Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Possible boosted engine? 2.4 destroked to 2.2. and engine speculation

This is pure speculation on my part but could GM destroke the 2.4 to 2.2 and use that as the boosted engine. If i remeber correctly the 2.0 is just a destroked 2.2, so based on that would/could GM do it, and what are peoples best guesses on the boosted engine. For sake of argument lets leave turbo and supercharging to another thread.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
Brian said:
This is pure speculation on my part but could GM destroke the 2.4 to 2.2 and use that as the boosted engine. If i remeber correctly the 2.0 is just a destroked 2.2, so based on that would/could GM do it, and what are peoples best guesses on the boosted engine. For sake of argument lets leave turbo and supercharging to another thread.
Since I'm going to the AutoShow in Motion in about 30 minutes someone else will probably beat me to posting the links. We've had several older discussions on this topic, so the info from them would be great to have here. However with all the new blood here now it's probably a great idea to revive this type of discussion.

Personally I think the idea of destroking the 2.4L to 2.2L and adding the componenets the 2.0L Supercharged engine added over the 2.2L engine would be phenominal. It could give them the basis of an all new engine platform that will outperform most other engines used for it's classes. For example say they get the 250HP from a engine like this that they got for the Nomad Concept. This engine could be dropped in any of the other current platforms that would be getting the 2.4L VVT engine soon. Solstice, Sky, ION, Cobalt, Malibu, HHR plus all the other cars using the 2.2L ECOTEC VUE and Grand Am. It would provide more power then pretty much any other engine used in this segment, and would hopefully thanks to the VVT and already good fuel economy of the engine provide an excelent MPG specification.

Here's a list of features the 2.0L Supercharged has over the 2.2L ECOTEC that would hopefully be added to the 2.4L VVT varient.
  • A direct-mount oil cooler.
  • Oil jets for piston cooling.
  • Heavy-duty pistons.
  • Strong connecting rods.
  • Forged-steel crankshaft.
  • Large oil pump.
  • Sodium-filled exhaust valves for improved durability.
  • A high-strength aluminum cylinder head.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,691 Posts
I don't see any reason why a boosted engine would have to be destroked or otherwise made smaller. The 3800 v6 comes in both flavors, normal and boosted. The earlier boosted family cars from GM (3100?) also did not change engine size betweem boosted and not. If there is a physical limitation under the hood for the boost unit then destroking to 2.0 won't solve that problem. Just think what more you would get from 2.4 boosted as compared to 2.2 or 2.0.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
achieftain said:
I don't see any reason why a boosted engine would have to be destroked or otherwise made smaller. The 3800 v6 comes in both flavors, normal and boosted. The earlier boosted family cars from GM (3100?) also did not change engine size betweem boosted and not. If there is a physical limitation under the hood for the boost unit then destroking to 2.0 won't solve that problem. Just think what more you would get from 2.4 boosted as compared to 2.2 or 2.0.
They destroked the 2.2L to supercharge it in order to reduce the car's compression ratio so it didn't knock itself apart. Since the 2.4L VVT is also going to have a fairly high compression ratio, cutting the displacement may be the easiest way for GM to drop that compression a little to make it more boost friendly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,362 Posts
you guys are missing the big picture
Gm needs to meet fuel economy/cafe requirements. A boosted engine at a smaller displacement will make the same power as the larger atmo variety when under boost (passing etc) and better fuel economy while cruizing due to the reduced swept volume. this is why they have spent so much R&D on the DOD or displacement on demand cylinder deactivation system. same effect without the boost, but it still doesn't help with the mass of a larger engine. supercharger/turbo setups add maybe 40-50lbs to the package. A larger motor usually adds alot more than that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
527 Posts
That actually depends on the motors you are comparing. I can show you iron block 4 cylinders that outweigh aluminum block v8s. comparing a DOHC 4 cylinder with a turbo to a DOHC 6 cylinder without a turbo will likely be around 100 lbs difference. Certainly less than 200.

And as far as fuel economy, don't knock a v6 until you look at the numbers. The ecotech squeaks out 32 highway MPG in other cars, and I can show you a few v6's in bigger cars with equal or better MPG.

Generally your statement is true, but not universally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
I am at a loss as well, in regard to destroking the 2.4 . The motor already has the underside piston oil squirters. Sounds like boost is allready in mind. 10.5:1 CR is high , but not too high for boost. IMO
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
faultline said:
I am at a loss as well, in regard to destroking the 2.4 . The motor already has the underside piston oil squirters. Sounds like boost is allready in mind. 10.5:1 CR is high , but not too high for boost. IMO
It's high for a stock OEM official application from a car dealer. The highest I've seen recently for official Supercharger addon kits (Vibe, Cavalier, Sunfire, all the 1zz-ge engined cars) run at the highest 10:1. A car manufactuere isn't going to put a FI method on a 10.5:1 engine for low cost vehicles because it greatly increases chance of knock and other issues.

Which is the entire reason we're discussing this, because that's what GM apparently did with the 2.0L Supercharged engine. The displacement was dropped from 2.2L to 2.0L, and compression ratio was dropped from 10:1 to 9.5:1. The displacement drop was more then likely done as a manor to drop the CR to permit safer FI application.

The aftermarket kits will work with compression ratios this high because they don't have to worry about providing 3-10 year warranties on the entire vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
brentil said:
It's high for a stock OEM official application from a car dealer. The highest I've seen recently for official Supercharger addon kits (Vibe, Cavalier, Sunfire, all the 1zz-ge engined cars) run at the highest 10:1. A car manufactuere isn't going to put a FI method on a 10.5:1 engine for low cost vehicles because it greatly increases chance of knock and other issues.

Which is the entire reason we're discussing this, because that's what GM apparently did with the 2.0L Supercharged engine. The displacement was dropped from 2.2L to 2.0L, and compression ratio was dropped from 10:1 to 9.5:1. The displacement drop was more then likely done as a manor to drop the CR to permit safer FI application.

The aftermarket kits will work with compression ratios this high because they don't have to worry about providing 3-10 year warranties on the entire vehicle.
It seems like...was it the Mazda protege, that they offered a turbo from the factory with a 10:1 CR or maybe it is the Mazda 3 that they are going to offer a turbo keeping stock internals the same and a high 10:1 CR?????????

If the air is cool, there is plenty of fuel, and you retard the timing, you can run boost all day on this motor , (most likely) assuming the boost is set fairly low. 5-7 psi..The thing about boosting high CR motors, is that you can make fairly decent power at low boost...
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top