Ok, I did a forum search and got nothing. So, has anyone swapped in the ecotec turbo from a 2008 and up COBALT SS/REDLINE/HHR SS? I had a 2008 Cobalt SS Turbo while stationed in Germany and kept thinking that would be the ultimate engine swap in a Fiero. The combination of light weight and 400HP/TQ with only a MAP sensor upgrade and tune to turn up the boost just seams like a no brainer in a fiero. Plus, I got way better real world fuel economy than the 30mpg highway rating it came with. On level highway my instant average was always between 38-42 mpg at 75mph and my average fuel economy after 9K miles was 27mpg (and I was not exactly babying the thing either). Also you would get the launch control and "no lift shift" features with this install that would make it ridiculous fun. That twin scroll turbo spooled up so fast that the boost gauge could not keep up with it. I was LMFAO the first time I looked at the boost gauge under WOT and realized it could not keep up. This thing had zero turbo lag. So again, has anyone done one of these or plan doing one?
Out of all the cars i have owned and sold, that one is the only one I regret selling... (I have never sold a Fiero )
[This message has been edited by jediperk (edited 04-30-2014).]
Originally posted by jediperk: The combination of light weight and 400HP/TQ with only a MAP sensor upgrade and tune to turn up the boost just seams like a no brainer in a fiero.
You speak of the LNF engine. That engine came in a few vehicles, and he highest stock HP rating was 260. GM Performance parts offered an upgrade kit that would increase the HP to 290. There's no way you could increase the HP output by 50% "with only a MAP sensor upgrade"
Fellas, I am hoping to get ideas on putting in the Ecotec out of the 2014 Buick Regal Turbo. That is a TRUE performance engine. Your ideas and can you buy this engine over the counter? Thanks kevin
The engine out of the regal is the same LNF engine with a different tune. And YES YOU CAN get almost 400HP with just a MAP sensor upgrade AND a tune to up the boost. You are correct about the GM tune taking it to 290HP (and I think it was 329lb/ft or so of TQ), but they are not the only game in town for modding/tuning the LNF. With an upgraded MAP sensor you can up the boost to almost 30PSI witch would put you very close to 400HP and the engine comes from the factory with the internals and fuel system to support it. The sensor is needed to allow the computer to get an accurate reading of the extra air flow. If you have HP Tuners you can do the tune yourself pretty easily or just get a tune from Trifecta Performance/ZZP etc... The reality is, I just tuned mine to turn the boost up from the stock 16psi (it fluctuated a few psi based on altitude and air pressure/temp) to 21psi (max you could go without the MAP sensor upgrade) and that was plenty of power in a 3000lb FWD Coblat. I can't imagine what that would feel like in a Fiero. Actually, I can imagine which is why I started this thread...
Fellas, I am hoping to get ideas on putting in the Ecotec out of the 2014 Buick Regal Turbo. That is a TRUE performance engine. Your ideas and can you buy this engine over the counter? Thanks kevin
I own a HHR SS with the GM tune. I love it and in a 3200 pound vehicle it makes my 2.8 V6 feel like a slug.
It is true that you can get up to near 400 HP with just tuning and some bigger Intercooler and pipes. The limit is the pistons at that point as the boost would be too high for the stock pistons after that per GM. The rest of the engine will hold up to 500 HP with the right add on speed parts.
The limiting factor of the GM kit is the transaxle. The Solstice with the 5 speed manual has 340 FT LBS but the GM tune with the transaxle is at 315 FT LBS. It is not a matter of it but when you break parts. The same tranny was breaking for GTP guys once they clear 320 and if they messed with the engine management. The engine is willing to do more but the transaxles need help if you want more. If not you will bust an axle or spit a diff out.
I can say if given a choice of any swap in a Fiero this is the one to do. the engine is so light weight and powerful. The only real issues is the need to address cooling to protect the engine. The FIero just does not have the air flow a front engine has and you also have to address where to place the Intercooler where it is still effective. These issues can not be overlooked.
