What's this thing?

[Guest stvbreal]

Cobalt

[Guest powers]

Old news smile.gif

[Guest stvbreal]

First time I seen it. I just saw a commercial showing the Cobalt taunting a new Vette.

[Mallard]

http://www.columbusracing.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=19;t=002193

[Nitrousbird]

Ugh. I hate to say it, but I think I'd rather own a Neon SRT-4.

[Alex1647545498]

Originally posted by Nitrousbird:

Ugh. I hate to say it, but I think I'd rather own a Neon SRT-4.

I would too. Especially if it starts at 22k.

[smokin5s]

Originally posted by Nitrousbird:

Ugh. I hate to say it, but I think I'd rather own a Neon SRT-4.

yup, but with a few grand, the SRT-4 can be a pretty roudy little car... I'd rock one.

[Guest jpurdy2003]

I think I speak for GM's target market for this car when I say no turbo, no care. They'd be better off with a half-assed SRT-$ plagiarization than yet another difficult to tune, old-school-tech, rice pile.

[Guest riggs867]

I bet a new pulley, injectors & fuel pump would get you another 75 HP. Stock numbers are 205HP & 200 Ft/lbs. At 275 & 275, with a curb weight of 2900 lbs, this thing would beat up on stock pony cars.

 

2.0L ECOTEC Supercharged Engine

The all-aluminum dual overhead cam, 2.0L ECOTEC Supercharged four-cylinder engine is built off the strengths of the original, naturally aspirated 2.2L ECOTEC engine.

The 2.0L Supercharged engine has a four-valve cylinder head, maintenance-free chain-driven camshafts, counter-rotating balance shafts and an integrated oil cooler.

The Eaton M62 supercharger spins at a low rpm, which improves durability and creates less noise while allowing for plenty of top-end power. Power delivery of the supercharged engine is instantaneous. Maximum boost of the supercharger is 12 psi.

Also included on this engine:

A direct-mount oil cooler.

Oil jets for piston cooling.

Heavy-duty pistons.

Strong connecting rods.

Forged-steel crankshaft.

Large oil sump.

Sodium-filled exhaust valves for improved durability.

A high-strength aluminum cylinder head.

[Mallard]

Originally posted by Golden Brown Jack Trump:

yet another difficult to tune, old-school-tech, rice pile.

You are way off on this one. The only thing that could be considered rice is the wing, and that's optional, and the SRT-4 has an even bigger wing. The EcoTech is anything but difficult to tune and far from 'old-tech.' If you think it's old-tech because it uses a s/c instead of a turbo then I think your opinion is inaccurate. There is plenty of power to be had from a s/c and there is no lag; a huge plus when doing anything other then drag racing.

[Rally Red Evo]

For the money SRT-4.

[Guest Tony_K]

Originally posted by MotoMatt:

2.0L ECOTEC Supercharged Engine

The all-aluminum dual overhead cam

^^^--HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE THE 1970S, MAYBE THE 60S.

 

The 2.0L Supercharged engine has a four-valve cylinder head,

^^^--ALFA ROMEO DID THIS SEVERAL DECADES AGO, IIRC. EITHER WAY, THIS WAS COMMON 20-30 YEARS AGO

 

maintenance-free chain-driven camshafts

^^^--USED BY PORSCHE AND CITROEN IN THE 60S AND 70S; BELTS PREFERRED BY MOST IN LAST COUPLE OF DECADES BECAUSE LESS POWER LOSS, QUIETER, AND CAN MORE EASILY ACCOMMODATE THE HEAT EXPANSION OF AN ALUMINUM ENGINE AND THE LONG RIDE FROM CRANK TO CAM IN AN OHC ENGINE.

 

counter-rotating balance shafts

^^^--INVENTED BY MITSUBISHI IN THE 70S, MAYBE EARLIER

 

and an integrated oil cooler.

^^^--WHAT DOES "INTEGRATED" MEAN? ATTACHED TO THE BLOCK? CONGRATS, GM, ON ADDING AN OIL COOLER TO YOUR CARS. BRAVO. WELCOME TO YEARS AGO.

 

Oil jets for piston cooling.

^^^--AREN'T ALL PISTONS OILED BY SPLASH-FEED? WTF IS AN "OIL JET FOR PISTON COOLING"?

 

Heavy-duty pistons.

^^^--STILL CAST, I ASSUME

 

Strong connecting rods.

^^^--GLAD THEY DIDN'T USE THE WEAK ONES! STILL CAST, I ASSUME

 

Forged-steel crankshaft.

^^^--AREN'T ALL CRANKSHAFTS FORGED? WHAT KIND OF PIECE OF SHIT CAR HAS A CAST CRANKSHAFT? A CAVALIER, MAYBE? OR SOME OTHER ECONOBOX...

 

Large oil sump.

^^^--CAPACITY? WELCOME TO 4-CYL CARS OF THE 1950S

 

Sodium-filled exhaust valves for improved durability.

^^^--USED BY LOTUS IN 1980. MY GUESS WOULD BE THAT 70S 911 TURBOS HAD THEM, TOO, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER TURBOCHARGED OR SUPERCHARGED 4 OR 6 CYL.

