my car has no balls anymore
06-10-2009, 04:04 PM
#51
No, it's called - No one here wants to hear you guys rip on our cars because you drive a more superior model..
Have you ever heard the saying - If you don't have anything nice to say, keep your ******* trap shut?
Plus, a LS/TC would burn an SS/SC, one that is pretty modded, at that. I've seen it, many of times.
06-10-2009, 04:13 PM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, most people on here are dicks to us 2.2L's.
No, it's called - No one here wants to hear you guys rip on our cars because you drive a more superior model..
Have you ever heard the saying - If you don't have anything nice to say, keep your ******* trap shut?
Plus, a LS/TC would burn an SS/SC, one that is pretty modded, at that. I've seen it, many of times.
No, it's called - No one here wants to hear you guys rip on our cars because you drive a more superior model..
Have you ever heard the saying - If you don't have anything nice to say, keep your ******* trap shut?
Plus, a LS/TC would burn an SS/SC, one that is pretty modded, at that. I've seen it, many of times.
06-10-2009, 04:45 PM
#54
New Member
Join Date: 04-16-09
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have minor boltons and wide tires, and doing a WOT pull i chirped going into 2nd and 3rd the other day. I will admit that I was utterly ******* shocked that this was possible in my car, but it definitely happened.
06-10-2009, 05:24 PM
#56
Yeah, I'm working on this too.
You must have missed the part where I said an LS/TC would annihilate your SS/SC, that or you just ignored it, because it's true. I'm not pissed at all that I have an LS. LS does not stand for Lack of Speed, it stands for Lack of weight due to fewer bells and whistles. Everyone knows an LS/TC would take a modded SS/SC, anyway. Hell, I've seen an LS/TC take an SS/TC.
Who the **** are you trying to argue with?
Oh.. I just noticed you have a 2.4L.. You should really not be such a dick..
Who the **** are you trying to argue with?
Oh.. I just noticed you have a 2.4L.. You should really not be such a dick..
06-10-2009, 05:25 PM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-10-2009, 05:25 PM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must have missed the part where I said an LS/TC would annihilate your SS/SC, that or you just ignored it, because it's true. I'm not pissed at all that I have an LS. LS does not stand for Lack of Speed, it stands for Lack of weight due to fewer bells and whistles. Everyone knows an LS/TC would take a modded SS/SC, anyway. Hell, I've seen an LS/TC take an SS/TC.
Who the **** are you trying to argue with?
06-10-2009, 05:43 PM
#59
i can spin my tires into second with 215's. not chirp, but like a one mississippi spin. i chirped into third once, but i usually cant because i'm too scared to jam it into third (my 2-3 shift speed is not where it should be). ive seen this video too many times:
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/I...rom_198597.htm
ha ha ha, but it scares me
2.2 btw
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/I...rom_198597.htm
ha ha ha, but it scares me
2.2 btw
Last edited by 07blackg5; 06-10-2009 at 05:43 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
06-10-2009, 05:51 PM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i can spin my tires into second with 215's. not chirp, but like a one mississippi spin. i chirped into third once, but i usually cant because i'm too scared to jam it into third (my 2-3 shift speed is not where it should be). ive seen this video too many times:
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/I...rom_198597.htm
ha ha ha, but it scares me
2.2 btw
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/I...rom_198597.htm
ha ha ha, but it scares me
2.2 btw
At the track, I can see it because the track is sticky as hell. On the street, no way.
06-10-2009, 05:54 PM
#61
Junior Member
Join Date: 04-18-07
Location: Apache Junction, AZ
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have owned many F body cars and other cars that are quicker than my 2.2 Cobalt.
I bought mine when they had gas at $4.50 a gallon.
The decision to not go with a V-6 or V-8 was based off of the fact.
This was also my only new car I ever bought.
I always bought used only, and figured I would finally take the plunge.
I had to remember that insurance on an SS/SC would be more than I would like to pay per month, especially when it costed about $50 a fill-up for my car and happens 2xs a week.
I could not even consider a V-8 that guzzles gas or a car that had to use 91+ octane gas at the time.
I am impressed on how good the 2.2 excellerates for how small the motor is.
When I pondered wanting more power, I looked at the price differential of the LS vs SS vs SS/SC and said hell I can spend $5000 in mods for the savings in price to the SC and turbo my car if I really wanted.
I bought mine when they had gas at $4.50 a gallon.
The decision to not go with a V-6 or V-8 was based off of the fact.
This was also my only new car I ever bought.
I always bought used only, and figured I would finally take the plunge.
I had to remember that insurance on an SS/SC would be more than I would like to pay per month, especially when it costed about $50 a fill-up for my car and happens 2xs a week.
