Jump to content

Build Theme!

Photo

Predictions for NEW 2.0T engine


46 replies to this topic

#21

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 05:59 PM

I thought it had 260 lb-ft of torque?


Yes, it does, but not over that wide range of rpms. Note the ">" sign...

These days, we frequently see numbers like BMW 335i's 295 lb-ft @ 1200~5000 rpm. That is NOT strictly speaking true. The 335 engine, when dynoed, does not peak until about 2800 rpm and it doesn't peak at 295 lb-ft, more like 340~360 using a 12.5~15% drive train loss conversion factor. This in part explains why 335s are faster than their specs would suggest. However, it is not that BMW is lying, at least not if you take their number to mean "at least" instead of "exactly". You see, the 335's engine does indeed make around 295 lb-ft or more from 1200 rpm to around 5000 rpm. The 1200 rpm part is hard to measure on a dyno, but it is around that much as low as you can measure. BMW advertises the 1200~5000 rpm range -- albeit at a lower torque figure -- because it appears more impressive than 350 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm.

In this case, I guess you can say that the ATS 2.0T will have about 234 by 1500 rpm and keep it above that level until a very impressive 5800 rpm -- a whopping 4300 rpm wide plateau. It will have 260 lb-ft somewhere in there; probably around the low 5000s because that is how you get to 270hp (any higher and you'll blow past 270hp, any lower and it wouldn't add up).
  • 0

#22

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,012 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 08:37 PM

The press release says "The 2.0T has a wide torque curve, delivering 90 percent of its peak 260 lb-ft. of torque (353 Nm) from 1,500 rpm to 5,800 rpm"

Doesn't that mean it has at least 260 lb-ft at 1,500 rpm?
  • 0

#23

balthazar

    Yoda of Vintage cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,611 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 08:46 PM

That means it's peak is 260, and it delivers 234 or higher between 1500 & 5800. TRQ is RPM dependant but the peak is not necc at 1500... or am I misreading your question?
  • 0

#24

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 09:58 PM

The press release says "The 2.0T has a wide torque curve, delivering 90 percent of its peak 260 lb-ft. of torque (353 Nm) from 1,500 rpm to 5,800 rpm"

Doesn't that mean it has at least 260 lb-ft at 1,500 rpm?


An engine's torque generally peaks when volumetric efficiency peaks. In turbocharged engines, this generally is when boost peaks. However, an engine ALWAYS reach a lower torque figure before it reaches a higher one. In otherwords, If an engine peaks with 260 lb-ft @ say 2500 rpm, it always reaches 90% of that before 2,500 rpm. Hence, if you are citing a range of RPMs where >= 90% of the maximum torque is made, the maximum torque is never realized at the very beginning of that range.
  • 0

#25

smk4565

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,249 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:29 PM

The 335iS has even more, and I think it has an over boost to temporarily raise torque during passing maneuvers as well. But BMW's do tend to put up acceleration times better than one might think from the advertised horsepower and torque ratings. Knowing that though, Cadillac better watch their acceleration times.
  • 1

#26

hyperv6

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,564 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 06:50 PM

The new turbo 4 engine will be at some point will go over 300 HP and torque will be over 300 FT pounds.

I see future NA 4 cyliners creaping over 200 plus HP. A 270 HP turbo would just be just an improved version of the non performance 220 HP Regal engine we have now. Unless it picks up a lot of MPG to do a 270 with only 234 FT LB as a performance engine would only be a step back. I have more than that now.

The 3.0 V6 is comimg and GM has already been free in showing for the last few years a very reliable production ready TT version with 425-430 HP in a Camaro and Holden.

The new V8 I suspect with the DI and VVT will see gains over 440-485 HP in the Vette and other applications will vary.
  • 0

#27

loki

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,196 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 07:28 PM

hyper, i think your wording on that last one is not what you meant. ;)
hopefully the v8's with good vvt and DI will see gains.... ~450hp+ will be a good starting point , assuming a displacement of ~6.2L like that current engine has.
in leu of that, 2 engines , say, 5.5 and 6.5L COULD be a fine place to start with replacements of the 5.3 and 6.2L....~400hp and 490hp respectively give or take depending on tuning, with as good as, or better MPG.
  • 0

#28

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,012 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 09:33 AM

A hope for the new Ecotecs both 2.5 and 2.0t. They fix the damn starter so it no longer sounds like a coffee can full of bolts spinning when starting up......
  • 0

#29

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 03:32 PM

A hope for the new Ecotecs both 2.5 and 2.0t. They fix the damn starter so it no longer sounds like a coffee can full of bolts spinning when starting up......


