOUUUCCCHHH. Took a big hit. I feel for you.

Wish I new something about engines so I could contribute to these threads, but I just figured out the engine is under the hood. I'm using my automotive dictionary daily :jester
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
5,600 Posts
SkyCaptain said:
V6.

Only because you didn't offer a V8.

I won't bother to defend my choice here, as the majority of the forum gets.... hostile .... to anybody who feels differently.

My $0.02 - don't like it ignore me.
Hey, if they could get a 50/50 weight distribution with the V6, I'd be ALL OVER IT! You aren't the Lone Ranger here. :smash

Heck, I'd even settle for an awesome handling 55/45 car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
527 Posts
2860 + 140lbs for a v6 = 3000lbs

2860 at 50/50 = 1430F/1430R

1430F+140F = 1570F/1430R = 52.3F/47.6R!!!! Fits your specs....

Now throw into the match that the V6 is actually shorter than the I4, moving the polar momentum closer to the center of the car, and it will handle virtually the same...

Tune your suspension with adjustable coilovers in the front and you are set.


EDIT: And since you can always customize.... do the ever popular battery relocation to the back and even your weight out even more....
 
1 - 20 of 151 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top