supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2
Re: supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2
Originally Posted by CamaroRSguy
motors? ls2 is about 6k as a crate motor, the 2.0 S/C is about 4k last i checked from GM. The 2.0 4 banger is lighter...
Re: supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2
Originally Posted by CamaroRSguy
motors? ls2 is about 6k as a crate motor, the 2.0 S/C is about 4k last i checked from GM. The 2.0 4 banger is lighter...
Re: supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2
Originally Posted by NewbieWar
I'd think it to be common sense the engine with a third of the displacement would be the lighter engine... but seeing that there is a power adder and there is a DOHC set up...
Re: supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2
Originally Posted by 97z28/m6
i need to settle an argument-thats why i need the#'s.
safe to say if you bet on the V8 on weight, then you lost.
the 2.0 strapped with a twister is still lighter.
Re: supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2
Originally Posted by FutureZMan
safe to say if you bet on the V8 on weight, then you lost.
the 2.0 strapped with a twister is still lighter.
the 2.0 strapped with a twister is still lighter.
Re: supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2
well i tried to find you an answer, but i read on GMI that "The LS2 weighs a little less than 500 pounds"
or we can go with the ls1 weight of "total dressed engine weight (2001) LS1 auto 457.6 lbs (208kg) manual 497.2 lbs (226kg)"
the ls2 is bigger but uses lighter components so... that sounds about right to be barely under 500...
and the only number i could find on the ecotec was 303 but i think that was incorrect... sorry i'm not more help for you
or we can go with the ls1 weight of "total dressed engine weight (2001) LS1 auto 457.6 lbs (208kg) manual 497.2 lbs (226kg)"
the ls2 is bigger but uses lighter components so... that sounds about right to be barely under 500...
and the only number i could find on the ecotec was 303 but i think that was incorrect... sorry i'm not more help for you
Re: supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2
Originally Posted by NewbieWar
well i tried to find you an answer, but i read on GMI that "The LS2 weighs a little less than 500 pounds"
or we can go with the ls1 weight of "total dressed engine weight (2001) LS1 auto 457.6 lbs (208kg) manual 497.2 lbs (226kg)"
the ls2 is bigger but uses lighter components so... that sounds about right to be barely under 500...
and the only number i could find on the ecotec was 303 but i think that was incorrect... sorry i'm not more help for you
or we can go with the ls1 weight of "total dressed engine weight (2001) LS1 auto 457.6 lbs (208kg) manual 497.2 lbs (226kg)"
the ls2 is bigger but uses lighter components so... that sounds about right to be barely under 500...
and the only number i could find on the ecotec was 303 but i think that was incorrect... sorry i'm not more help for you
Re: supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2
Originally Posted by NewbieWar
well i tried to find you an answer, but i read on GMI that "The LS2 weighs a little less than 500 pounds"
or we can go with the ls1 weight of "total dressed engine weight (2001) LS1 auto 457.6 lbs (208kg) manual 497.2 lbs (226kg)"
the ls2 is bigger but uses lighter components so... that sounds about right to be barely under 500...
and the only number i could find on the ecotec was 303 but i think that was incorrect... sorry i'm not more help for you
or we can go with the ls1 weight of "total dressed engine weight (2001) LS1 auto 457.6 lbs (208kg) manual 497.2 lbs (226kg)"
the ls2 is bigger but uses lighter components so... that sounds about right to be barely under 500...
and the only number i could find on the ecotec was 303 but i think that was incorrect... sorry i'm not more help for you
Re: supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2
Bare engine weight for the LS1 comes in somewhere around 390lbs I believe. That is longblock only however. I also remember reading the LS2 is around 15lbs lighter than the LS1.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



