I'm unsure what could cause such a drastic difference. As most already know at the JCO bash my 2.2 Eco threw a rod during my third pass of the night. Blowing at the 1k ft mark I managed a 13.9@94mph Previous run was also a 13.9@104.88 The times were accomplished with a 2.8 s/c pulley, 550cc injectors, pacesetter header, 2.5" exhaust etc.
After installing the new engine and going back to the 3.0 pulley w/ion redline injectors I have managed a best of 14.7@97 The car simply feels powerless compared to before and I'm not sure the difference. The only things I changed were the engine (2002 grand am 2.2 Eco w/17k miles *supposedly* As well as a flowmaster muffler (quieter), ion redline a/c compressor and crank pulley (to use the 6 rib belt later on), lightened rk sport flywheel and spec S3+ clutch.
How does one loose 6mph in traps and nearly a full second? My compression check seemed promising with 215 across the board, however the old engine had 225 or 235 across the board, I cannot recall or find the paper to verify. Either way I expected to be faster with a fresh motor and a lightened flywheel not slower, let alone this much.
Anyone have any ideas, this is becoming very discouraging.... I'm sure some of it can be attributed to the hot weather and humidity but the JCO bash was fairly hot too.....
12.770 @ 111.99 Intercooled Eaton M62
mmm...have u driven it around hard lots to let is relearn the itself? Drive it hard around for awhile and the pcm should relearn some and that might help.
Nate
Evolution of Cavyboy-->C22t--> C24na--->c24s/c
1995 Cavalier W/2k1 Engine
GM S/C 13.940@99.78pmh w/2.068 60ft
Shifted, yes it's been hot lately 96 deg or so but the night I ran the 14.7 it was fairly cool I'm also using an emanage to control my fuel/timing vs the reflash so the IATs shouldn't matter so much on my setup.
C24, I always drive hard... Maybe the computer is pulling timing for some strange reason but I have no idea why it would at this point.
12.770 @ 111.99 Intercooled Eaton M62
how do the rest of your times compare? 60 ft? 8th? 8th trap? 1000 ft?
maybe the flywheel is causing you to rev out too much and your loosing torque?
never really thought that a lightweight flywheel would make much of a difference dragging, apposed to auto-x where u needed to keep the revs up.
the stock flywheel is extremely heavy and the light weight on is only like 8-12 lbs.
id like to see how everythign compares in your slips, instead of the 1/4 at trap speed. should show where it slowing down or loosing power.
http://www.myspace.com/15102113
Were there any accesories that were not switched over. I am wondering if you just have some parasitic drag from alternator or ac compressor. Are you sure your ac it shutting off when you were running those times. Do you have a boost gauge to know what you are boosting.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
You might be overlooking something simple too, Air. A bad plug or a broken/kinked plug wire, TPS going? Run some sea foam carbon cleaner too. Just check the basics.
I know for a fact that the rk sport flywheel can ONLY be used with the cenetrforce clutch... That would be my guess. That is coming straight from rk sport when I checked into it a while ago. So that may be it. Or that crank pulley might be a atd smaller?
LE61T PTE6262 Powered 
The same thing happened to me. I efffed up my original motor and had it replaced with one and afterwards my car was definatly slower. I ran a 15.2 with a 2.2X 60ft with intake and exhaust before. now with all my current mods I usually run 15.1-15.2 with 2.1 60 fts. And not to mention my friend's car (V6 grand am) with I/E I used to pull away from him no problem. and we raced each other ALOT! lol But after the new engine was in... it was practically EVEN! and that was with his stereo in and my spare out. :-( I almost cried...
But I think I know the solution. Rebuild the old one better than stock! TA DA! Thats what I'm doing atleast.
Did the new engine come off a car with an auto trans. mine did. and I think that has something to do with it.
Hope you get it worked out though.
2004 Cavalier
13.2@105........
Mods...
BFG Drag Radials
Saab Turbo kit
2.5 exhaust, w/cutout
Spec Stage 2+ Clutch
When I was searching for a flywheel clutch combo I called rk about their flywheel, And they told me it wouldnt work with any clutch but just the one manufacturer, I dont remember the name I thought it was centerforce. So I went with a spec combo through karo. Funny thing is I THINK Fidanze makes the Rk Flywheel for the ecotecs
LE61T PTE6262 Powered
Thats what I was told, RK did not sell the only clutch they said it worked with so it wasn't a marketting scheme. Now remember this si going on 2.5+ years ago
LE61T PTE6262 Powered
QBE (The Boosted One) wrote:Thats what I was told, RK did not sell the only clutch they said it worked with so it wasn't a marketting scheme. Now remember this si going on 2.5+ years ago
Sometimes you say the craziest things without backing up you comments with actual data.
Dimension per dimension, the RK Sport flywheel is EXACTLY the same as a stock flywheel. The only difference is the material which results in light weight.
Jon, either Todd or I need to datalog your car. Regardless of the s/c reflash or not, the ECU will compensate for high heat situations by messing with timing. However, I doubt that's your problem. Otherwise, you would of said at this point that the car feels much more lively at night in the cold weather.
I'm especially curious of your knock sensor readings as well as STFT and LTFT.
I will NEVER change my sig. HTML 4 EVA!!
<a href="http://www.j-body.org/members/mrpute"><img src="http://www.j-bom.com/images/sigs/putesig.jpg">
thats what i was told back when I was looking for a clutch and flywheel. How do you suggest I back that up with data? i ddint record the phone coversation. I just waited for spec.
LE61T PTE6262 Powered
I could see how you could be slower.
