Upping Performance
 

I have a 2001 Saturn SL1. 1.9L SOHC 5 speed. It is not a race car, and I never beat on my cars, but I'd like to get some more performance out of it. I was wondering if anyone has any advice on how to up the horsepower and overall performance? I'm putting a ram air intake in soon, and an exhaust. That's all I can find so far for aftermarket parts that fit my car, other than visual upgrades, which do not help me much.

not much out there -- never was much aftermarket support

no tunes for S cars
NO legit performance chips-- any you see are scams

the biggest HP increase short of turbo or nitrous is to swap in the DOHC

Yeah like derf said, there isnt much out there for the saturn s-series to begin with, and finding performance parts for the SOHC are slim to none, unless of course its all custom made. But even then you can only squeeze soo much HP out of that SOHC before it breaks. You are pretty much limited to exhaust, cold ar intake, and a good set of tires and suspension to make it handle.... If money is no object id do the DOHC swap though

Your welcome

thank you

Always

I know these things were factory backed SCCA small sedan race cars when the first came out. I wonder what happened to the go fast goodies that were used then? As for me if I ever pull this engine apart i am gong to call Iskenderian and see if they will doctor up a set of cams for my SC2

UnclJohn - that is the $64,000 question (or Holy Grail, if you will) that everyone has been looking for these last 15 years or so. I am quite sure that if the information ever comes to light, the rush to take advantage will be nothing short of astronomical

DAVE ROSENBLUM of ICY Racing campained SC2's in SCCA class T2 and won World Challenge T2 Manufacturers' Cup. They never used SOHC engines. They did get factory support. Mods in the Touring class are minimal, and if you were to look up the rules via SCCA you'd find the cars were nearly stock. Dave did not have the only Saturn race team. Many ran in SCCA's ITA class. Was also a raceteam operated by Mike Kramer that ran a Saturn ION Redline fulltime in SCCA T3 class. Search ICY Racing Saturns along with Mike Kramer Racing Saturns and you should find some good reading........enjoy.

I acknowledge the terms "Nearly Stock" with a caveat that says if their was a factory part number for a nearly stock part that authenticated stock application in many circumstances.

I can come up with a few creative "nearly stock" definitions of things from my memory banks of the time.

Saturn was big into backing their cars memory serves anyway as I remember it. I know in 1992 the things were quite competitive as my memory banks seem to say. Not outstandingly so but they were there. It also seems the biggest problem that they had was their weight, they were for the time heavy for their size and as engine performance was enhanced in competitive cars in their class it seems to me that Saturn standings started a fairly long down hill slide as their engine performance did not follow suit. My Saturn which dates from that time frame was purchased as a used car in 1996 by my lady and it now resides with me as she does. The dealer was the big Saturn dealer South of Phoenix in Chandler and on I-10 and the dealer would basically fall all over them selves looking after their customers and touting the performance advantages of the car. It seems to me that there was some big time support by GM in Electric car conversion racing and a GM factory backed team was making headlines with a Saturn Conversion. Big time news was how fast battery packs could be changed during a race.
Not sure I remember correctly but dealers were heavy into customer satisfaction. A far cry from the dealer response I got many years later when I took it to one up on Bell to get the sun roof repaired. One of the reasons I do my own maintenance. I have learned I can screw them up cheaper than a dealer can and with better quality screw ups.
The point though, at the time there were a lot of parts for these things floating around and with GM's decision to stop making Saturns and make instead a badge engineered lookalike and put a badge on it that says Saturn pretending of course that it is one, all factory interest stopped except for ripping off existing customers with overpriced repairs.
Now if that is not your experience it sure is mine.
And all of the neat aftermarket stuff just flat dried up.
I looked twice to buy a Saturn and didn't. The idea of buying a coupe with 3 doors did not appeal to me. The 3rd door was butt ugly and access to the back seat was satisfactory for my uses with 2 doors. I was not willing to pay the price for butt ugly just to get a door for the back seat which was neither needed or wanted. And then again when needing a new van I stopped an looked at the Saturn Van. A re-badged Chevy that had to improve to get to butt ugly and overpriced. Now I agree both of those are opinions, but they were mine and that kept me from spending my money on something I no longer wanted.
My '94 SC2 coupe has been a very satisfying car over time and done pretty much anything I ever asked it to do. The dealer involvement until GM lost interest in providing it was exceptional. The only thing I would have like to have was another 15 hp out of the engine and their were more than one occasion I would have taken the time to install a set of cams to get it if I could find them.
Now I am too old to pull that engine down, I need to repaint it again due to a screw up from painting it the last time, get the interior repaired from Sun Damage, find a rubber seal for the sun roof and finish building my Hornet and restoring another and installing the A/C in my Javelin.
I have enough projects.
The Saturn runs great with no problems. And as long as I can find parts for the thing I will continue enjoying it.

Thanks for the reading information. I'll check it out. My back is killing me right now from over doing things so sitting and reading will be on my agenda for the day.

Some numbers on hp to weight

1994 Saturn SC2
Manual trans
2375 lbs
124hp
122 ft lbs of torque

1994 Mazda Miata
Manual trans
2293 lbs
128hp
110 ft lbs of torque

1994 Toyota Corolla DX
Manual trans
2390 lbs
105hp
99 ft lbs of torque

1994 Nissan Sentra SE
Manual trans
2346 lbs
110hp
108 ft lbs of torque

Ford Focus LX
Manual trans
2419 lbs
88hp
108 ft lbs of torque

and if you were to keep going you'd find the SC2 along with the SL2 to have a very respectable power to weight ratio for it's time.