I agree the drive-train will be the limiting factor, but it normally is no matter what you swap in. As for cooling I thought about that one too. But then I saw on this forum where you can integrate the intercooler into the rear wing and that should take care of that. Also, I thought about just running a very small intercooler in the fender and using watermenthenol for additional cooling. With the battery relocated up front it would be too easy to add a kit where the batter was. Eventually, I will do this swap down the road as long as God does not check me out of here earlier. I want to finish my N* Fiero the rest of the way and then I'll start looking for a totaled low mileage car with the LNF motor.
[This message has been edited by jediperk (edited 04-30-2014).]
cooling is a non issue .air to water intercooling is the way to go with water meth .the heat exchanger can go in the engine bay with the rad up front .there is no need to do any thing out of the ordinary , ecotecs run pretty cool , even turbo'd .
they are potent! believe I should be sitting at close to 290/330 @ wheels. The zzp/trifecta tunes are more aggressive then GMS1 tune. in time I think this will be the new trend on fieros. I've knocked around a few camaro ss's with mine
------------------ 3800 SC/IC Formula whines more than your girl... 12.7@113 330 HP/430TQ 08 Cobalt SS TC - ZZP tuned, K&N SRI, 6k HID's 13.31@107
ZZP has built a couple of LE5 Ecotec motors to be pretty beastly in addition to LNF's. Both engines are a good choice, provided you use an earlier-model LE5. (forged internals from the factory versus non.)
On the intercooling issue: why bother with air:air in the Fiero? I get that an FMIC has great benefits on the Solstice/Sky/Cobalt, but we don't have the benefit of having our air intake up front. Instead, why not use an air:water intercooler and just put the heat exchanger(s) where they'll be most effective? The cost difference is marginal, the parasitic loss of running an electric water pump for it is minimal and the charge cooling is better in general. Is most likely what I will be doing when I finally go turbo in a few years. (Have the rest of the build to do first.)
[This message has been edited by Ravant (edited 05-01-2014).]
I've never driven any car that could deliver that combination of fuel economy and performance. Not even close. If it can get mid to high 30's in a 3000lb cobalt what kind of fuel economy will it get in a 2500lb fiero? Remember, this is an all aluminum engine weighing considerably less the either of the iron block engines that came with the Fiero. This engine combined with light weight aftermarket rims and a few other weight reducing tricks would get your fiero to within a couple hundred pounds of an Ariel Atom with equivalent to more power. And the other nice thing about this engine is turning up the boost to increase mid and peak TQ has no affect on the daily driving fuel economy.
Your driveline issue with the LNF is the torque. It is not just the peak torque but the torque curve.
Max Torque can be reached at below 2000 RPM and held up to 5300-5400 RPM. This can and will put loads on a wider range on the driveline even the V8 cars do not see if you do not keep the engine torque management systems in tact.
The other key will be to tune and refine the suspension on the car to make the power usable. Trust me it will be a hand full.
If it can get mid to high 30's in a 3000lb cobalt what kind of fuel economy will it get in a 2500lb fiero? Remember, this is an all aluminum engine weighing considerably less the either of the iron block engines that came with the Fiero. This engine combined with light weight aftermarket rims and a few other weight reducing tricks would get your fiero to within a couple hundred pounds of an Ariel Atom with equivalent to more power.
At the 30th, a set of race scales were used to weigh a bunch of different cars with variuous engine swaps. One turbo Ecotec was weighed in an 86 GT and tipped the scales at 2789. The engine is light, but by the time you add the turbo and intercooler things end up being very close to the stock fiero weight.
Thanks for that info Fieroguru. I can't believe I missed the turbo ecotec at the show. I wonder where he was at? I had the Silver N* fiero that weighed 3068lbs. But that thing is pretty much maxed out. The only thing missing is the spare tire. It has the wcf pwr steering, a/c, p/w, p/l, sunroof, etc... I guess I'm going to have to lower my weight expectations with the LNF swap, but still want to do one eventually. I love my N*, but DOHC V8 plus small gas tank = too many stops for fuel...
