Polaris Slingshot Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Assuming the drivetrain can handle the torque and hp, or requires little modification, I would go with the 2.0L turbocharged Ecotech. In my HHR-SS with 35,000 miles, it has been flawless. The two minor downsides, the direct injection fuel pump is loud (OK here, with open cockpit) and the dogs bark at the turbo whine (OK again if you want even more attention). Seriously, at approx. 785 kg curb weight, the 260 hp Ecotech would probably push (not pull) you as quickly as you want to go, assuming a very sticky drive tire, and my engineering guess on the gas mileage would be in the lower 40s with driver and passenger adding 160 kg or so ... not bad performance and economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Assuming the drivetrain can handle the torque and hp, or requires little modification, I would go with the 2.0L turbocharged Ecotech. In my HHR-SS with 35,000 miles, it has been flawless. The two minor downsides, the direct injection fuel pump is loud (OK here, with open cockpit) and the dogs bark at the turbo whine (OK again if you want even more attention). Seriously, at approx. 785 kg curb weight, the 260 hp Ecotech would probably push (not pull) you as quickly as you want to go, assuming a very sticky drive tire, and my engineering guess on the gas mileage would be in the lower 40s with driver and passenger adding 160 kg or so ... not bad performance and economy.
We could only hope. But all the information coming in puts it mid
Twenty range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Assuming the drivetrain can handle the torque and hp, or requires little modification, I would go with the 2.0L turbocharged Ecotech. In my HHR-SS with 35,000 miles, it has been flawless. The two minor downsides, the direct injection fuel pump is loud (OK here, with open cockpit) and the dogs bark at the turbo whine (OK again if you want even more attention). Seriously, at approx. 785 kg curb weight, the 260 hp Ecotech would probably push (not pull) you as quickly as you want to go, assuming a very sticky drive tire, and my engineering guess on the gas mileage would be in the lower 40s with driver and passenger adding 160 kg or so ... not bad performance and economy.
We could only hope. But all the information coming in puts it mid
Twentie.
Adding to my above estimate on mpg for the 2.0L turbo Ecotech in the slingshot, I get 31 mpg hwy in the HHR-SS, and 41 mpg hwy in my wife's 1.4L turbo Sonic. Admittedly those are both with a light foot on the throttle. My guess of low 40s was based on vehicle weight differentials and reduced drive train loss between the crank and the tire contact patch. I'd guess low 30s for city mpg on the 2.0L and mid 30s for city mpg on the 1.4L. Getting the power (especially torque) to the ground in the "standard" slingshot drive train will be interesting reading in future forum feedback on actual city use. Traction control will help while lowering effective power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
One of these days I will have a LS engine in a slingshot.
Make that 2 LS engines.
Let me know when I can drop the SS off.
:facepalm::nailbiting::jimlad:
God that'd be one bad ride. I could handle it.
Not sure if California could.
But then they don't need a smog or inspection.
Oh Yeah. :muted::shifty:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Just a tought...not sure that the SS will react properly with more power...I mean for the strengt of the tubular framing...
The only thing we heared is we cannot tow it because of the stress on the tubular framing that is not meant to work like this...
No word about twisted stress ....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,604 Posts
Just a tought...not sure that the SS will react properly with more power...I mean for the strengt of the tubular framing...
The only thing we heared is we cannot tow it because of the stress on the tubular framing that is not meant to work like this...
No word about twisted stress ....
Won't know until its tested and I'm willing to do that! But just like the automotive world many cars are modified and some add 10+ X's the factory HP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
I would assume the belt would be your biggest limitation? Even if you can make the HP and the frame can take it, the ability of the belt and single contact patch to get that power to the ground would be your biggest limitation. But trying to get as much power to the ground as possible would certainly be fun if that is your thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,604 Posts
Installing a V8 or other engines really isn't the hard part. The SS is so simple unlike a modern car. And just like cars we work on when a part is stressed to its max a better one is made to take the added stress. 3-500 hp i'm not worried about getting the power to the ground. If it was 800+ then it might be a challenge.
 
Joined
·
510 Posts
The 260 HP 2.0 Turbo LNF is a fine engine. We have a ball with them in the vehicles they come in, but the swap to Slingshot will be relatively involved, in that one would also have to retrofit the entire Direct Injection PCM and harness, as well as some other peripheral items. Not an insurmountable task by any means, but one that adds significant cost and effort.

In my only-so-humble opinion, it's a much faster and easier route to fun to just turbocharge the standard 2.4 LE5, which will save thousands in parts and labor, and also leaves quite a bit more displacement on the table...the difference between a 2.0 and a 2.4 is actually the same as the difference between a 350 and a 427 Chevy, making the LE5 the "big-block" of the Ecotec lineup!

We've got a new thread going where I'm discussing its virtues, so stop on by if you will, and let's all enjoy talking about the LE5:

http://www.slingshotforums.com/threads/slingshot-le5-engine-discussion-thread-with-bill-hahn-jr.1128/
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top