I could have ssworn that all ECOTEC motors had variable valve timing. It seems like I heard this when they were first introduced into the Cavalier line. But everywhere I read it says that VVT is being INTRODUCED into the ECOTEC family with the addition of the all new 2.4L NA motor! However I did read somewhere that VVT was a possibility on the ECOTEC motors:
VVT- Its on the 2nd page, left hand side. (http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/events/racing/Eco_auto.pdf)
What does this mean can you swap the head and make it VVT??? I believe you can do that on some Hondas can you not??? If anybody can shed any light on this, let me know because I have OBVIOUSLY been misinformed about THIS one for a LOOOONG time.... Kinda pisses me off too :mad:

I could have ssworn that all ECOTEC motors had variable valve timing. It seems like I heard this when they were first introduced into the Cavalier line. But everywhere I read it says that VVT is being INTRODUCED into the ECOTEC family with the addition of the all new 2.4L NA motor! However I did read somewhere that VVT was a possibility on the ECOTEC motors:
VVT- Its on the 2nd page, left hand side. (http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/events/racing/Eco_auto.pdf)
What does this mean can you swap the head and make it VVT??? I believe you can do that on some Hondas can you not??? If anybody can shed any light on this, let me know because I have OBVIOUSLY been misinformed about THIS one for a LOOOONG time.... Kinda pisses me off too :mad:

My buddy in Florida has a Colorado, he says that his I5 has VVt on it stock.

The 2.2 and 2.0-SC Ecotec do not have VVT (yet) while the 2.4 gets this feature.
The Colorado I4 and I5 engines both have VVT (I drive a Colorado Z71 Crew Cab) and look for most all GM power plants to have VVT by 2008.

Don't ask me why the current Ecotec's don't have it.

Dude y are u guys talking about toyota's here?

Dude, what the hell have u been smokin?

Im not into smokin and stuff like that i think that drugs are only for losers!

The 2.2 and 2.0-SC Ecotec do not have VVT (yet) while the 2.4 gets this feature.
The Colorado I4 and I5 engines both have VVT (I drive a Colorado Z71 Crew Cab) and look for most all GM power plants to have VVT by 2008.

Don't ask me why the current Ecotec's don't have it.
Do you know if or when the 2.2L and 2.0L S/C will have vvt?? Within the next year or so maybe, hopefully, please say yes?!?!?!
And if not, do you think that when they DO come out w/ vvt it will be possible to swap the heads and have a functional vvt setup on the current ECOTECS???
Dude, what the hell have u been smokin?
Ignore him, he's stupid. He needs help anyways. He's full of off the wall comments.

GM has not announced exactly when they will integrate VVT in to the 2.2 and 2.0 SC engines, VVT is under development for these two motors to enable the engines to adhere to stricter EPA regulations in the near future but most likely 2006-2007 model years.

It is doubtful that a head-swap will do the trick, the GM VVT system uses cam phasing and a different ECU with different software to get the job done.

Ignore me dude seriously, why are u guys so racist just because im black u wont talk to me!

Ignore him, he's stupid. He needs help anyways. He's full of off the wall comments.

My guess is that they would get along REAL well together...

Dude y are u guys talking about toyota's here?

That was my first thought, then I first read the title?? Because from what I've seen, the only motor that I've seen VVT on it was the Celica motor. Of course that's VVT-i or VVTL-i. Othe then that those motor that has variable valve timing would just say that in the manual, and not actually on the motor. Then again, I haven't see the SS motor yet or the RL so I don't know if GM put VVT label on their motor or not?

I was just using vvt as short for the actual term "variable valve timing". And yes now that you said something about it I recall the VVT-i and such. But those are all just acronyms for the general idea of variable valve timing (VTECH, iVTECH, VVTi, VVTCS, CVTCS, etc). Sorry bout that.

That was my first thought, then I first read the title?? Because from what I've seen, the only motor that I've seen VVT on it was the Celica motor. Of course that's VVT-i or VVTL-i. Othe then that those motor that has variable valve timing would just say that in the manual, and not actually on the motor. Then again, I haven't see the SS motor yet or the RL so I don't know if GM put VVT label on their motor or not?