1. larger s/c pulley (I sure you know this means less boost, haha)
2. newer "tighter" engine
3. Light weight flywheel
Maybe you haven't adjusted to the flywheel yet
4. what about the tune for the larger s/c pulley (maybe the tune is off)
5. different track conditions
I dunno, just throwing out possible ideas.
I know for a fact that Honda engines suffer big time from ligth weight flywheels, having to dump @ a higher rpm in order to get any type of decent launch.
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
well if you're on the gm s/c reflash now instead of the custom tune you had with emanage before, i could definitely see some power loss happening there. From the little things i've been reading here and there in the tuning forum, GM seems to love ridiculously low levels of timing advance. Beyond that, you went to a 3 inch pulley, of course you're going to be somewhat slower... that, with the heat and humidity.... i could easily see that making up at least half of the difference you're seeing. Sounds like time for some good old fashioned datalogging...
Oh yeah, did I miss something? What happened to the LSJ swap?
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
Short Hand wrote:I know for a fact that Honda engines suffer big time from ligth weight flywheels, having to dump @ a higher rpm in order to get any type of decent launch.
Good thing he's not driving a freaking Honda......
I have YET to see where a Light weight flywheel hurts performance on a J-body...... I've used them from all motor 2.4's, to Juiced 2.4's, Turboed 2.3's, and Supercharged 2.4's....... all with positive results........ Both the LD9 and Ecotec start with a nice amount of Trq. stock, unlike 90% of what Honda offers (untill the K series)........ and even then I know of a few Honda's that run light weight flywheels w/o any negitive effects.
Airtonics....... I'm with the other guys, get some data logging in..... see if it is a timing issue or something of the likes.
SPD RCR Z -
'02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT -
'04 GTO 305whp
W41 BOI -
'78 Buick Opel Isuzu W41 Swap
SRZ... isn't it like, 3 or 4 in the morning over there? lol
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
4:30am
...... just heading to bed...... I'll be back on in 5 hours or so
SPD RCR Z -
'02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT -
'04 GTO 305whp
W41 BOI -
'78 Buick Opel Isuzu W41 Swap
I think a few never read the entire post or missed my point. I'm not comparing my times to the 2.8 s/c pulley. I'm comparing them to the same 3.0 pulley I had on the car for some time and trapped 101.64 with a 13.9, the 2.8 nearly trapped at 105. The emange is what I've had from the start and always had. I also loaded the old program that I had for this same setup prior. As for the lightened flywheel, I'm pulling the same 60ft times I was with the original setup, 2.2'ish. QBE, the clutch and flywheel work just fine together. It's a stock replacement, you could use it with the stock clutch if you wanted. Everything lined up and all is well. Maybe Rk only sold centerforce clutches when they told you that.
Andy, I'll call or message you soon about datalogging the car. That seems to be the best option at this point to see what's really going on with it.
12.770 @ 111.99 Intercooled Eaton M62
lightweight flywheels arr garbage regardless of what you drive. your tossing rotational mass in the can for what, the ability to rev more freely? that rotational mass is what gets you going.
hondas are not the only cars that suffer from a lighter flywheel, your "j-body" will also suffer. when you remove rotational mass from any rotating assembly its going to have the same effect, maybe just less pronounced.
i personally would never run one.
SRZ's bro seemed to suffer pretty good many years ago. HE dropped quite few tenths off his E.T with the change to a lightened flyhwheel and lightened crank pulley.
you claim on 600whp stock block honda's and now this. hmm
anyways, sorry to be off topic.
good luck getting it figured out. and keep us updated.
Quote:
ccfab
Today 9:10 AM
lightweight flywheels are garbage regardless of what you drive. your tossing rotational mass in the can for what, the ability to rev more freely? that rotational mass is what gets you going.
hondas are not the only cars that suffer from a lighter flywheel, your "j-body" will also suffer. when you remove rotational mass from any rotating assembly its going to have the same effect, maybe just less pronounced.
i personally would never run one.
I've heard this argument before, and I've also heard the argument that less rotational mass means less power robbed from the wheels.
all I know is my n/a L61 with a catback and an intake (whoop de!) made 141hp and 145tq to the wheels on a dynojet in february.
Don't try telling me an intake and a catback system netted 10-20whp.
My only explanation for making that much power is because I'm runing a 7lbs fidanza flywheel with a spec stage3 clutch (not that it matters since i'm not pushing its holding capacity yet).
Dynojets tend to be happy, so maybe the dyno results were skewed.. but the car's performance backed up the numbers. I've hit several high 14s and consistent low 15s before I had full exhaust. There were plenty of cars with more modifications than me running barely faster times.
I would like to point that the only variable mod was my flywheel.
I threw on an underdrive pulley, and on a messed up 1-2 shift I hit a 14.92 @91.2mph my best run prior to that was a 14.91 @ 90mph when everything was perfect... that scewed up run would have been a mid 14.8 if not better.
But since then the engine's been leaking oil out the front and rear mains (again, my fault) I think the bearings are hurt... AND 3" exhaust is clearly too large for n/a which doesn't really matter since I'm going boost anyway.
my point is I do think lightened flywheels make a difference. Less rotational mass means more at the wheels. I otherwise can't explain the car's performance numbers earlier this year. I since haven't been able to best any of the times but I hope to climb the group A ladder before finally strapping on a turbo.
But I guess its still only speculation until someone has testing to prove otherwise.
go all the way and buy HPTuners with the datalogging software...
it seems like the best way to identify the problem...
15.574 @ 89 mph stock without charger. new times with charger coming soon.
