I was reading up on the new Pontiac Solstice concept :hail: and it mentioned that it had a supercharged ECOTEC 4clyinder, is this a VTEC type deal? I want that car!!!

 

I know that the E-TEC Honda motor shuts of 1 intake valve on the highway. That is how they get the great gas milage. I assume this is a similar concept.

 

ttt

 

ECOTECH is the new big happening from GM. John Moss had the new Sunfire/ Cavalier 4 beefed up, with a V-tec type deal and good castings. It is supposed to make 100 hp to 600 hp, and anywhere in between.

 

The ECOTECH engine is the replaceent for the DOHC 2.4 that was in the Cavalier and Sunfire. It is in the 2000 and newer Cavaliers and Sunfires right now putting out 140hp. There are major GM rumors that it will be force fed in the near future, possible putting out 200hp to 250hp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

the ecotec which was originally designed for saturn is another 2.2 liter engine except with two cams and four valves per cylinder. as said before it's 140 hp although the first year they are using in the j body is 2002. i believe it has variable cam timing but i'd have to referr back to the manual. it's going to be gm's ticket to getting into the import racing market.

 

Cool! Only about 200 HP more to go and they'll be caught up to the old technology of the SBC engines. Gawd, I hope they're not spending a lot of R&D time on this thing....

Correct me if I'm wrong (again) but isn't Glenn getting 30 MPG with his "old" tech SBC? DU-UH!

 

This "old technology" can not pass emmisions these days. That is why the SBC is going to be crapped for ever. But it's replacement is quite stought, but still not OHV.

New Tech- 427 twin cam. 5-600 hp

30 mpg?!?! Put s 3 inch exhaust system on a Cavalier and it would go forever!

 

the ecotec makes decent power for it's size. it needs to make alot more to compete, but it's on a good course. btw, all gm engine's are overhead valve, some just happen to be pushrod and some are overhead cam. either way, the valves are still overhead.

 

I apologize if I seem a little negative on this item, but I really can't get too excited about a 150-some inch engine that makes 140 HP. Chevrolet was making 180 HP with 164 cubic inches back in 1965-66. Pontiac did the same kind of thing in 1984 with the weenie little 151 inch "Duke" in the Fieros that paced Indy with 145 HP - all on ONE camshaft with PUSH RODS. Soooo, I'm supposed to be really impressed that almost 40 friggin' years later they've almost reached the same level? Sorry. I guess I'm just too negative.

 

me either... those small displacement engines, even though they have power, have absolutly no low end torqe. And, for that matter, they probably never will. I hate having to whine out a 4 banger to get it to go...

 

True. I don't see why all those idiot journalists called the F-body "gas guzzlers". I got 30 mpg in my brothers '01 Z-28. A new "tree hugger" Ford Taurus gets 32 mpg hiway.

Now I always get worked up about this stuff, but wouldn't you rather have 300+ hp and 30 mpg...or 200 hp and 32 mpg.

I recall there was a tuning company that put twin turbo's on a Z-06. It made 635 hp and got 26 mpg

 

Well, apparently they are going to either supercharge or turbo one of these 2.2L engines for an upcoming Cavalier and it will be putting out over 500 hp

It was on Car and Driver this past Sunday morning. Now that will be a four banger I wouldn't mind driving :hail:

 

The CART, F1, and IRL cars are regularly making 780HP with a little over 160 inches of four-holer with lots of boost. I'd like to see one of those engines after 150,000 miles. And not one of them makes over 150 ft/lbs of tourque, they just keep making it all the way up to a valve-melting 11,000 RPM.

Personally, I'd like lots of power on demand as well, but not at the expense of durability. If you don't agree, perhaps you could convince the FAA. They won't ALLOW a small displacement engine to make lots of power, just for the sake of durability. Then again, corporate fuel economy averages are not their biggest concern. They have to make sure aircraft aren't falling out of the sky from engine failures.

Hey, just a thought. Maybe we should FORCE all those clueless bureaucrats and ricers to fly ultralights with recycled Ski-Doo engines. Then they'd be walking their talk, instead of talking out of both side of their collective faces.

Have them meet me in Washington, will ya? I'll plan an "environmental" tour of the United States for them, so they can demonstrate their commitment to their "cause".

 

Right on.

 

Interesting Sidenote, many General aviation airplanes [i.e. Piper Warriors, and Cessna 172's] Are Horizontally Opposed 4 cylinders, that displace 320 cubic inches and only put out 180 hp. Oh, and they redline at 2700 RPM. Air cooled, 2 spark plugs / cylinder and run off magnetos.

 

No one ins excited about this engine, but take it or leave it, it is going to be one of 2 engines that can fit is a rear engine car, that are in the Camaro's price range. If the Camaro does come back, it wont be able to touch the 'vettes new engine.

Inline- I guess we'll just have to get used to it instead of V! <Sigh>

 

GPS,

Sorry if I sound like I'm being the Devil's advocate on this. I don't mean to argue. It's just a little tough for me to swallow.

I have nothing against a different engine configuration. I'm just not buying the "new and improved" label that they apparently are trying to force on us. Why can't these "engineers" get off their collective asses and actually engineer something, rather than re-engineer it like our far-eastern friends have been doing for sixty years? They could spend a little time getting rid of the pistons, then they'd have something new.

Inlines can be a good design, and by nature have a very stout bottom end. But they are not "new". This design is the oldest production car engine design on the planet. Regardless of where you place the valves or how many there are, it's still the same.

If GM spent a little more time on a horizontally opposed design or radial, I might be more interested. A radial would fit very nicely behind the seating compartment of a commuter car, wouldn't you think? And a horizontal 8 or 12 would make for a very low nose on the already wide-enough Corvette, dry sump and all. Then again, none of that is new either, but it certainly would be different for GM.

Then again, I'm one of the few that thinks GM gave up on the rotary concept way too early as well. They gave up on aluminum castings for general production, then perfected the silicone-aluminum process about two years AFTER the Vega and RAT 427 line was dead. 25 years later they decided to start casting aluminum cases again. What's that tell you?

And if you analyze the whole situation, you'll see that the most efficient gasoline I/C engines are basically 27% efficient (fuel input / kW output). So to produce 150 HP, you'll have to use a given amount of fuel, and at 500 HP you'll have to use a given amount of fuel, regardless of the displacement or configuration. I'd rather have more engine using the same amount of fuel to make that power reliably than a lesser engine straining to make that level of power. Just a personal preference, but apparently the GM truck divisions see it my way, too.

 

I hate to correct you Vader, because you're almost always right, but F1 uses 2 litre V10's naturally aspirated, and IRL uses V8's (used to be variations on the Aurora V8).
F1 engines will rev to about 19,000, too.