[This message has been edited by jediperk (edited 05-02-2014).]
The LNF bare is 307 pounds. Add between 50 and 75 for turbo and plumbing. You're looking at almost 385 for an installed LNF. If you go with the F35 transaxle with it, that's about 100 pounds too. Comparatively, the LE5 is 278 pounds wet according to Alpha Fab. Add 50-75 for a turbo there, and you're sitting around 353 pounds installed with a lighter F23 trans (around 80 pounds installed.) No Ariel Atom, but it will be as light as the Iron Duke, when all is said and done. (Around 2550, if my title is correct. Need to get it to the scales for a 'before' weight.) But turbo LE5s are good for 240-300 wheel horsepower on the stock internals as well. If you want true lightweight turbo power, look around the 1.4 Ecotec turbo from the Cruze/Sonic. Those, including turbo are around 300 pounds wet.
Originally posted by jediperk: I've never driven any car that could deliver that combination of fuel economy and performance. Not even close. If it can get mid to high 30's in a 3000lb cobalt what kind of fuel economy will it get in a 2500lb fiero? Remember, this is an all aluminum engine weighing considerably less the either of the iron block engines that came with the Fiero. This engine combined with light weight aftermarket rims and a few other weight reducing tricks would get your fiero to within a couple hundred pounds of an Ariel Atom with equivalent to more power. And the other nice thing about this engine is turning up the boost to increase mid and peak TQ has no affect on the daily driving fuel economy.
More like 2800 lbs, as fieroguru mentioned. Also, the 07 Cobalt SS with the high-rise spoiler has a drag coefficient of about 0.324 while the Fiero GT with spoiler is about 0.35. So swapped into a Fiero, you might see lower MPG numbers from what was had in the Cobalt.
The Cruze Eco is down to 0.30 though, so swap that LNF into a Cruze Eco, with the trans that comes in the Cruze, and it should make for a nice 40+ MPG car with 300 HP.
all the weight talk... unless its equaling 500+ lbs think its small beans. I was at strip weighed car with me in it 2850. Minus me 140 the cars sitting in at 2710 this is with 3800 with IC
dont get me wrong I know power to weight plays nice roll, but its not like me vs a 10 camaro ss that tips the scale at 3800 lbs. Now that's some weight!!
[This message has been edited by LoW_KeY (edited 05-02-2014).]
all the weight talk... unless its equaling 500+ lbs think its small beans. I was at strip weighed car with me in it 2850. Minus me 140 the cars sitting in at 2710 this is with 3800 with IC
dont get me wrong I know power to weight plays nice roll, but its not like me vs a 10 camaro ss that tips the scale at 3800 lbs. Now that's some weight!!
Weight also doesn't matter as much for highway MPG rating as drag coefficient does. City MPG though, weight matters a lot more for it. And I'm sure your Cobalt doesn't get 35 MPG in the city. Probably around 23-25 MPG for mostly city. The Cruze Eco I had got 45+ MPG regularly on all highway driving, but I regularly got 28-30 MPG for all local traffic with it. Same with the Mini Cooper I used to have. 36-38 MPG highway, and 25-27 local traffic.
Heaviest Cobalt SS vs heaviest Fiero GT with an LNF swap, both making the same power, the Cobalt is only going to be about 180 lbs heavier. So the Fiero might get a very tiny increase in all local (< 55 MPH) driving MPG over the Cobalt, but probably won't get better MPG on all highway driving. And the Fiero might win in the 1/4 mile, but only by a small amount, probably a tenth or so faster.
Well my HHR SS is like a aero brick and 3200 pound curb weight. With the GM Performance tune package I see 25 City and 32 highway driving it hard. Now if I hyper mile it I can do better but I normally take on ramps at 23 PSI of boost.
