Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 2, 2005 | 10:51 PM
  #1  
97z28/m6's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,597
From: oshawa,ontario,canada
supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2

which one is heavier and buy how much?
Old Nov 2, 2005 | 11:15 PM
  #2  
CamaroRSguy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 403
From: Pittsburgh Pa USA
Re: supercharged 2.0 ecotec VS LS2

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...
Old Nov 3, 2005 | 06:07 AM
  #3  
91_z28_4me's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
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...
He means weight wise.
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 01:39 AM
  #4  
NewbieWar's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,370
From: Germany
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...
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...
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 02:29 AM
  #5  
97z28/m6's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,597
From: oshawa,ontario,canada
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...
i need to settle an argument-thats why i need the#'s.
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 03:39 AM
  #6  
FutureZMan's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,080
From: Sterling heights, Michigan.
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.
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 12:39 PM
  #7  
97z28/m6's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,597
From: oshawa,ontario,canada
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.
well i didn't bet the V8 was lighter just how much it was heavier.
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 02:04 PM
  #8  
NewbieWar's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,370
From: Germany
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
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 02:50 PM
  #9  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
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
THe LS2 is actually lighter than the LS1 by something like 15lbs. (I forget the actual difference. Do a search of this forum, there are threads on LS2 and DOHC engine weights.
Old Nov 4, 2005 | 10:31 PM
  #10  
97z28/m6's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,597
From: oshawa,ontario,canada
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
thanks none the less.
Old Nov 5, 2005 | 01:40 AM
  #11  
RussStang's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
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.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hal Fisher
Parts For Sale
0
Sep 30, 2015 09:03 PM
HAWG
Drag Racing Technique
2
Sep 25, 2015 11:41 AM
DelSoto
Forced Induction
4
Sep 19, 2015 05:31 AM
rideordie
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
1
Sep 7, 2015 08:22 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58 AM.