Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The July MotorTrend(page 32) has an insert titled titled "HOT COBALT".

Talks about the Cobalt SS. Says testing's going on at Nurburgring.
..."the Cobalt has a 2.0-liter Ecotec four with an Eaton M62 helical Roots-type blower (produces 12 psi) and air-to-water intercooler, good for 205 hoursepower at 5600 rpm. Torque is 200 pound-feet at 4400 rpm ....Other mods include 11.6-inch front discs, about one inch more than the standard Cobalt compact, and 10.6-inch rear discs in place of the standard car's rear drums. Wheels are 18-inch forged steel alloys with Z-rated P215/45/18 rubber...."

1.Do you think this will be the engine? There's been a lot of talk about 250 hp.
2.Why a water cooled intercooler? Space? Is it 180 degree radiator water or is it a separate system?
3.GM website says aluminium wheels, here it says "forged steel alloys".
4.I know it's FWD but do you think they'll use the same brake discs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
If the base engine is going to be a 2.4 NA Ecotec, would they use an engine with smaller displacement but extra 'go' goodies as an upgrade?

It seems to me they would want go for the same displacement with extra 'go' goodies (SC) or maybe a larger displacement engine with or without the extra 'go' goodies.

I can't address the SC intercooler issue, but expect to learn alot from some of our members who seem very versed in performance issues. :smile

Brake rotor sizes? Could be the ones. How does the Colbalt stack up against the Solstice for weight? Would the difference in tire size make any difference in this case?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Certainly they would particularly if the idea is to use off the shelf components. 205 hp is more than 170 and the 2.4 has an awfully long stroke.

As to a smaller engine having more power, consider the 302s used in 67-69 Camaros and the Ram IV vs the 455 in 1970 GTOs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Hmmmm.

Would the base engine (NA) with its longer stroke have a broader power band then?

The smaller but SC'ed engine upgrade will produce more power but at higher revs and in a narrower rpm range?

Can we say one's like a cruiser and one's like a racer? Comparatively speaking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
padgett said:
Certainly they would particularly if the idea is to use off the shelf components. 205 hp is more than 170 and the 2.4 has an awfully long stroke.

As to a smaller engine having more power, consider the 302s used in 67-69 Camaros and the Ram IV vs the 455 in 1970 GTOs.
1) i posted elsewhere, but the 2.0 205hp ecotec has been dyno'd at 194 wheel HP. assume a max of 20% loss through the powertrain and thats about 240hp at the crank. a 15% loss would put the HP at ~230. that bit of truth may be the source of the HP rumors. we are currently in the midst of a HP war among all the carmakers across all fronts. the last war saw makers underrating HP to help with insurance costs. my bet is that the same thing is happening now. so yeah, my guess is we will get a "205hp" SC engine. the displacement doesnt really matter. GM could just as easily SC the 2.4L. i dont think it would cost them a dime. the off the shelf hardware will bolt to either engine. well, it should. i really dont see GM making one head that will have a bolt pattern for a N/A intake and one for a SC intake for this engine.

2) why not? :smile normaly, a belt driven SC sits on the intake manifold. so, there isnt a lot of ducting to route the air and an air-to-air IC isnt used. im gonna have to go and look at an ION to see whether or not the IC has its own heat exchanger. i would think so, in which case 180* water isnt an issue.

3) trust a GM website or car and driver? tough call. :D

4) dunno
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top