The key with this engine is the low end torque. If you have not driven one it is something that just does not come to reason as most engine so not have a torque curve that starts this low and holds on so long.
Also the fact the Direct Injection is a factor also as when you are off the gas no gas is put into the engine as it is in normal FI system.
This is why those of us with the GM tune have gained 1-2 confirmed MPG. I was working with the GM driveline engineer that developed the tune and he said that was an unexpected side effect they did not anticipate. He said the low end torque gets the car up to speed faster and letting off the gas sooner boost MPG even with the large gain in HP.
As it is my 2.8 V6 is a sold 21 MPG around town and I would expect the same engine properly installed would see at least 27 MPG city and at least 35 highway, I suspect I may be conservative on these numbers but at least in the ball park.
Note too my SS has 18" 55 series tires too so the there is much more inertia involved here too.
This engine is just a hoot if you have not driven one seek out a SS and take it for a spin. The only real beef I have with it is the car has a major issue of hooking up even at driving speed, The torque its and the tires yield so easy in the FWD and RWD. Even my launch control kicks in so much it slows it down. You kind of have to learn the boost pattern to make it hook up.
But is good the tires do break loose as if not I suspect the tranny would die.
This would not be a cheap or easy swap since it is not one many have sorted out. But it would be the engine that the car should have had in the first place if GM only had it back then.
As for weight it will beat any cast iron engine by some and only be challenged by a LS aluminum engine.
Also the abilities of this engine are great. With only minor mods 500 HP is reliably achieved. With some other small changes you can easily take one to 1,000 HP on the stock block and head. I was able to work with John Lingenfelter before his passing and he was racing one in his truck and was nearing 1500 HP on the stock head before he could break it.
Before anyone does anything to a Eco buy these two books.
They are both good but the builder guide will tell you everything you need to know about all the early gen Eco engines and GM even list the limits on each and ever major part.
This engine will be come the small block of the future as they will be in great number and cheap to buy. I have a local guy here with a old 30 ford chopped coupe. It is not fancy but he has a nearly 600 HP Turbo Eco in it. He also owns a C6 Z06 and said this car will kick the Z06's a$$. The potential of this engine is now just being learned by many and it make for a neat alternative to doing the same old thing if you want to be different.
I am 5 years in and still loving my trouble free turbo. I want to get a truck again but I hate to lose my SS. It is just one fast and fun car to drive. It also is a sleeper that shock many.
I have one Vtech guy I just drove away from that I would have loved to pulled over and show I had a load of near 350 pounds in the back of the car. He started it and I finished it.
Note too the HHR as it sits will do a high 13 second with a automatic if you can get the tires to hook up and leave the launch control off. It also will do 153 MPH un modified and with the GM tune I would think it may near 160 MPH. That is one I will not test as who in their right mind would want to go that fast in a brick. There is no speed limiter. I have seen on the forum others have passed up 150 in their stock SS.
I hit 150MPH on the autobahn with my Cobalt SS with the stock tune. I also had a 2007 Mustang GT that was heavily modded and and hit similar speeds in it and I can tell you the Cobalt was waaay more planted and stable in the process. Not even close. With the 21psi tune I took it out on the 'bahn with a friend who had an 07 Mustang GT with the 475HP Saleen S/C and he could not pull away from me. He couldn't believe it.
Oh yeah, before I forget. I've seen a lot of people concerned with being able to hook up with so much TQ but zzp has an easy solution for this. They will send you a tune that limits boost in 1st gear to allow the car to hook up and then go full boost from 2nd on. Or if you invest in HP Tuners you put the boost to whatever you want in any gear. This engine has so much flexibility its ridiculous and no wonder GM is putting it in so many different vehicles.
