dwightlooi

Predictions for NEW 2.0T engine

47 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

lnydatast6.gif

lnxlnyfg5.jpg

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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Hyper. I doubt they would go backwards from what they already had.

Just on marketing alone it would be a difficult to sell a new and improved engine with less power and Torque. Even a marginal improvment would give them some brag rights.

I also expect Ford to pump more power out of the Ecoboost soon. They also have not even started to tap into what it could do.

The fact is the Ecotec is the new Small Block for the auto line up. It will be the economy engine like a 307 but it will also be the performance engine for many models like the LT1 was. The engine will be like the small block and share a design but they will come with many different internals to deal with the power they will produce.

The V6 will be the Big Block and provide the option for more of everything in the other cars. The V8 I see limited to the Corvette, Cadillac and trucks. The Camaro will keep it I feel for the next gen only in the top model but I feel it may have a limited life in the future to models like the ZL1. Ford is already to push more Eco Turbo V6 and 4 cylinder Mustangs and I suspect the V8 will also become much more limited to things like a Shelby only. That is down the road but I could see it happening by 2020 at least in the Ford.

And don't say it will not and could not work. Who ever suspected people would ever buy 100,000 F 150's with a Turbo V6 in one year at a higher price than a V8. The market and buyers are and have been shifting to new ideas of what they will buy. Higher MPG claims or not they sold a hell of a lot of trucks at a mark up and it should not go un noticed by GM.

Edited by hyperv6
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

No, the stroke will not need to be longer. Combining the 2.5 pistons with the 2.0 crank gives you 2.14 liters of displacement. The crank determines the stroke length -- how much the pistons are moved. What needs to be longer is the connecting rods if you want to maintain the compression ratio (or increase it). Otherwise the pistons simply wouldn't go as high and the compression will be lower -- displacement doesn't change. Longer rods, although slightly heavier, can actually be good for high rpm durability because they reduce the side loads on the cylinder walls. When the crank pin is at 90 or 270 degrees, the longer the rod the narrower the rod angle and hence side thrust loads.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

GM's official site now reports 270 hp @ 5300 & 260 lb-ft @ 2400. So that settles the doubts as to when the actual peak arrives, despite 90% of it being available from 1500 to 5800 rpm.

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/cadillac/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Jan/2012_naias/cadillac/0108_ats_overview

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the point I think hyper brought up, wouldn't the 2.5 pistons start smacking off the valves?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was the point I think hyper brought up, wouldn't the 2.5 pistons start smacking off the valves?

Why will they? The 2.5 pistons are 88 mm wide vs 86mm wide for the 2.0. Mainly the reduction in bore in the 2.0 is to give it thcker cylinder walls.

If you bore a 2.0 out to 88mm and simply use the 2.5 pistons, the pistons are not going to travel higher or lower than in the 2.0 engiine.

If the two engines have the same deck height relative to the crank axis, it means that the 2.5 has long crank throws with shorter connecting rods, whereas the 2.0 has shorter crank throws with longer connecting rods.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dwight the compression hight can be changed by the rod or piston but is normaly altered by the piston it self. In looking into the cheapest way to build a mega mouse SB Chevy I found that in using a off the shelf piston designed for a 5.850 length rod instead of a 5.7 the piston would be at deck hight with my custom stroke

And now you guys will see how bad I spell with out spell check. I've updated my Linux distribution and now as Hyper says I can't get spell check to work within the fourm outside it OK but not here. Any ideas? I'm using FoxFire maybe I'll D/L Chrome or try KDE's default. I hate looking dumb since I at least know that its spelled wrong if I see it. It's not that I'm lazy I'm dixlexic plus spelling was my worst subject I can spot incorrect spelling though and that just makes it so much worse.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now