To get back to the comment about Turbo > SC...

I, for one, like the supercharger idea. The biggest benefit, in my opinion, is more linear power delivery. You know what to expect, how much of it and at what RPM.

With turbo, there are surges and spikes, and it is harder to be precise in the delivery of power.

Best of all? Naturally aspirated! Consistent results across the entire RPM band.

 

Power is 244hp I belelive....Mazda CX-7 is getting the same engine.

Found this on a website

The CX-7, or at least the one in the pics, wears a set of 18-inch aluminum wheels that will be rotated by a 244-hp, 2.3L turbo four-cylinder with direct-injection. The motor is shared with the new MazdaSpeed6, though specially tuned for the CX-7 to deliver 258 lb-ft of torque.


I hope that GM drops the Turbo Ecotec in the Cobalt...260lbs-ft

 

To the 2.0T's credit , its tq band is flatter than the 2.0SC with 260 ft/lbs rated from 2000-5300 . The 2.0SC has a pretty flat tq curve , and 5300 is right about where my TQ curve starts to drop according to my dyno sheet , but ....under 35-4K rpms the Turbo engine shines . At 2500 rpms's Im at 160 ft/lbs and by 3500 build to 175 ft/lbs , then in the 190's from 4K to 5200 then it drops back into the 170's from there to 6500 . That was my stock dyno . You can feel it driving around town , that extra tq from 2000 to 4000 rpms would be sweet

 

Superchargers certainly have more predictable response than turbos and are only slightly less responsive than an NA motor.

But I prefer turbos