[This message has been edited by jediperk (edited 05-02-2014).]
you still spin a touch in first with boost reduction but its up top. Once you hit 2nd I start to spin 45 then it catches 3rd gear wraps up to 100... 4th 140. Yes it'll do every bit of 160....
if I didn't have fiero I'd upgrade turbo over the stock K04
Originally posted by Ravant: If you want true lightweight turbo power, look around the 1.4 Ecotec turbo from the Cruze/Sonic. Those, including turbo are around 300 pounds wet.
You know, that might be an even better engine for a daily driver fiero. It does not have enough TQ for the Cruze, but in a light weight fiero it would and it would get ridiculous fuel economy while still providing you with a pretty quick fiero. Also, just to be clear I would not be putting one of these engines in the heavier GT cars but a lighter weight notchback. That ecoturbo at the 30th that weighed 2700+ was a GT...
Originally posted by jediperk: You know, that might be an even better engine for a daily driver fiero. It does not have enough TQ for the Cruze, but in a light weight fiero it would and it would get ridiculous fuel economy while still providing you with a pretty quick fiero. Also, just to be clear I would not be putting one of these engines in the heavier GT cars but a lighter weight notchback. That ecoturbo at the 30th that weighed 2700+ was a GT...
Light weight Fiero? The Cruze Eco and a Fiero GT weigh about the same, and they make about the same HP and TQ. But the 1.4 turbo in the Cruze Eco hits peak TQ at about 1800 RPM, and keeps making that torque pretty well throughout the RPM range. It's only about 150 lb-ft, which is a little less than the 2.8 V6, but when you can spin the engine to 6500 RPM with that, it does a pretty good job of it. The car, nor the engine, are built for performance, but comparing it to a 25 year old stock Fiero GT, the Cruze Eco will probably win a race. I had a Cruze Eco a couple years ago. While it certainly didn't feel the same as a Fiero, I still drove it like it was one, and it certainly didn't have any trouble getting moving from a dead stop. It certainly wouldn't have any trouble moving a Fiero GT, with the M32 trans that comes in the Eco model.
But now the 2014 Cruze has a Turbo Diesel option, which makes 265 lb-ft of torque, 151 HP, and is rated at 46 MPG. Throw one of those in a Fiero, and see how it moves.
Light weight Fiero? The Cruze Eco and a Fiero GT weigh about the same
No they don't. The curb weight of a Cruze Eco is 3011 for the manual, 3102 for the auto. The curb weight of a fully-loaded Fiero GT is at most, 2789 pounds. The V6 in the Fiero is 76 pounds heavier than the 1.4 turbo, when both are fully dressed, and when the 1.4T has all its turbo components installed. Means - if you modify a GT to accept a 1.4T, it'll weigh, at absolute most, 2713. Which is 300 to 400 pounds less than a Cruze Eco. That 3 to 400 pounds makes a difference in how the car responds. The Fiero V6 has 3 less horsepower at peak and more torque (12 more), but you're right, the 1.4T also has very close to an idle-to-redline torque plateau. (Torque kicks in at 2500 RPM, lasts until 4900 RPM, peak horsepower arrives at 4900 RPM.) The 1.4T makes at least 90% of its torque from idle to 6,000 RPM. The V6, however, peaks its torque all the way up, comparatively, at 3600 RPM, has very little before the curve, and only has a 900 RPM powerband (lasting until about 4500 RPM, where horsepower peaks out.) And even then, after the curve, there's a fairly fast dropoff as you approach redline.
The average power across the band is higher with the 1.4T, it's almost 100 pounds lighter (engine/trans combo), and it's got a much smaller displacement. For "excitement," the 1.4T would make for a decent daily, roughly equaling the V6 in terms of drivability, if not improving your 0-60 a tenth or three. And as far as fuel economy, it'd blow the V6 away, with you seeing between 38 and 40 MPG in a GT body, probably a bit less in a notchie because of the CD. Do Norm's tilt front clip (or flushmounts and a hood vent), a hatch back-end, some more aerodynamic mirrors and windshield wipers, and you can expect over 50 MPG. Hell, just the mirrors and wipers alone would do probably about half that improvement. The mirrors trail a fairly considerable wake behind them, and wiper arms are some of the biggest offenders for CD, which is why most newer cars hide them under the hood when possible.