We're just using the acronym for Variable Valve Timing. Its all the same basic applications, just the specifics that are different. Any of the Toyota's with the variable timing have that name to em, not just the Celica, lets not forget the Corolla with the VVT! Big power there. It's not on the redline or cobalt yet, just the Colorados that I know about. I would assume the Trailblazer would get it, since the Colorado's motor is almost the same.

What about it Spooner, you think it will be possible to do a head swap and possibly ecu as well to convert it to vvt???

Probably more trouble than it's worth to do the swap.

At bare minimum, you'll need an entirely new head, new ECU, and a couple wires and sensors.

At worst, you'll need all of the above, plus a significantly altered engine harness, and other major electrical work. GM is known for using a Bosch ECU one day, then tossing a GMPT or Delphi one in the next. Wouldn't surprise me if the Ecotecs with cam phasing used entirely new ECUs that may not cooperate with other parts of the car, hence big electrical reworks.

And all this for what? 10hp? Maybe 0.5mpg more? Not worth it. You'd be way better off buying a blower from an SS (if you have a base model), or by getting some exhaust/intercooler/intake work done to your existing SS.

I know it'd be a cool thing to do, and no doubt some pioneer will try it, but I bet you your money is better spent elsewhere.

Right, unless there are big gains, and unless you already are supercharged, it's a long, complicated, expensive process. There are easier ways to make power. I don't doubt that it's possible, but like he said above, and without seeing the two systems laid out, there are easier ways for now. If it was just as simple as switching the head, ecu and a sensor or two, might be worth checking into. IF the power gain is reasonable.

I think with any kind of modification you really have to look closely at the performance/cost ratio. Just because something is a good idea on paper doesn't necessarily imply that it's the best thing to do for your car. Cam phasing is certainly a good idea - more peak power, broader torque curve, mileage improvements. But in the absolute best case, you still have to go buy a new cylinder head from the dealer to do it, which is going to be at LEAST 600 bucks, probably more, and that's just not good value for your money. Like I said before, if you don't have a supercharger, try that instead. If you do, look at some smaller pulleys & a bigger intercooler.

I think with any kind of modification you really have to look closely at the performance/cost ratio. Just because something is a good idea on paper doesn't necessarily imply that it's the best thing to do for your car. Cam phasing is certainly a good idea - more peak power, broader torque curve, mileage improvements. But in the absolute best case, you still have to go buy a new cylinder head from the dealer to do it, which is going to be at LEAST 600 bucks, probably more, and that's just not good value for your money. Like I said before, if you don't have a supercharger, try that instead. If you do, look at some smaller pulleys & a bigger intercooler.

The smaller pulley route is a few hundred dollars, the injectors are nearly maxed out, so is the MAF sensor, and the manifold pressure sensor. They all have to be replaced, and you need a piggy back to work the fuel curves right. There is a kit coming soon with all these parts and an 18lb boost rate. Should be good horsepower gains, but the company is talking $800 for the upgrade. The rumor is that it's worth around 50+ horsepower with no other mods.

The smaller pulley route is a few hundred dollars, the injectors are nearly maxed out, so is the MAF sensor, and the manifold pressure sensor. They all have to be replaced, and you need a piggy back to work the fuel curves right. There is a kit coming soon with all these parts and an 18lb boost rate. Should be good horsepower gains, but the company is talking $800 for the upgrade. The rumor is that it's worth around 50+ horsepower with no other mods.
So 50hp for $800. That's a way better deal than probably $800+ for perhaps 10-15hp at best with cam phasing.

Just curious - where are you getting your info? About injectors, MAP and MAF sensors being close to pegged? Not sayin I don't believe you, just wondering. :)

So 50hp for $800. That's a way better deal than probably $800+ for perhaps 10-15hp at best with cam phasing.

Just curious - where are you getting your info? About injectors, MAP and MAF sensors being close to pegged? Not sayin I don't believe you, just wondering. :)

Strangely enough we Saturn Redline owners have been neck deep into our cars already. Pop into the Redline forums, TONS of mods and parts discussions. There is a company called Psi-Fi that makes parts for the SRTs and now the Redline/SS. They have done MUCH research with the Ion Redline, in fact they have a test mule that matches one of their SRT's with similar mods. It's a 2 bar MAP sensor, the MAF runs out of metering room at 14.7psi, and I forget the injector size on it. Some things could be different on the Cobalt, but I doubt it REAL highly, at least not on the engine itself. The biggest issue is the ECU and the injectors. The car will lean out dangerously without tuning and injectors that can handle the increased airflow. They also commented that the stock ECU tuning, at least for the Redline, was some of the worst they've seen. My guess is that they're getting power with just some revised tuning on the ECM. Superchips is putting out a chip/controller as well, at least that's what they say in the email I got, so that should help too.

