2.4L LE5 Performance Tech 16 valve 171 hp EcoTec with 163 lb-ft of torque

How would win?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-26-2012 | 01:34 PM
  #76  
Twoozofjuice's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: 12-19-11
Posts: 8,105
Likes: 4
From: Pharr
here are the top dyno numbers that have been verified on this site.

2.4L - Naturally Aspirated
1. noorjariri, 201whp 188wtq, Verified Mustang Dyno, I,F,H,DP,E,T,TB Graph1,Graph2
2. newt 193whp 179wtq,Verified Dynojet, I,F,H,T,42s,TB,PH,C,CO Graph
3. Hotpursuit 170whp, 174wtq Verified Dynojet, I,Fr,H,DP,E,T,DR,CD,CO Graph
4. steddy2112 167 whp, 166 wtq Verified I, E Graph

ok now that you see that do you still think you will make your 215 whp? no. the top spot was on a dyno that according to many members is a number happy dyno but it did have graphs so nothing we can do about that. not taking anything away from him.

also those cars are manual cars and yours is auto which also robs more power out of the car. if you happened to keep up with the gtp while having 3 passengers in your car then that gtp needs a seriouuus driver mod. either he was ******* with you or he just fell asleep at the wheel. there is absolutely no reason you should have been anywhere close to him with the amount of weight you had in the car and the amount of modifications done to both of your cars.

I didnt want to start saying stuff but this just got way too stupid for me to stay quiet lol. You said you are going to dyno in 2-3 weeks. Well thats cool but i already know we arent going to see any graphs. Either you aren't actually going to dyno, or you will dyno then be embarrassed by the numbers you put down and never post the graph on this website.
Old 09-26-2012 | 02:11 PM
  #77  
chevygirl2006's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-21-11
Posts: 10,935
Likes: 93
From: Texas
Those grand prix are not fast. and just because you beat someone on the street doesnt mean you will at the drag strip. I beat a 2011 v6 camaro on the street and they run 14s at the track. so there for it would win.
and @ twooz-he's just basing his info from the internet and phone apps lmao. I did that once and it said I'd run a 16 sec 1/4 and i had 120-140hp lol.
Old 09-26-2012 | 02:13 PM
  #78  
chevygirl2006's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-21-11
Posts: 10,935
Likes: 93
From: Texas
i vote 165whp since hes auto and the car comes with about 150whp
Old 09-26-2012 | 02:17 PM
  #79  
Twoozofjuice's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: 12-19-11
Posts: 8,105
Likes: 4
From: Pharr
i dont even know if hes actually gaining anything without a tune though...
Old 09-26-2012 | 02:22 PM
  #80  
chevygirl2006's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-21-11
Posts: 10,935
Likes: 93
From: Texas
it says trifecta in his sig
Old 09-26-2012 | 02:24 PM
  #81  
Twoozofjuice's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: 12-19-11
Posts: 8,105
Likes: 4
From: Pharr
hadnt seen that. considering he has a trifecta tune that is more than likely a conservative tune he should be around 165-170 maybe less like you said lol
Old 09-26-2012 | 02:30 PM
  #82  
chevygirl2006's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-21-11
Posts: 10,935
Likes: 93
From: Texas
i dont think 170.
Old 09-26-2012 | 02:30 PM
  #83  
Superbalt06's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: 08-26-11
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
Originally Posted by BecauseRacecar
So what you're telling me (is that) even though my car (stock) is 171 horsepower and runs a 7.1 (ish) second 0-60, and a 15.6 second Quarter mile SOURCES: []Chevrolet Cobalt SS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and [http://www.zeroto60times.com/Chevrol...ph-Times.html] (And yes, I'm aware the Cobalt S is listed for zeroto60times.com, that even after just having maintenance, and modding what I did, that I would end up with less horsepower than stock, run slower 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, and that (according to you) that I didn't notice a gain from my res delete/cat delete + Magnaflow Muffler?

Honestly I'm about to dyno (hopefully) within the next 2-3 weeks. And to you "not trying to be a dick", you can lick my butt hole..
171hp at the crank.... Maybe 140 at the wheels.
Old 09-26-2012 | 02:32 PM
  #84  
chevygirl2006's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-21-11
Posts: 10,935
Likes: 93
From: Texas
Originally Posted by Superbalt06
171hp at the crank.... Maybe 140 at the wheels.
ive seen a stock 2.4 dyno 150whp and 143whp