Not sure the OP was looking for a daily with fuel economy though. And if that's the case, LSJ with turbo, LE5 with turbo or LNF are your best bet. LNF's are still on the pricey side yet, so are LSJ's, but LE5's are pretty cheap from what I'm seeing as I look around. 2006-2007 year has forged internals and can be pushed pretty hard without blowing up. There are some guys pushing in excess of 700 horse with E85 on their turbo LSJ's, and some in the 600 horse mark on the LNF's with E85. The LE5 doesn't go as high, but the price is lower.
Edited: Because I accidentally a word.
[This message has been edited by Ravant (edited 05-04-2014).]
Originally posted by Ravant: The average power across the band is higher with the 1.4T, it's almost 100 pounds lighter (engine/trans combo), and it's got a much smaller displacement. For "excitement," the 1.4T would make for a decent daily, roughly equaling the V6 in terms of drivability, if not improving your 0-60 a tenth or three. And as far as fuel economy, it'd blow the V6 away, with you seeing between 38 and 40 MPG in a GT body, probably a bit less in a notchie because of the CD. Do Norm's tilt front clip (or flushmounts and a hood vent), a hatch back-end, some more aerodynamic mirrors and windshield wipers, and you can expect over 50 MPG. Hell, just the mirrors and wipers alone would do probably about half that improvement. The mirrors trail a fairly considerable wake behind them, and wiper arms are some of the biggest offenders for CD, which is why most newer cars hide them under the hood when possible. .
The weight difference between the Fiero and the Cruze is not enough to make any real dent in performance or MPG between the two. The higher CD of the Fiero will balance out the weight difference, and while area under the curve is better, it is making less torque than the V6. The FWD versus RWD also contributes to the difference in handling of the cars, as does the chassis structure. I'd say the 1.4t would get more than 40 MPG in a Fiero GT though. I don't think Norm's front end makes any real difference to the CD. A lip spoiler might be better than the factory spoiler though. Low resistance tires would certainly help too, at the sacrifice of some performance.
Originally posted by dobey: The weight difference between the Fiero and the Cruze is not enough to make any real dent in performance or MPG between the two.
This statement is patently false. The drag coefficient difference between the Cruze and Fiero will make a difference for highway MPG. But as far as performance? A 300 pound weight difference is quite a large difference for acceleration, deceleration and lateral acceleration numbers. By a pretty wide margin. 300 pounds is 3/10ths in the quarter, or three full carlengths, for example.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: Originally posted by dobey:[/B]The higher CD of the Fiero will balance out the weight difference,
Only when looking at fuel economy. The CD isn't high enough to completely negate the full 300 pound weight difference when it comes to acceleration, deceleration and lateral acceleration. Inertia is a powerful force to be reckoned with.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: and while area under the curve is better, it is making less torque than the V6.
That doesn't matter. You're spending more time in gear accelerating, and less time out of gear shifting with the 1.4T when compared to the V6. When given the option, I will always take the broader, flatter powerband over dyno-recorded peak numbers. Because a broader, flatter powerband around an autocross track/road course will always save your ass if you happen to drop below your curve on a shift due to lack of experience. (I've been doing this 11 years now, and still occasionally screw up my shifts/staying in-band at the apex of a turn. I'm human. It happens.) Having more power across the band means even out-of-peak, you are accelerating at a reasonable rate. When you have a peaky, short powerband, when you're outside of that band, you aren't accelerating as hard.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: The FWD versus RWD also contributes to the difference in handling of the cars, as does the chassis structure.