Are you sure you don't have a flex plate with a missing or bent tooth or something?
  • 0

#30

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,012 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 04:05 PM

Well I don't own an Ecotec, but this is from hearing even brand new ones start up. It's been too many of them sounding like that for them all to have missing starter teeth.
  • 0

#31

hyperv6

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,564 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 04:47 PM

I find mine sounds ok. It just does not have that normal Hitachi asian car sound.

hyper, i think your wording on that last one is not what you meant. ;)
hopefully the v8's with good vvt and DI will see gains.... ~450hp+ will be a good starting point , assuming a displacement of ~6.2L like that current engine has.
in leu of that, 2 engines , say, 5.5 and 6.5L COULD be a fine place to start with replacements of the 5.3 and 6.2L....~400hp and 490hp respectively give or take depending on tuning, with as good as, or better MPG.


Yes you got what I ment.

But while power goes up I feel the engines will move down in size. But I have been hearing that the regular Vette may be seeing power in NA form closer to the Grans Sports power now. We may see at least in the Vette form a much higher jump than many think.
  • 0

#32

ZL-1

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,712 posts

Posted 23 December 2011 - 05:55 AM

This is the same engine as on the Astra OPC, right? If so I'd expect GM to not change the HP/Torque rating, even though I personally would like to see the Cadillac application set apart from the Opel one in more than engine/drivetrain layout.
  • 0

#33

hyperv6

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,564 posts

Posted 23 December 2011 - 08:26 AM

This is the same engine as on the Astra OPC, right? If so I'd expect GM to not change the HP/Torque rating, even though I personally would like to see the Cadillac application set apart from the Opel one in more than engine/drivetrain layout.


GM always seems to change something in the tune so I would expect a little change. I just hope they don't detune it. This engine is not even near what it can do. I suspect Cadillac will be the first to get it with over 300 HP at some point.
  • 0

#34

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 23 December 2011 - 03:10 PM

I find mine sounds ok. It just does not have that normal Hitachi asian car sound.


hyper, i think your wording on that last one is not what you meant. ;)
hopefully the v8's with good vvt and DI will see gains.... ~450hp+ will be a good starting point , assuming a displacement of ~6.2L like that current engine has.
in leu of that, 2 engines , say, 5.5 and 6.5L COULD be a fine place to start with replacements of the 5.3 and 6.2L....~400hp and 490hp respectively give or take depending on tuning, with as good as, or better MPG.


Yes you got what I ment.

But while power goes up I feel the engines will move down in size. But I have been hearing that the regular Vette may be seeing power in NA form closer to the Grans Sports power now. We may see at least in the Vette form a much higher jump than many think.


We don't know if they'll go to a smaller displacement. What we do know is that the 5.5L displacement selected for the race cars have absolutely no bearing on the displacement of the production engines -- that was dictated by the rules.

Having said that, given that we are not changing the block size, a lower displacement V8 is not going to be lighter or smaller. It is also unlikely to be substantially more fuel efficient -- given that friction will essentially be the same while aspiration losses between a 5.5 and a 6.2 is minimal, especially with half the cylinders shut off as needed. All we know is that some form of variable timing and direct injection are confirmed. We also know that if nothing changes on the engines except the addition of AFM, DI and a 1 point bump in compression ratio, we can except about 17 mpg (City) / 28 mpg (Hwy) from a 6.2 V8 in a 3200 lbs vette -- representing a 6~7% fuel economy improvement over the current LS3. The numbers can get as high as 18/30 if the Vette sheds a couple of hundred pounds, get to a lower drag number, and/or the engines get independent VVT via a cam-in-cam setup. The 1 point compression bump also gets you ~464hp with no improvement whatsoever in any other respect of the engine (which is unlikely). Hence, an output of about 470 hp, perhaps as much as 500 hp, but no lower than 450hp should be expected. That is, in every respect, competitive with the numbers that competing DOHC V8 or Turbo V6 solutions offer.

Edited by dwightlooi, 23 December 2011 - 03:16 PM.

  • 0

#35

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 23 December 2011 - 03:35 PM


I find mine sounds ok. It just does not have that normal Hitachi asian car sound.


hyper, i think your wording on that last one is not what you meant. ;)
hopefully the v8's with good vvt and DI will see gains.... ~450hp+ will be a good starting point , assuming a displacement of ~6.2L like that current engine has.
in leu of that, 2 engines , say, 5.5 and 6.5L COULD be a fine place to start with replacements of the 5.3 and 6.2L....~400hp and 490hp respectively give or take depending on tuning, with as good as, or better MPG.