 

A high-strength aluminum cylinder head.

^^^--GOOD. YOU OVERCAME THE COSWORTH VEGA.

Sorry, but GM is still decades away from "innovative". It's all old-school tech. Pee Pee Jack is right. Nothing to see here....move along... GM still sucks, still just follows.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

[Guest Tony_K]

...still a minimum of 20 years behind "leading edge". GM's econobox will have variable valve timing available by the year 2020, versus Honda's econobox offering it several years ago.

[Mallard]

Originally posted by Tony K:

Sorry, but GM is still decades away from "innovative". It's all old-school tech. Pee Pee Jack is right. Nothing to see here....move along... GM still sucks, still just follows.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

So because the architecture that's being used has been around forever, then it's a POS, old-tech engine and GM sucks??? I fail to see your logic. You're making conclusions based on a spec sheet that's been dumbed down for every lay-person that will look at the car and carries no actual engineering information.

 

Everything listed above could be said about nearly every engine on the market today. So is everything on the market a POS follower?

[Guest Tony_K]

oh how I long for the GM that shoved a monster of a motor into a smallish mid-size coupe...

 

...the GM that sold dedicated racing equipment at dealerships and had little racer-intended options at the bottom of the option list...

 

...the GM that shoved a 455 in the face of insurance regulators and an oil crisis...

 

...the GM that experimented with aluminum engines when the word "experiment" could still be applied to "aluminum engine"

 

...the GM that offered 4-wheel disc brakes when there were still cars on the road with 4-wheel drum brakes....

 

...the GM that sold turbocharged cars before the big 80s turbo craze...

 

...the GM that offered fuel injection in step with the leading performance automakers...

 

...the GM that won world-wide accolades for innovation in chassis design...

 

...the GM that offered sophisticated in-cabin electronics when electronics were coming of age...

 

...the GM that laughed past Ferrari in a 4-cam 32-valve aluminum V8

 

...the GM that put out two essentially coach-built, well-appointed, performance-oriented two-seat grand touring coupes at the same time...

 

Where did that GM go? With the exception of the world-class (yet not really innovative in the two recent iterations) Corvette, it seems that since the 1990s GM hasn't done anything noteworthy. Reliable cars, yes. Innovative performance cars, . . . what has GM done in the last 10 years, other than kill their once-beloved by all F-body? What am I missing from the last 10+ years of GM's history? What technology have they been at the forefront of?

[Guest riggs867]

Originally posted by Tony K:

...still a minimum of 20 years behind "leading edge". GM's econobox will have variable valve timing available by the year 2020, versus Honda's econobox offering it several years ago.

This things fully loaded with known good performance features at $22K. What do you expect? Tell me what is leading edge about ANY piston motor?

 

I suppose that they could have put a 118 degree V10 motor CNC milled from exotic metal alloys, installed pneumatic valves into the hemispheric 5 valve heads, used liberal amounts of carbon fiber in the engine covers, attached a nice sequential 7 speed tranny, replaced those silly shocks and springs with an active suspension, and hooked it all together with a set of redundant $100K ECUs. When it was all said and done, you would have a $300K Cavalier with a wing.

 

BTW, other than the ECU's, all this Formula 1 technology is at least 20 years old. So, what new has been developed for the venerable piston engine that could be considered "leading edge"?

[Guest Tony_K]

Originally posted by Mallard:

So because the architecture that's being used has been around forever, then it's a POS, old-tech engine and GM sucks??? I fail to see your logic. You're making conclusions based on a spec sheet that's been dumbed down for every lay-person that will look at the car and carries no actual engineering information.

 

Everything listed above could be said about nearly every engine on the market today. So is everything on the market a POS follower?

Response to first paragraph:

 

Since it has been around forever, yes, that does make it old-tech. GM sucks because they are just catching up to what Japan and Europe have been doing for 20+ years. I am looking at what GM is spending millions of dollars to brag about. If they had anything special to brag about technically or from an engineering standpoint, they would shove the information in the face of engineers and racers everywhere. The fact that they are pitching toward a "dumbed down" just goes to show that dumb people are their best targets. Top-shelf automakers are more technical in their marketing, and yet the message gets across to the automotively uninformed. Honda brags about their environmental accomplishments in National Geographic and their technical innovations in Popular Mechanics. GM brags about things like cupholders and dependability. Nothing wrong with that. Just not technically innovative. I was merely responding to the suggestion that there was anything advanced about the new Cobalt/Cavy/whatever. Fact: there is nothing about it that hasn't been refined by other automakers already. It is, in fact, "old-tech."

 

Response to second paragraph:

 

No, it does not make every other car company/engine manufacturer a POS follower, because many of them have been doing it for years. The leaders are the ones currently developing and refining new technology, and the followers are the ones who pick it up once the other companies have all evolved and refined it, and their patents are expiring or worth less on the market. See how that works? graemlins/slap.gif

[Guest Tony_K]

Originally posted by MotoMatt:

[ So, what new has been developed for the venerable piston engine that could be considered "leading edge"?