Weight is a huge part of that. 100 pounds is enough to make a difference. 300 is a change of night or day for a vehicle. Ask me how I know. (Have been on the SCCA Miata scene before I got my Fiero. Started that in 2003 up in New York. I've essentially been building and racing street-legal vehicles on and off since 2003. Did shifter karts before then.)
quote
Originally posted by dobey: I'd say the 1.4t would get more than 40 MPG in a Fiero GT though.
Depends on the driver. But this is the same for any car. I was able to get a consistent 29 MPG in a 2000 Eldorado ETC with the 300-horse Northstar. But people on the forums struggled to see 24, because the Northstar's engine note is addicting as hell when you get your foot in it.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: I don't think Norm's front end makes any real difference to the CD.
A major contribution to the Fiero's CD is the fact that it's sucking air up from the lower lip to pass over the radiator, then stops it short with the airtight wall of the front bonnet. It's the equivalent of having a flat upright the size of the radiator bolted to the front of your car. It's also why your headlight covers will pop up between 100 and 120 MPH. Norm's front clip has a front lip that directs air up through the radiator, then immediately vents to atmosphere instead, allowing the air to smoothly flow up and over the vehicle, reducing the Fiero's front lift problem at speed. Lift == drag. Like I said in the previous post, doing a hood vent will get similar, but not equal results. (The Norm's clip has a really big hole right down to the radiator.) Having flush-mounted headlights molded to the front clip with no panel gaps also helps reduce drag further, plus you don't increase drag at night. And don't believe me about how much drag the Fiero's popups cause? If both of your front headlight motors work, try this yourself. Go on a highway. Get to the speed limit. Go into neutral. Coast. Watch drop of speedometer. Turn on lights. Watch air-brake effect. I've done it numerous times to make a few of my Miata buddies laugh back when I had my old 1.6 NA Miata. I've also done it a few times in the Fiero to see if it was any better than the Miata. It isn't.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: A lip spoiler might be better than the factory spoiler though.
If you do this without venting the hood, you're just increasing drag further by using downforce to counteract the lift, generating an exponential function instead of a linear as far as your drag goes.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: Low resistance tires would certainly help too, at the sacrifice of some performance.
They would.
Edited to clarify points.
[This message has been edited by Ravant (edited 05-04-2014).]
Having a N* out of a 1993 Cadillac Eldorado ETC in the back of my Fiero I can attest to the addictive rumble produced by this engine
Also, everyone keeps talking about CD and fuel economy. That's all good for HIGHWAY fuel economy, but make no mistake about it, weight plays a large role in CITY fuel economy and that plays a larger part in overall average fuel economy for daily driver use (unless you are commuting to work)...
[This message has been edited by jediperk (edited 05-04-2014).]
You guys sure about the weights? I'm running a l36 / isuzu in an '88 coupe, and my car with me and a full tank of gas weighed 2910 at the public scales.
I'm 215, so that leaves 2695 lbs full wet. I'm also running 17" rims which do not help the weight..
I'd have a really hard time believing an ecotec weighs MORE than my iron block/head 3800.
You guys sure about the weights? I'm running a l36 / isuzu in an '88 coupe, and my car with me and a full tank of gas weighed 2910 at the public scales.
I'm 215, so that leaves 2695 lbs full wet. I'm also running 17" rims which do not help the weight..
I'd have a really hard time believing an ecotec weighs MORE than my iron block/head 3800.
The 2.0T ecotecs are lighter than the 3800 when you compare the blocks. But when you add 50 to 75 pounds worth of plumbing, piping, extra exhaust work and oil lines, it adds up. 3800 L36 is 428.8 pounds with oil and accessories. The 2.0T Ecotec is 357 pounds with oil and accessories. It's 71.8 pounds less than the 3800 L36, but makes more power than and almost as much torque as an L67, which weighs 445 pounds. So - yeah, they're heavy, forged, built little things designed to make pretty decent power.