Yes you got what I ment.

But while power goes up I feel the engines will move down in size. But I have been hearing that the regular Vette may be seeing power in NA form closer to the Grans Sports power now. We may see at least in the Vette form a much higher jump than many think.


We don't know if they'll go to a smaller displacement. What we do know is that the 5.5L displacement selected for the race cars have absolutely no bearing on the displacement of the production engines -- that was dictated by the rules.

Having said that, given that we are not changing the block size, a lower displacement V8 is not going to be lighter or smaller. It is also unlikely to be substantially more fuel efficient -- given that friction will essentially be the same while aspiration losses between a 5.5 and a 6.2 is minimal, especially with half the cylinders shut off as needed. All we know is that some form of variable timing and direct injection are confirmed. We also know that if nothing changes on the engines except the addition of AFM, DI and a 1 point bump in compression ratio, we can except about 17 mpg (City) / 28 mpg (Hwy) from a 6.2 V8 in a 3200 lbs vette -- representing a 6~7% fuel economy improvement over the current LS3. The 1 point compression bump also gets you ~464hp with no improvement whatsoever in any other respect of the engine (which is unlikely). Hence, an output of about 470 hp, perhaps as much as 500 hp, but no lower than 450hp should be expected. That is, in every respect, competitive with the numbers that competing DOHC V8 or Turbo V6 solutions offer.


This is the same engine as on the Astra OPC, right? If so I'd expect GM to not change the HP/Torque rating, even though I personally would like to see the Cadillac application set apart from the Opel one in more than engine/drivetrain layout.


GM always seems to change something in the tune so I would expect a little change. I just hope they don't detune it. This engine is not even near what it can do. I suspect Cadillac will be the first to get it with over 300 HP at some point.


270/260 is plenty competitive; no need to push the boundaries here.

What may be interesting -- for foreign markets at least -- is a high speed 2.1 NA based on the 2.5 block. With the same 88mm pistons, but using the 2.0T crank & rod set that shortens the stroke from 101mm to 86 mm, you get a 2141 cc displacement. More importantly, assuming the same piston speed limits, you end up with a 8200 rpm redline. Such an engine will make about 220 bhp @ 8000 rpm with about 156 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm. Quite a screamer.
  • 0

#36

67impss

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,311 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 09:11 AM

Dwight while using the same 88mm bore the pistons will be heavier because of the deck height to make up for the stroke loss. Will they be able to spin it that high? W/o forged units that would be a high load on the wrist pin boss :2cents:
  • 0

#37

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 11:34 AM

Dwight while using the same 88mm bore the pistons will be heavier because of the deck height to make up for the stroke loss. Will they be able to spin it that high? W/o forged units that would be a high load on the wrist pin boss :2cents:


It'll be higher than if you use light weight forged pistons, but no higher than on the 2.5 itself. The idea is to use the 2.5 pistons. The rods and crank will be 2.0T parts basically; those are forged for the turbo application. 8200 rpm is based on the same piston speeds and the same piston weight as the 2.5 @ its 7000 rpm redline.
  • 0

#38

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,012 posts

Posted 25 December 2011 - 11:33 AM

Wouldn't the rods have to be longer to make up for the stroke loss from the 2.0 crank? I may be picturing this wrong, but a shorter stroke crank with the same height pistons and same length crank would end up lowering compression? The space left in the cylinder when the piston is at TDC would be 7.5mm greater, no?
  • 0

#39

67impss

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,311 posts

Posted 25 December 2011 - 09:52 PM

Either or would need be longer that is what I was trying to convey to Dwight
I've worked up home brewed strokers before
  • 0

#40

hyperv6

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,564 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 09:52 AM

We can come up with a lot of specuations and toss around a lot of numbers but what was GM looking at?

Posted Image


Posted Image


This is where GM was looking when the money dried up. I suspect that things have not changed a lot and that the new money will be producing engines very similar in power and torque. I'm not saying this is the new engine but we can see what kind of numbers GM was working on and it should give us an idea where they were wanting to be by 2010 and later if they had not had to put many things on hold.

I do think GM should change the name Torque Curve and make it a Torque Plain. Note too the cars listed all had transmissions that would be up to task on giving more torque other than the 5 speed Kappa. That may have limited them on this version of the Eco. Today we have stronger drivelines now and coming that will take more. Note the Solstice with the LNF Turbo upgrade was given 340 FT-LBs if it has the 5 speed. This kind of Torque in a ATS would feel very welcome.

Edited by hyperv6, 26 December 2011 - 10:01 AM.

  • 0



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users