Yes you could get a high performance version of a couple of those cars. like the
1994 Ford Focus GT that was priced much higher than the SC2 or Focus LX
manual trans
2325 lbs
127hp
114 ft lbs of torque

Respectable yes, but a clear advantage no. Like I say, working off of memory and it was few years back. Saturns seemed to be at least competitive for a while but it was not long before as a whole they were hard pressed to end up on the podium and then dropped completely.
Not unusual in competitive automobile racing.
Frankly I think my 1992 Mitsubishi Van with a 1.6 liter 16 valve overhead cam engine and a 5 speed was quicker than the 1994 Saturn that still sits in the driveway.
But again, that is memory speaking.
I have no idea what the weight difference was if any. I do know thought that I have driven both cars over the exact same roads and on steep hills and there is a number of 7% grades I would hit, the Mitsubishi and the Saturn were pretty much even on fuel economy but the van would out perform the Saturn on a 7% grade. Which is about as close as I can come to a performance comparison.
I still wish the Saturn had another 15 hp based on that comparison. But it still was and is a great car. Which reminds me, I need to order tires for it today. Dang, that will make a total of 8 tires I have purchased since the first of September. All due to dry rot.

I'd be surprised if the Mitsu EXPO LRV 2.4L sport could run under a 10 second 0-60 time or under 17 seconds in the 1/4 mile, and the Expo SP with the 1.8L was much slower. The SC was in the neighborhood of 8.5 0-60 and 16.3 1/4 mile.

It's funny back then if a car/truck/van ran under 19 in the 1/4 mile it was deemed to be good.

My Mitsubishi was the 1.8. And while I never had it on a drag strip, I put almost 300,000 miles on it in 11 years on Arizona interstates.
There are more than an adequate number of 7% grades around here. Something I see on a regular occasion.
The Mitsubishi was capable of pulling them at Arizona Freeway speeds of 75mph. The Saturn wants to down shift to do the same thing.
While neither measure of performance is in itself and end requirement, pretty much I judge things how they run on the open road.
Built for a drag strip, most cars fall on their face at freeway speeds.
I have no idea what either one of those would do on a quarter mile. The LRV I could cruise back from LA with the speedometer set at 105.
The only other car that has seen a quarter mile on any occasion is my built up AMC Spirit and that one has a 4.2 L or 258 Cu In motor running a cam, fuel injection and some compression, enough where it demands premium and here that is 91 octane. A 2.53 Final Drive and P245 60 14 tires. It is geared to run about 32 mph / 1000 rpm which pretty much says it will cruise nicely at the century mark, accelerate going up 7% grades yet at best it is an 18 second car at the drag strip. The only time I get to Speedworld is club nights and I can take it, run all night long as hard as it will run and not break anything and drive it home. It will run consistently at about 78 mph and as it is an automatic, it will still be in passing gear at the end of the strip and turn some where aroun 4000 rpm which is adequate for a long stroke in line 6.
But you are right. Performance criteria as measured at the quarter mile has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years or so. The single biggest contributor to a lot of that has been the use of the computer controlled engine.
I still build carbureted cars because I can. But computer controlled is a significant improvement. Also increase in cost.
The first and last computer controlled car I built cost me about 3 grand for the computer system alone. The last Carburetor equipped car cost me under $100.00 for the carburetor and parts.
For my purposes? The extra $2900.00 isn't worth it.

I don't think any of the above 1992 cars were built for the dragstrip. I mean I could be wrong. I think all the cars mentioned are computer controlled and without carbs, points/condersers, distributors.

I guess I am confused then. What is the point of using acceleration as measured in the quarter mile as a criteria to determine performance.
Quarter mile times are in deed a measurement of acceleration, but quarter mile times are hardly a standard to choose a road racer from nor to predict overall performance as driven on the street.
As I owned a Expo LRV for quite a few years, it was rather quick on acceleration when pushed, but it excelled on the open road. As it was a 1.8L 16 valve engine. I would say that it dealt with open road characteristics better than my DOHC Saturn did and does.
I don't have any numbers to verify that, but the seat of pants over quite a few years and miles leaves me with that impression.
To me, my Saturn which I don't think changed in power output over the life of the production could use another 15 hp.
One difference though is the manual 5 speed vs the Saturns Automatic.
However even that set in Sport Mode will scare the heck out of a 2bbl v8 Mustang. But once out on the road it still has problems with a long 7% Grade.
As to fuel injection? Most quick cars today run full fuel injection with programmable engine management computers at a drag strip

you said. "Built for a drag strip, most cars fall on their face at freeway speeds. "

and I said

I don't think any of the above 1992 cars were built for the dragstrip.

I guess than pretty much both statements are true. Cars built for drag strip use pretty much fall on their face at freeway speeds.
And pretty much a list of 1992 economy cars weren't built for much more than basic transportation and generally did that more or less.

My only point is .............. The SC2's/SL2's packed a pretty good punch in it's day, and were not so called performance packages like Ford played the Focus GT off to be. That little s-series would have been sweet with 150hp, and double sweet at 175.

One of the main reasons I got into Saturns was the hp to weight along the fuel mileage that came with them.

Yuh they did. And frankly the sport setting on the automatic emphasized the quickness of it. Around here it is those long 7% grades that sap it. I don't know if I am going to live long enough to pull the engine down, I don't have to at the present it runs well and consumes no oil. But if I did I would sure want to address the lack of an aftermarket cam for the thing. For my money that is the cheapest way to increased hp and also the most labor intensive. The biggest problem at the moment is the cosmetics and those I need to address.