D Rob's 1st Dyno Stock. Numbers inside.
04-01-2011 | 05:59 PM
#26
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: 01-24-11
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
From: Chattanooga
That stinks man.
04-01-2011 | 06:05 PM
#27
Senior Member
Joined: 08-02-08
Posts: 3,882
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
i know a guy who put down 307 on it with just IC piping and a tune.... and i'll leave the rest for the imagination
I have that, a downpipe, an an intake and apparently with a whack ass tune... another thing is Paul and I think his dyno is just all overthe place, guys from HSVracing have complained about this exact thing in the past... kick ass pull one week, not **** the next with the same car
at least it sounded good and i know it runs hard(as witnessed by most of the Bama crew here), so i'm still not complaining:
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e7...-22-14_573.mp4
I have that, a downpipe, an an intake and apparently with a whack ass tune... another thing is Paul and I think his dyno is just all overthe place, guys from HSVracing have complained about this exact thing in the past... kick ass pull one week, not **** the next with the same car
at least it sounded good and i know it runs hard(as witnessed by most of the Bama crew here), so i'm still not complaining:
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e7...-22-14_573.mp4
Last edited by 08inBama; 04-01-2011 at 06:54 PM.
04-01-2011 | 07:02 PM
#28
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: 01-24-11
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
From: Chattanooga
i know a guy who put down 307 on it with just IC piping and a tune.... and i'll leave the rest for the imagination
I have that, a downpipe, an an intake and apparently with a whack ass tune... another thing is Paul and I think his dyno is just all overthe place, guys from HSVracing have complained about this exact thing in the past... kick ass pull one week, not **** the next with the same car
at least it sounded good and i know it runs hard(as witnessed by most of the Bama crew here), so i'm still not complaining:
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e7...-22-14_573.mp4
I have that, a downpipe, an an intake and apparently with a whack ass tune... another thing is Paul and I think his dyno is just all overthe place, guys from HSVracing have complained about this exact thing in the past... kick ass pull one week, not **** the next with the same car
at least it sounded good and i know it runs hard(as witnessed by most of the Bama crew here), so i'm still not complaining:
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e7...-22-14_573.mp4
04-08-2011 | 06:56 PM
#29
Senior Member
Joined: 06-08-05
Posts: 18,531
Likes: 1
From: Pittsburgh
" Available as a coupe only, the SS Supercharged featured the 2.0 L LSJ Ecotec engine with an Eaton M62 Roots type supercharger and air-to-liquid intercooler.[2] The engine makes 205 hp (153 kW) at 5600 rpm and 200 lbˇft (271 Nˇm) at 4400 rpm"
Well, something doesn't *compute* given the 195 WTQ. A stock SS/SC has 200Ft Lbs FLYWHEEL torque and that renders 205 FLYWHEEL HP. As you can see, the HP and Torque are almost the same here. Setting aside that your * TO THE WHEEL* #s are greater (?), your HP # still should have been not much greater than 200-205. Did the dyno take you to higher revs than stock..if so where did you peak? (5600RPM is peak on stock). Even then, 225 would be a stretch, given the 195 torque.
Well, something doesn't *compute* given the 195 WTQ. A stock SS/SC has 200Ft Lbs FLYWHEEL torque and that renders 205 FLYWHEEL HP. As you can see, the HP and Torque are almost the same here. Setting aside that your * TO THE WHEEL* #s are greater (?), your HP # still should have been not much greater than 200-205. Did the dyno take you to higher revs than stock..if so where did you peak? (5600RPM is peak on stock). Even then, 225 would be a stretch, given the 195 torque.
04-11-2011 | 12:37 PM
#30
" Available as a coupe only, the SS Supercharged featured the 2.0 L LSJ Ecotec engine with an Eaton M62 Roots type supercharger and air-to-liquid intercooler.[2] The engine makes 205 hp (153 kW) at 5600 rpm and 200 lbˇft (271 Nˇm) at 4400 rpm"
Well, something doesn't *compute* given the 195 WTQ. A stock SS/SC has 200Ft Lbs FLYWHEEL torque and that renders 205 FLYWHEEL HP. As you can see, the HP and Torque are almost the same here. Setting aside that your * TO THE WHEEL* #s are greater (?), your HP # still should have been not much greater than 200-205. Did the dyno take you to higher revs than stock..if so where did you peak? (5600RPM is peak on stock). Even then, 225 would be a stretch, given the 195 torque.
Well, something doesn't *compute* given the 195 WTQ. A stock SS/SC has 200Ft Lbs FLYWHEEL torque and that renders 205 FLYWHEEL HP. As you can see, the HP and Torque are almost the same here. Setting aside that your * TO THE WHEEL* #s are greater (?), your HP # still should have been not much greater than 200-205. Did the dyno take you to higher revs than stock..if so where did you peak? (5600RPM is peak on stock). Even then, 225 would be a stretch, given the 195 torque.
this is an easy one;
GM fudged the numbers on the SS/SC slightly;
not as blatantly as the Neon SRT4* , but they most certainly did low ball the numbers to begin with.
* = if I recall correctly, Dodge originally rated the N-SRT4 numbers nearly identical to the SS/SC - which was a gross under rating; later they re-rated it to something like 240hp... but hey, I'm no Dodge expert.
I seem to recall reading here in the past suggestions that GM should have rated the SS/SC at something more akin to 225hp - but as you pointed out, the dyno numbers might be a smidge on the "happy" side of things;
I think that as long as before & after dynos are don on the same machine, wit hthe same settings, the OP should have a good measure on his results...
04-11-2011 | 12:57 PM
#31
Joined: 12-30-07
Posts: 14,331
Likes: 197
From: NEPA
Ronn;
this is an easy one;
GM fudged the numbers on the SS/SC slightly;
not as blatantly as the Neon SRT4* , but they most certainly did low ball the numbers to begin with.
* = if I recall correctly, Dodge originally rated the N-SRT4 numbers nearly identical to the SS/SC - which was a gross under rating; later they re-rated it to something like 240hp... but hey, I'm no Dodge expert.
I seem to recall reading here in the past suggestions that GM should have rated the SS/SC at something more akin to 225hp - but as you pointed out, the dyno numbers might be a smidge on the "happy" side of things;
I think that as long as before & after dynos are don on the same machine, wit hthe same settings, the OP should have a good measure on his results...
this is an easy one;
GM fudged the numbers on the SS/SC slightly;
not as blatantly as the Neon SRT4* , but they most certainly did low ball the numbers to begin with.
* = if I recall correctly, Dodge originally rated the N-SRT4 numbers nearly identical to the SS/SC - which was a gross under rating; later they re-rated it to something like 240hp... but hey, I'm no Dodge expert.
I seem to recall reading here in the past suggestions that GM should have rated the SS/SC at something more akin to 225hp - but as you pointed out, the dyno numbers might be a smidge on the "happy" side of things;
I think that as long as before & after dynos are don on the same machine, wit hthe same settings, the OP should have a good measure on his results...
The 2004's were rated at 230 Bhp 250 TQ. Essentially they added Mopar Stage 1 to the 2004's from the factory.
The SS/SC's if rated correctly should have been around 230 Bhp 210 TQ given their average whp.
This.
Last edited by Staged07SS; 04-11-2011 at 12:54 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
04-11-2011 | 01:20 PM
#32
What a lot of people dont realize is GM UNDER RATED the ecotec sc. This has been standard practice for GM and other american car companies for many years. On a stock ecotec sc, I have never personally seen one dyno under 207 whp. Most I've seen are around 213 - 217 whp. I been at the dyno and seen 2 stock 2.0 S/C IRL's dyno 230 whp +.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post