I could not even consider a V-8 that guzzles gas or a car that had to use 91+ octane gas at the time.
I am impressed on how good the 2.2 excellerates for how small the motor is.
When I pondered wanting more power, I looked at the price differential of the LS vs SS vs SS/SC and said hell I can spend $5000 in mods for the savings in price to the SC and turbo my car if I really wanted.
06-10-2009, 05:57 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have owned many F body cars and other cars that are quicker than my 2.2 Cobalt.
I bought mine when they had gas at $4.50 a gallon.
The decision to not go with a V-6 or V-8 was based off of the fact.
This was also my only new car I ever bought.
I always bought used only, and figured I would finally take the plunge.
I had to remember that insurance on an SS/SC would be more than I would like to pay per month, especially when it costed about $50 a fill-up for my car and happens 2xs a week.
I could not even consider a V-8 that guzzles gas or a car that had to use 91+ octane gas at the time.
I am impressed on how good the 2.2 excellerates for how small the motor is.
When I pondered wanting more power, I looked at the price differential of the LS vs SS vs SS/SC and said hell I can spend $5000 in mods for the savings in price to the SC and turbo my car if I really wanted.
I bought mine when they had gas at $4.50 a gallon.
The decision to not go with a V-6 or V-8 was based off of the fact.
This was also my only new car I ever bought.
I always bought used only, and figured I would finally take the plunge.
I had to remember that insurance on an SS/SC would be more than I would like to pay per month, especially when it costed about $50 a fill-up for my car and happens 2xs a week.
I could not even consider a V-8 that guzzles gas or a car that had to use 91+ octane gas at the time.
I am impressed on how good the 2.2 excellerates for how small the motor is.
When I pondered wanting more power, I looked at the price differential of the LS vs SS vs SS/SC and said hell I can spend $5000 in mods for the savings in price to the SC and turbo my car if I really wanted.
06-10-2009, 06:05 PM
#63
Junior Member
Join Date: 04-18-07
Location: Apache Junction, AZ
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a 1987 Dodge Daytona 2.2 turbocharged with an automatic and it always got me 37mpg, seriously. I never understood why it got such good mpg, it was completely stock.
It weighed a lot more than my old Geo POS Storm and got 9 more mpg consistantly than it did.
This is not a measure of what it did at its maximum, this was its average inner city and freeway driving.
It only had 8 valves, but they were big and had a turbo to back it.
I also did not race the car.
It also had a turbo that needed replaced as it had shaft play.
My wife's Sunfire with 2.2 Ecotec got 37mpg only when it had the cruise control on and did 100% freeway miles. I was impressed, but still wondered why the Daytona did so dang good on mileage. I did not go off what the nav computer said either.
I would always fill up when my trip hit 370ish miles and it would only take in 10 gallons.
I never wait for the tank to get too low.
It weighed a lot more than my old Geo POS Storm and got 9 more mpg consistantly than it did.
This is not a measure of what it did at its maximum, this was its average inner city and freeway driving.
It only had 8 valves, but they were big and had a turbo to back it.
I also did not race the car.
It also had a turbo that needed replaced as it had shaft play.
My wife's Sunfire with 2.2 Ecotec got 37mpg only when it had the cruise control on and did 100% freeway miles. I was impressed, but still wondered why the Daytona did so dang good on mileage. I did not go off what the nav computer said either.
I would always fill up when my trip hit 370ish miles and it would only take in 10 gallons.
I never wait for the tank to get too low.
06-10-2009, 06:13 PM
#64
how is it that hard to believe that someone could chirp shifting into third with a fast enough shift? like i said i did it once. its not an everyday occurrence. but then again, i do put down more than most 2.2's, but thats beside the point.
and if the track is sticky, wouldnt it be harder to break traction? not the other way around?
06-10-2009, 06:27 PM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how is it that hard to believe that someone could chirp shifting into third with a fast enough shift? like i said i did it once. its not an everyday occurrence. but then again, i do put down more than most 2.2's, but thats beside the point.
and if the track is sticky, wouldnt it be harder to break traction? not the other way around?
and if the track is sticky, wouldnt it be harder to break traction? not the other way around?
if youve been to a track before you will notice how easy it is to spin the wheels as opposed to trying to spin them cold on the street.
and honestly, those cars dont make enough power to spin or chirp anything at above 40 mph. No way in hell. Unless u rev it to 8k rpms and drop the clutch, its not happening. I can easily roast my tires in second gear without dropping the clutch at 40 mph. I also have over 300 whp. I can promise youre no where near that limit.