but ya you are right. I don't think he is considering wheel horsepower

Last edited by chevygirl2006; 09-26-2012 at 02:32 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Old 09-26-2012 | 03:56 PM
  #85  
bluebalt07's Avatar
Banned
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: 09-07-11
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
Is he deleting comments or something because it looks like chevygirl is just continually posting lol either way this guy is gonna get laughed off the forum or cry when he actually gets dynoed and sees where he is actually at
Old 09-26-2012 | 03:59 PM
  #86  
Twoozofjuice's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: 12-19-11
Posts: 8,105
Likes: 4
From: Pharr
nah hes not shes just going off lol
Old 09-26-2012 | 03:59 PM
  #87  
chevygirl2006's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-21-11
Posts: 10,935
Likes: 93
From: Texas
no. my posts arent all in a row
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:12 PM
  #88  
bluebalt07's Avatar
Banned
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: 09-07-11
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
Just wondering lol this has now become my entertainment for the day hahaha
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:18 PM
  #89  
chevygirl2006's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-21-11
Posts: 10,935
Likes: 93
From: Texas
i wonder where the guy went
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:20 PM
  #90  
jonathan923's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: 01-07-09
Posts: 7,881
Likes: 1
From: Queens, NY
just wasted 2 mins of my life here FML
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:25 PM
  #91  
BecauseRacecar's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 09-25-12
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Lawrence, KS
Originally Posted by chevygirl2006
My times are proven at the track lol.
Can't base things off what you read on the Internet. Stock ss/sc aren't even running 14.4s
And there's no way a ss 2.4 can have 215 hp while being na. You will need cams at least and slicks. You have an intake,muffler,header and a tune. I'd say around 165whp. And plus you are an auto. That kills a lot of power.
You can't be serious.. so what I'm getting from your post is that the GM site and any other site with specs that say there's 171hp going through my car are actually lying? And 8.2 is for the 2.2L Even at the top of every thread in this forum section for 2.4 it clearly states: "171 hp EcoTec with 163 lb-ft of torque" and an 8.3 second 0-60 is not accurate. You don't lose 1.2 seconds with the automatic version.. I'd be glad to send pics of my numbers if/when I hit the track and dyno. Glad to..
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:30 PM
  #92  
jonathan923's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: 01-07-09
Posts: 7,881
Likes: 1
From: Queens, NY
^^^what she's really saying is both of your cars are slow and racing auto NA's is plain stupid...
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:33 PM
  #93  
Superbalt06's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: 08-26-11
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
So what you're saying is you think you have 215 crank horsepower?
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:35 PM
  #94  
Twoozofjuice's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: 12-19-11
Posts: 8,105
Likes: 4
From: Pharr
Originally Posted by BecauseRacecar
You can't be serious.. so what I'm getting from your post is that the GM site and any other site with specs that say there's 171hp going through my car are actually lying? And 8.2 is for the 2.2L Even at the top of every thread in this forum section for 2.4 it clearly states: "171 hp EcoTec with 163 lb-ft of torque" and an 8.3 second 0-60 is not accurate. You don't lose 1.2 seconds with the automatic version.. I'd be glad to send pics of my numbers if/when I hit the track and dyno. Glad to..
the part that you dont get is that the 171 hp is bhp not whp like dynos read. If you take your car completely stock to a dyno it will read 140-150 whp even though it has 171bhp.

Please do post pics of your numbers when you hit the track and dyno. I'm sure we would all appreciate some good laughing material.
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:36 PM
  #95  
Twoozofjuice's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: 12-19-11
Posts: 8,105
Likes: 4
From: Pharr
Originally Posted by Superbalt06
So what you're saying is you think you have 215 crank horsepower?
thats what hes saying. no one here measures crank horsepower which is stupid to be thinking in those terms. **** gets measured in what you actually put down on the ground which is whp not what the engine itself puts out.
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:39 PM
  #96  
chevygirl2006's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-21-11
Posts: 10,935
Likes: 93
From: Texas
Originally Posted by BecauseRacecar
You can't be serious.. so what I'm getting from your post is that the GM site and any other site with specs that say there's 171hp going through my car are actually lying? And 8.2 is for the 2.2L Even at the top of every thread in this forum section for 2.4 it clearly states: "171 hp EcoTec with 163 lb-ft of torque" and an 8.3 second 0-60 is not accurate. You don't lose 1.2 seconds with the automatic version.. I'd be glad to send pics of my numbers if/when I hit the track and dyno. Glad to..
you would be surprised about the difference in an auto and a manual. yes 171 CRANK hp. Crank hp means nothing.

Originally Posted by jonathan923
^^^what she's really saying is both of your cars are slow and racing auto NA's is plain stupid...
yup my car is slow but racing is still fun

Last edited by chevygirl2006; 09-26-2012 at 04:40 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:40 PM
  #97  
bluebalt07's Avatar
Banned
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: 09-07-11
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
Originally Posted by BecauseRacecar
You can't be serious.. so what I'm getting from your post is that the GM site and any other site with specs that say there's 171hp going through my car are actually lying? And 8.2 is for the 2.2L Even at the top of every thread in this forum section for 2.4 it clearly states: "171 hp EcoTec with 163 lb-ft of torque" and an 8.3 second 0-60 is not accurate. You don't lose 1.2 seconds with the automatic version.. I'd be glad to send pics of my numbers if/when I hit the track and dyno. Glad to..
171 and 163 are at the CRANK. Dynos measure at the WHEELS. There's a big difference. While your car has 171 hp at the crank, it probably has about 145 at the wheels. Here's a graph to help prove this to you.

ZZPerformance - 2.2/2.4L Bolt on Supercharger Kit #ZZ-2224SCKT

The dyno sheet on that page shows that a stock auto 2.4 put down 145. Supercharged it put down 225. So 215 with an intake, exhaust, and tune on your car won't get you remotely close to 215. Even 215 at the crank is very unlikely, and nobody reads horsepower from the crank except for the manufacturers anyway
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:42 PM
  #98  
chevygirl2006's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-21-11
Posts: 10,935
Likes: 93
From: Texas
he doesnt even have a full catback. Just a muffler
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:44 PM
  #99  
bluebalt07's Avatar
Banned
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: 09-07-11
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
Just noticed he is catless and has no resonator also so that car is probably rice central and he listed spare tire/jack removal as a mod
Old 09-26-2012 | 04:48 PM
  #100  
jonathan923's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: 01-07-09
Posts: 7,881
Likes: 1
From: Queens, NY
Originally Posted by bluebalt07
Just noticed he is catless and has no resonator also so that car is probably rice central and he listed spare tire/jack removal as a mod
remember he also get extra powa from the stickers he got from all those incredible mods. thats why its 215hp!!!!


Quick Reply: How would win?



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:22 AM.