There is no substitute for cubic inches or CC's, so why did GM turbo a 2 Ltr over a 2.4 Ltr? Wouldn't a bigger engine yield more power?

 

I'm not sure of the reasoning but I do know that VW did the same in the beetle. 1.8 vs the 2.0..

 

Well you would have to have a lower compression i think. Sorry to say the SRT$ is a 2.4l. My buddys got a VR6 turbo and he love leaving Vettes and Stangs.

 

I think the reason they did is because they already had it, the basic engine is from Europe and is also used in the Sky, saved money. Just my feeling, but I doubt there would be a turbo in a HHR (is that spelled right) if they had to new tool one.

 

true the Saab engine and set up

 

The 2.0 turbo Ecotec was used by Saab for years until it was redesigned for use in the Sky/Solstice with the Gen II block and SIDI upgrades. The 2.4 has a longer stroke and would have had more engineering and reliability challenges at the high RPMs turbo motors like to operate in without some serious coin going into the R&D.

Basically, if you don't want a turbo but a torquey engine, go with the 2.4.

 

What's even funnier is seeing turbo'd Vettes and Stangs leaving VR6's and Evo's in the tire smoke...

 

Wow i was right, im a good parts guy,lol

 

another reason is the 2.0 comes with better rods........

 

What I gathered was it was a sleeved 2.2 for better compression or something like that. And I think the 2.4 head gasket I'm assuming are slimmer which would suck for constant racing. My bros blown 2 head gaskets in his Supra already from autoXing. Of course I think its his fault but you try telling him that ... geesh