Interesting. Yeah, I forgot the Ion is the same engine, and people have had those for a while.

I was hoping someone would come up with a decent tuning system/chip/whatever. Even making 200hp, I'm sure it's tuned conservatively from the factory. With some tweaked fueling, and a couple more degrees of spark if you're willing to use 91 octane fuel, I bet you could get another 10-20hp out of it easily, without a single modification at all.

Interesting. Yeah, I forgot the Ion is the same engine, and people have had those for a while.

I was hoping someone would come up with a decent tuning system/chip/whatever. Even making 200hp, I'm sure it's tuned conservatively from the factory. With some tweaked fueling, and a couple more degrees of spark if you're willing to use 91 octane fuel, I bet you could get another 10-20hp out of it easily, without a single modification at all.

You have to run premium anyway in the 2.0SC.

The Ion is the same exact car, minus the rims. Some debate on the tranny ratios. Same suspension, drivetrain, shiter assembly, (we get the Recaos free though!), boost gauge (you guys get that free), frame, chassis. Same car.

You have to run premium anyway in the 2.0SC.

The Ion is the same exact car, minus the rims. Some debate on the tranny ratios. Same suspension, drivetrain, shiter assembly, (we get the Recaos free though!), boost gauge (you guys get that free), frame, chassis. Same car.
Indeed... that makes more sense. The GM Canada website says 87 octane for the SS, thought that sounded a bit weird!

Indeed... that makes more sense. The GM Canada website says 87 octane for the SS, thought that sounded a bit weird!

Yea, it's strange, they tell you in the manual that it CAN run on 87, some dealers even told Saturn customers 87 was fine. I'm not sure who runs 87 on a forced induction engine, but I wouldn't.

Yea, it's strange, they tell you in the manual that it CAN run on 87, some dealers even told Saturn customers 87 was fine. I'm not sure who runs 87 on a forced induction engine, but I wouldn't.
Well there's no written law that says FI = 91 octane. GENERALLY you need higher octane with greater compression, but not always. Hell lots of new hi-tech engines can run 11.0:1 compression on 87 octane, so it's certainly not unthinkable that a supercharged engine could get away with 87. Hell I bet if you took an SS and swapped in a more substantial intercooler to get charge temps down, you could run the same spark timings with 87 and not detonate. But yeah, I agree... dealers should definitely be more educated and better at explaining the impact of running different fuel grades.

just run 91/ 93, stfu and your car will love you ;)

Well there's no written law that says FI = 91 octane. GENERALLY you need higher octane with greater compression, but not always. Hell lots of new hi-tech engines can run 11.0:1 compression on 87 octane, so it's certainly not unthinkable that a supercharged engine could get away with 87. Hell I bet if you took an SS and swapped in a more substantial intercooler to get charge temps down, you could run the same spark timings with 87 and not detonate. But yeah, I agree... dealers should definitely be more educated and better at explaining the impact of running different fuel grades.

Swapping the intercooler is not that easy either. It's cast into the intake manifold, sorta...

It will run fine on any gas really, I put 89 in one day when I was on empty just to see. I got terrible gas mileage, and the lack of power was noticeable, I might have been looking too hard for the power, but the gas mileage went down 3-5mpg. I only used about 4 gallons, so it wasn't very scientific or anything. The manual says 91, but if that is not available you can use lower octane but performance my suffer as a result.

I don't really mind usin 91. I generally use it on my 2.2L S-10... well... when I'm not broke anyways. Just got laid off from Circuit City, workin at Best Buy now and still waitin on checks to come in. 2 more severance checks from CCity and a full paycheck from Best Buy w/in the next two weeks!!! :D So I'll be doin a lil better!

crank sensor of 2.2 and 2.4vvt are different,2.4 vvt wheel are like
fins compared to like 7 position of the crankshaft of a 2.2