06-10-2009, 09:00 PM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-26-07
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quit being such a douchebag. I said the car wheel hops not spins all the way through second. The 2.2 is my daily driver and certainly not fast. Come off your high horse because if you think your supercharged cobalt is fast then i hope your kidding.
06-10-2009, 09:14 PM
#67
Senior Member
well you could fill your front trani mount and your wheel hop would stop.my supercharged 2.2 is slow because its a 2.2
i knew i shoulda bought a fail 2.0
06-10-2009, 09:39 PM
#68
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 04-13-04
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I'm working on this too.
You must have missed the part where I said an LS/TC would annihilate your SS/SC, that or you just ignored it, because it's true. I'm not pissed at all that I have an LS. LS does not stand for Lack of Speed, it stands for Lack of weight due to fewer bells and whistles. Everyone knows an LS/TC would take a modded SS/SC, anyway. Hell, I've seen an LS/TC take an SS/TC.
Who the **** are you trying to argue with?
Oh.. I just noticed you have a 2.4L.. You should really not be such a dick..
You must have missed the part where I said an LS/TC would annihilate your SS/SC, that or you just ignored it, because it's true. I'm not pissed at all that I have an LS. LS does not stand for Lack of Speed, it stands for Lack of weight due to fewer bells and whistles. Everyone knows an LS/TC would take a modded SS/SC, anyway. Hell, I've seen an LS/TC take an SS/TC.
Who the **** are you trying to argue with?
Oh.. I just noticed you have a 2.4L.. You should really not be such a dick..
I don't mean to come of like a dick, i was just callin it as i see it. Dont get bent out of shape over something so small. I guess i'm just used to the talk from the SC and TC folks as i've been here for a while (member #41). And yes 2.2 turbo's can be fast...so can alot of cars when you put FI on them.
When did i say it was fast? Its not at all, i'm realistic about what i drive unlike alot of people on here. And i know 2.2 balts hang right with 2.4's i've raced my buddies 2.2...i pulled but nothing crazy they are what maybe a 10-15whp difference stock?
06-10-2009, 10:31 PM
#71
I don't mean to come of like a dick, i was just callin it as i see it. Dont get bent out of shape over something so small. I guess i'm just used to the talk from the SC and TC folks as i've been here for a while (member #41). And yes 2.2 turbo's can be fast...so can alot of cars when you put FI on them.
When did i say it was fast? Its not at all, i'm realistic about what i drive unlike alot of people on here. And i know 2.2 balts hang right with 2.4's i've raced my buddies 2.2...i pulled but nothing crazy they are what maybe a 10-15whp difference stock?
When did i say it was fast? Its not at all, i'm realistic about what i drive unlike alot of people on here. And i know 2.2 balts hang right with 2.4's i've raced my buddies 2.2...i pulled but nothing crazy they are what maybe a 10-15whp difference stock?
06-10-2009, 10:37 PM
#72
tracks are treated with a tire softening compound. When you smoke the tires, and coat them with this compound they become stickier. The stickier they are the easier it is to spin them. The easier the spin, the less the chance of wheel hop.
if youve been to a track before you will notice how easy it is to spin the wheels as opposed to trying to spin them cold on the street.
and honestly, those cars dont make enough power to spin or chirp anything at above 40 mph. No way in hell. Unless u rev it to 8k rpms and drop the clutch, its not happening. I can easily roast my tires in second gear without dropping the clutch at 40 mph. I also have over 300 whp. I can promise youre no where near that limit.
if youve been to a track before you will notice how easy it is to spin the wheels as opposed to trying to spin them cold on the street.
and honestly, those cars dont make enough power to spin or chirp anything at above 40 mph. No way in hell. Unless u rev it to 8k rpms and drop the clutch, its not happening. I can easily roast my tires in second gear without dropping the clutch at 40 mph. I also have over 300 whp. I can promise youre no where near that limit.
so when did this become an ego trip?
all i said is that i have done it. if you dont believe it, thats your choice.
and just to clarify, im not saying that i nail it in 3rd and chirp the tires. i'm saying that i have chirped the tires shifting from 2nd to 3rd.
06-10-2009, 11:06 PM
#73
Member
Join Date: 09-28-08
Location: Texas
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've done it to. Don't feel bad they all get insecure really easy and start flaming you when they realize they aren't good enough driver's to pull that off. All i have to do is rev it up to 3500 and pop the clutch to burn out, and my tires are brand new. From a stop, when I want to launch it right, on the STREET, First, second, and third chirp. It's just how you drive it, not what engine it has. Good Grief. For everyone who says that LS's can't be fast, come take a ride with me, I'll show you what they can do when you provoke them...