Variable valve timing, while not "leading edge" any more, is still "coming of age".

 

Direct injection in a gasoline engine is new technology among passenger cars.

 

Ceramic brakes is pretty new among performance cars.

 

Alternative fuel sources is one of the fronts of development. After a lot of experimenting up through the 1980s, they are at it again.

 

Who is leading the market in SULEV vehicles? They are at the head of the pack.

 

Who is getting the most horsepower per liter? They are leaders. I can think of several 2-liter fours that make significantly more power than the GM motor...

 

Anyway, off the top of my head, those are some examples that answer your question (albeit I threw one in about brakes). I was getting at GM being not innovative moreso than the Cavy/Cobalt sucking.

 

The fact that the Cavy/Cobalt has all of those features is great. But there is no reason to talk about it like it is something special. The most realistic response to the news of the Cobalt is something along the lines of "Well, it's about time!"

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

[Guest riggs867]

I guess my point is new isn't always best. The Cobalt is suppose to be inexpensive in the 14K to 22K range.

 

The undeniable best performance dollar on the planet is the Corvette. It is using a variant of the small block that came in the 1955 Corvette still today. Even with push-rods and two valves, it does pretty good.

 

The more moving parts something has in it, the less reliable it is. That is just a function of statistics. What advantage does VVT give you on a forced induction engine? I bet that VVT costs about the same as a roots blower, but doesn't yield the same performance increase.

 

Now, if GM were to build a mid-engine V12 supercar, I would expect some of the newer technology to be in there, as price wouldn't be a big concern.

[Guest Tony_K]

Originally posted by MotoMatt:

I guess my point is new isn't always best.

Agreed. "Reliable" and "inexpensive" and "low-maintenance" more often come from the tried-and-true.

 

I wish GM would build anything mid-engine! ...

 

I am glad they go all-out on the Corvette, and then make it (comparatively) affordable. Long live the 'Vette. smile.gif

[Black ITR Guy]

im gonna have to agree with tony once again. gm has been nothing but a bunch of followers in that past decade or so. i cant think of one thing that they have come out with that stands as new or innovative.

[Guest Tony_K]

Originally posted by Mallard:

So because the architecture that's being used has been around forever, then it's a ... old-tech engine...??? I fail to see your logic.

graemlins/trout.gif

Sorry, I just had to quote that one again - it just sounds funny! tongue.gif

[Guest Tony_K]

Mallard, I realize you are suggesting specifics about the design of the parts of which we don't know. Things like the shape of the block, head, pistons, combustion chamber, rods, oil galleys, etc., placement/arrangement of balance shafts and any externals, etc., and perhaps materials, too. But in light of that, well, the horsepower and torque numbers don't suggest that they have done anything great.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

[Mallard]

Originally posted by Mallard:

You're making conclusions based on a spec sheet that's been dumbed down for every lay-person that will look at the car and carries no actual engineering information.

I'll quote myself because I think it's funny.

 

As far as your comment that GM only touts cupholders and reliability: Um, ok...I'm not seeing that. I see a GM that's touting the EcoTech as the new generations 350 small block. The GM that's used the EcoTech to dominate 'import' drag racing. The GM that's used the EcoTech to smash Bonnieville Salt Flats records. The GM that openly advertises the C5-R's and the CTS-V's racing success. Have you watched any GM commercials lately?? I don't see one that advertises a cup holder. Instead I see lots of tire smoke.

 

Direct Injection: GM developed it in the 80's, Mitsu took it over after alternative fuels and EV's became the agenda. Now they're coming to fruition. Actually Opel used a DI Diesel to break a 24 hour speed record.

 

Ceramic brakes: gimmie a break. There's a reason they only come on $100k cars.

 

VVT: GM has been using cam phasing for years, and ok VVT is not on their engines.

 

Alternative Fuels: GM and Ford cars are/have been able to run on many different fuels. But they never took off. (no place to fill them up) GM leads the world in fuel cell development.

 

Innovative engines? How about the LS1/LS6, LS2, EcoTech, TrailBlazer I-6, or the High Feature V6.

 

The problem is you only see innovation as a complete change in architecture. But GM has focused on improving airflow and combustion as much as possible. Yeah, the LS2 is the same architecture as the same small block from the 50's, but there is a world of difference in the engines.

 

GM had management problems up until a few years ago, until they brought in Lutz, who then brought in some key personnel. The products that have been developed since the changes took place are just beginning to come to market. The next few years will be very interesting. GM has vast resources, and engineering knowledge that you can't begin to fathom. (since you think they suck so much) And I'm not saying that other automakers don't have a lot of knowledge. But I think a lot of people hate GM for BS reasons and because they like to complain a lot. The Cobalt is no sports car, true. But it's not meant to be on the level of a Corvette.

 

Looking at a Neon and Cobalt SS side by side you would see that this car hits the mark.

[Guest Tony_K]

Originally posted by Mallard:

Originally posted by Mallard:

[qb] The problem is you only see innovation as a complete change in architecture. But GM has focused on improving airflow and combustion as much as possible.

How can you say that after what I just posted immediately above your post?