Saturn puts out 1/4 mile estimate for Sky Redline
#61
Not necessarily. I think NA is very appropriate for a sports car, while a turbo provides the low end grunt you want in a cross-over SUV. Not that the converse isn't true, but there is valid logic to support Honda's approach.
Which is the better "sports car" application -- the motor with very little torque at any RPM and very little horsepower outside of the last 20 percent of the revs -- or the one that has a nice fat long torque curve -- with ample torque and horsepower.
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JonBoy,May 4 2006, 07:40 AM
I disagree. The Cobalt I drove felt and sounded thrashy, it didn't like to rev, and it sounded rough. Had nothing to do with how it was mounted (it was actually fairly quiet and well damped).
Have you driven a Cobalt yet?
Have you driven a Cobalt yet?
For reference, when I say how its mounted I don't mean transverse vs longitudinal. I mean the location and quality of the chassis around the motor, the types and location of engine mounts used etc. One of the reasons the Honda Accord motor feels so smooth is the high quality (and presumably more expensive) hydraulic engine mounts it uses.
I have driven a Cobalt. I found the engine to be sufficient. Neither inspiring nor detracting from the car. Completely forgettable. I've also driven a few SAAB 93s They use the Ecotec motor as well. The engines in those cars are quite smooth and refined for an I4. I would happily take the SAAB version of the Ecotec I4 over the 1.8T in the Audi I drove at the same test event. So again, I suspect much of what you feel is the difference in isolation rather than inherent smoothness of the motor.
#63
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
11 Posts
Originally Posted by rockville,May 4 2006, 12:45 PM
How it is mounted in the car certainly does make a difference. I was reading an old Car and Driver article about the Neon SC recently. They said the 150 hp 2L was thrashy. However, they also said it was the same motor used in the Talon (IIRC). They said in the other car it was much smoother so they suspected the difference was how it was mounted in the car. According to the article the engineers at Chrysler all but agreed.
For reference, when I say how its mounted I don't mean transverse vs longitudinal. I mean the location and quality of the chassis around the motor, the types and location of engine mounts used etc. One of the reasons the Honda Accord motor feels so smooth is the high quality (and presumably more expensive) hydraulic engine mounts it uses.
I have driven a Cobalt. I found the engine to be sufficient. Neither inspiring nor detracting from the car. Completely forgettable. I've also driven a few SAAB 93s They use the Ecotec motor as well. The engines in those cars are quite smooth and refined for an I4. I would happily take the SAAB version of the Ecotec I4 over the 1.8T in the Audi I drove at the same test event. So again, I suspect much of what you feel is the difference in isolation rather than inherent smoothness of the motor.
For reference, when I say how its mounted I don't mean transverse vs longitudinal. I mean the location and quality of the chassis around the motor, the types and location of engine mounts used etc. One of the reasons the Honda Accord motor feels so smooth is the high quality (and presumably more expensive) hydraulic engine mounts it uses.
I have driven a Cobalt. I found the engine to be sufficient. Neither inspiring nor detracting from the car. Completely forgettable. I've also driven a few SAAB 93s They use the Ecotec motor as well. The engines in those cars are quite smooth and refined for an I4. I would happily take the SAAB version of the Ecotec I4 over the 1.8T in the Audi I drove at the same test event. So again, I suspect much of what you feel is the difference in isolation rather than inherent smoothness of the motor.
1. NVH from the engine mounts.
2. Revving the engine.
No doubt the SAAB engineers went to more effort to isolate from number 1. That's simply a "luxury" vs. an economy car. They MAY have done things like lightened the flywheel or remapped the throttle or whatever to help with number 2 as well, I don't know. I don't believe most reviews are complaining about 1 in regards to the Kappas, but I do think they are bringing up 2.
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Stack,May 4 2006, 01:18 PM
There are two separate and distinct aspects at play here when discussing the "thrashiness" of an engine:
1. NVH from the engine mounts.
2. Revving the engine.
No doubt the SAAB engineers went to more effort to isolate from number 1. That's simply a "luxury" vs. an economy car. They MAY have done things like lightened the flywheel or remapped the throttle or whatever to help with number 2 as well, I don't know. I don't believe most reviews are complaining about 1 in regards to the Kappas, but I do think they are bringing up 2.
1. NVH from the engine mounts.
2. Revving the engine.
No doubt the SAAB engineers went to more effort to isolate from number 1. That's simply a "luxury" vs. an economy car. They MAY have done things like lightened the flywheel or remapped the throttle or whatever to help with number 2 as well, I don't know. I don't believe most reviews are complaining about 1 in regards to the Kappas, but I do think they are bringing up 2.
All that said, I'm optimistic that #1 will be addressed at least in part when the smaller displacement turbo hits the market. I suspect #2 will also be improved because the fuel is injected into the cylinders directly rather than into the intake port.
#65
Registered User
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by steve c,May 4 2006, 10:03 AM
Which is the better "sports car" application -- the motor with very little torque at any RPM and very little horsepower outside of the last 20 percent of the revs -- or the one that has a nice fat long torque curve -- with ample torque and horsepower.
and, by the way, the F20C has more torque than any other 2.0L NA motor that comes to mind.
#66
As I said, the Cobalt was fairly quiet (ie, NVH wasn't that bad). It just didn't pick up and rev very well. In other words, it was breathy at the top of the rev range, it didn't like to rev, and it didn't sound happy doing it.
A Civic revs much more nicely, not to mention an Accord. There is no comparison.
A Civic revs much more nicely, not to mention an Accord. There is no comparison.
#67
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by steven975,May 4 2006, 02:02 PM
I see your point, but the high revving nature does allow the use of gear ratios that would just be unrealistic on a car that cannot rev high.
and, by the way, the F20C has more torque than any other 2.0L NA motor that comes to mind.
and, by the way, the F20C has more torque than any other 2.0L NA motor that comes to mind.
That said, if I were given the Solstice chassis and told I could have either the F20 or one of the higher power Duratec 3L variants I would go V6 every time.
#68
Originally Posted by S2000spoon,May 4 2006, 07:57 AM
Sky/Sol is on it's way in and S2 is on it's way out.
Best Gm could do with this roadster is a turbo to fight against
an N/A motor? Performance wise its not that much a difference?
Best Gm could do with this roadster is a turbo to fight against
an N/A motor? Performance wise its not that much a difference?
Don't make me quote the GM press release...
#69
Originally Posted by Dr. WOT,May 4 2006, 09:37 AM
Not necessarily. I think NA is very appropriate for a sports car, while a turbo provides the low end grunt you want in a cross-over SUV.
There must be a lot of very disappointed Ferrari owners.
Maybe the M3 should be retuned to get rid of all of that low-end torque.
#70
Originally Posted by steve c,May 4 2006, 10:03 AM
Which is the better "sports car" application -- the motor with very little torque at any RPM and very little horsepower outside of the last 20 percent of the revs -- or the one that has a nice fat long torque curve -- with ample torque and horsepower.