Ok so I obviously have an 07' cobalt. Manual 2.2l. K & N cold air intake. and I'm on the road to putting an exhaust on it to help with the air flow from the intake. My question is this: After the exhaust, I want to put either a turbo or a supercharger on it. And can't decide. I've done some research and found that the turbo usually beats out the super. But the turbo may be a tad bit out of my price range. so I'm leaning towards the super. Does anyone have any feedback or know a place to get these kits for less than my soul? I don't expect it to be dirt cheap, just not my entire life savings lol.
Head over to the Ecotecforum.com - those guys know a lot about adding power to that engine.
Turbos go on anything but if it has less than 6 cylinders superchargers are a waste. Turbos are free energy but superchargers use the engines power to create power. They had superchargers for two years and then got rid of them and went with the turbos because GM realised superchargers on a 4cyl is a waste. The stock cobalt supercharged runs 12 psi of boost at 205 HP while the turbo is identical with 260 HP.
^^^Superchargers on a 4Cyl are a waste? You obviously never heard of the 1989 Toyota MR2 S/C. S/C's don't have lag like a turbo so they build up better take off, where as turbos have to kick in usually making them better for top end.
Correct superchargers don't have lag but they also ate up 55hp to begin with. Also once the turbo spools up, you shift, the pressure is released but the turbo is still spinning. As soon as you hit the next gear and mash the gas again the blow off valve closes and you are still at full boost. The MR2 supercharged was 50 HP less than its turbo version in the second Gen, which by the way was classified as a supercar. One of the most common modifications done to the supercharged MR2 is to remove the supercharger and replace it with a turbo. The bigger the turbo the more lag, 4 cylinders get small turbos and in a vehicle like the cobalt you don't need much boost in first or you will get wheel spin causing a bad launch. http:// www.autoblog.com/2008/10/13/in- the-autobog-garage-2009-chevy- cobalt-ss-turbo/ ...delete the spaces.. also the supercharged cobalt got 20 MPG city and 28 highway where the turbo got 22 city 30 highway, the supercharger uses more gas because its always sucking power from the engine. I absolutely love superchargers and chosing between the two I would rather have the S/C for the sound alone, but not on a 4 cyl. If the S/C was in fact better then explain why Toyota and GM both ditched it for a turbo. Look up GMC syclone on YouTube, 4.3 V6 turbo S10 chewed up and spit out the lightning V8 S/C and it was 20 yrs older. The Buick GNX was a 3.8 V6 turbo from the late 80s that out performed the corvette in just about every aspect.
Also the cobalt power numbers make it apparent that at 2000 rpm its at full boost capacity because it creates 260 lb-ft torque.
Oh really? Both the 1st gen S/C model and the 2nd gen Turbo model topped out around 151mph, but the 1st gen was 400 pounds lighter. And who have you met that calls the 2nd gen a super car? They're an idiot if they do, go on the actual MR2 forums. The 1st and 3rd gen were the lightest models, then 2nd gen was just the most common "tuner" car.
find some dm who wrecked his new and jack the parts off it.
Looking for a Used Cobalt in your area?
CarGurus has 4,941 nationwide Cobalt listings starting at $1,000.
Search Chevrolet Cobalt Questions
Chevrolet Cobalt Experts