At the 30th, a set of race scales were used to weigh a bunch of different cars with variuous engine swaps. One turbo Ecotec was weighed in an 86 GT and tipped the scales at 2789. The engine is light, but by the time you add the turbo and intercooler things end up being very close to the stock fiero weight.
That was my car .i was surprised at the weight .but overall , my car was one of the lightest weighed and i had a full tank of gas and i have 11" brakes al around and a bump steer kit and pretty sure i left my tool box in the trunk .The fellow that brought the scales did not have time to properly calibrate them either with all the rain we had .there is a thread that was started and it is good for comparisons .Overall weight accuracy is debatable .My car was hard to find at the 30th .I was in the mini van section .the front / rear worked out to 44.1% front 55.9% rear .stock 86 gt was 42.4/57.6 .( car and driver test) original car has a curb weight of 2778lbs according to the road test .But it does not say if that was weighed by the tester or just GM supplied figures .with a turbo 2.2 you are going to first take off some weight with the lighter motor but then add some back on with the turbo and piping .put the battery in the front , build a lightweight exhaust and intake and put your intercooler rad and pump up front and it does improve the balance of the car .a swap put in to a bone stock car would give the best results .big brakes are heavy , and i found the bumpsteer kit added about 30 lbs .I also have a cold can waterbox up front for the intercooler and a lot of plumbing that NA cars dont have.
[This message has been edited by wftb (edited 05-07-2014).]
The LNF turbo engines weight includes the turbo. There is no extra exhaust plumbing with the engine b/c the twin scroll turbo is mounted directly to the exhaust manifold (that is why it has zero, and I do mean ZERO, turbo lag). Mounted into a notch back fiero the exhaust would be on the trunk (rear) of the compartment. I would literally have the high flow cat mounted a couple inches away from the turbo outlet and couple inches after that a Supertrap running straight out the middle of the rear end. You would actually reduce exhaust plumbing weight which would more than offset any gain in the intake/watermeth cooling side of business. Also, with the 1.4T Ecotec if I remember right the turbo is actually integrated into the exhaust manifold as a single unit. Not sure which side of the engine it is on though. If it's the firewall side like an HHR/COBALT then you could mount it in Fiero the same way...
The LNF turbo engines weight includes the turbo. There is no extra exhaust plumbing with the engine b/c the twin scroll turbo is mounted directly to the exhaust manifold (that is why it has zero, and I do mean ZERO, turbo lag). Mounted into a notch back fiero the exhaust would be on the trunk (rear) of the compartment. I would literally have the high flow cat mounted a couple inches away from the turbo outlet and couple inches after that a Supertrap running straight out the middle of the rear end. You would actually reduce exhaust plumbing weight which would more than offset any gain in the intake/watermeth cooling side of business. Also, with the 1.4T Ecotec if I remember right the turbo is actually integrated into the exhaust manifold as a single unit. Not sure which side of the engine it is on though. If it's the firewall side like an HHR/COBALT then you could mount it in Fiero the same way...
The last LNF I worked with last August showed 310 lbs without the turbo, plumbing, intercooler and oil lines. (It was a block, intake mani and accessories. There were still some residual fluids sloshing around inside. The turbo and exhaust manifold were taken off by the JY and sold.) Add the exhaust mani, the turbo, the intercooler and the piping that was missing and you're looking around an extra 50 pounds or so.
I might add here I owned two different 3800 SC one was a Series II and the other as the Series III. Both were great engines and served me well. But compared to the flat torque band on the LNF they can not even hold a candle to it.
I had my LNF at the same time we still had the GTP Series III and when I would get back in the GTP after the HHR it felt so slow and less high strung. The HHR would just pull away from the GTP so easy and the weights were not that much different.
Both are good engines but the combination of DI, Turbo and VVT make for an engine that just has all sorts of torque at nearly any RPM. The only thing that limits the torque is the computer to keep the tranny alive.
)
3rd gear wraps up to 100... 4th 140. Yes it'll do every bit of 160.... 
