I dyno'd my car with some friends today,
I had 101HP, 108ft/lb with the quad 4
He had 100HP, 116ft/lb with the 2.2 (not 2200)
How can it be?
We both just have intakes and his car has dual exhaust, but only after the axle.
What is the biggest restrictor on the Quad. Exhaust?
Based on his reg, its prolly the 2.3 LO (95 Z24)
Which 2.2? 95-97 2.2, 98-02 LN2 (2200), Eco?
There is something wrong with your Z, cause a 95' should be around 140 whp. Does it feel like the car is bogging down at all?
Brian Whalen wrote:There is something wrong with your Z, cause a 95' should be around 140 whp. Does it feel like the car is bogging down at all?
Excuse me 140WHP??? Noi, but yes he should have had more than what he put down.
FU Tuning
Quote:
Excuse me 140WHP??? Noi, but yes he should have had more than what he put down.
Fair enough... but it should be expected to be over 130 which is about what the LD9 typically dynos stock.
Quote:
What is the biggest restrictor on the Quad. Exhaust?
Biggest restriction for you would probably be the unfortunate balance shafts gm decided to use starting with the 95' quads.
I don't mean to start an argument John, but why are these in your registry under your 96' z?
Quote:
Stainless steel cam rollers
I think there is something wrong with that.
Just to clear things up.
His was a 97 Cavalier. 2.2 (Not 2200, not Ecotec)
Mine is the Quad 4 LO
I didn't think the Quad 4 had balance shafts?
BradSk88 wrote:Just to clear things up.
His was a 97 Cavalier. 2.2 (Not 2200, not Ecotec)
Mine is the Quad 4 LO
I didn't think the Quad 4 had balance shafts?
the 95 Quad4 was the changeover year and had balance shafts, the hex PS pump, and obd1.5 (odb2 for the auto). it made 150HP and 155TQ at the flywheel. (or was that 150tq, it's been a while)
Given drivetrain loss of 15% (just throwing it out) your looking at 127HP at the wheels roughly. Your in an auto, so the numbers going to be a little lower.
Those numbers are given under controlled settings though. if your filters are dirty, plugs/boots are weak, or one of many other reasons, you wont make the 150HP benchmark.
one question, is his car a manual transmission?
anyone else think the 2.2 did well? 102hp? considering what...110 stock flywheel?
His was a manual, yes.
I'll have to clean up my filters (They look dirty), check my plugs, and throw an HO exhaust on and see what happens..
Quote:
Given drivetrain loss of 15% (just throwing it out) your looking at 127HP at the wheels roughly. Your in an auto, so the numbers going to be a little lower.
Agree, 127-129 at the wheels stock would be about right, but what he put is WAY too low. What kind of dyno?
Quote:
I don't mean to start an argument John, but why are these in your registry under your 96' z?
Miss print, I copied that list from the previous owner, and I did not go through it good, will fix, thanks.
FU Tuning
Quote:
it made 150HP and 155TQ at the flywheel. (or was that 150tq, it's been a while)
Sorry, for some reason I had it in my head that the LO had 160hp and 155 ft-lbs of torque. I bet I had it mixed up with the 94' and earlier quads.
Quote:
Miss print, I copied that list from the previous owner, and I did not go through it good, will fix, thanks.
Glad I could help someone
OHV >> QUAD lol
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
that 2.2 did real well. I saw a 2200 non eco pull 92hp and 108 ft/lbs on a dyno
Scott
When I boost, you boost, we boost
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have been banned from NEJBODY.
You've displayed wayyy too many acts of pushing people to their limits.
It's never cool to tear people down for what they want to do.
NEJBODY is a team. We're not the same as JBO where everyone bashes on eachother.
I'm surprised you show up to our meets after half of the things you say on here.
OHV notec wrote:OHV >> QUAD lol
too bad the 95 is more TC than Quad4.
The 94 HO had 170. The 90-94 had anywhere from 190 to 160 stock at the flywheel. and things like a header and exhaust work net 20-30 more HP. IIRC the 88-89 had 150 and there was no HO in those years.
Brian Whalen wrote:Quote:
it made 150HP and 155TQ at the flywheel. (or was that 150tq, it's been a while)
Sorry, for some reason I had it in my head that the LO had 160hp and 155 ft-lbs of torque. I bet I had it mixed up with the 94' and earlier quads.
I see you got those numbers from this sticky.
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=47&i=30104&t=30104&p=1
Which it is
and shoud be deleted or to the very least updated with correct info.
The correct info is here. Scroll down to me.
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=47&i=30104&t=30104&p=2
Here are the correct numbers on the 95-05 J.
1995-97 2.2 OHV - 120@5200 Horsepower / 130@4000 lbs of Torque
1998-2002 2200 OHV - 115@5000 Horsepower / 135@3600 lbs of Torque
1995 2.3 L.O. Quad 4 - 150@5600 Horsepower / 145@4800 lbs of Torque
1996-2002 2.4 TC - 150@5600 Horsepower / 155@2400-4400 lbs of Torque
2002-2005 2.2 ECOTEC - 140@5600Horsepower / 150@4000 lbs of Torque
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Brian Whalen wrote:Quote:
it made 150HP and 155TQ at the flywheel. (or was that 150tq, it's been a while)
Sorry, for some reason I had it in my head that the LO had 160hp and 155 ft-lbs of torque. I bet I had it mixed up with the 94' and earlier quads.
I see you got those numbers from this sticky.
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=47&i=30104&t=30104&p=1
Which it is and shoud be deleted or to the very least updated with correct info.
The correct info is here. Scroll down to me.
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=47&i=30104&t=30104&p=2
Here are the correct numbers on the 95-05 J.
1995-97 2.2 OHV - 120@5200 Horsepower / 130@4000 lbs of Torque
1998-2002 2200 OHV - 115@5000 Horsepower / 135@3600 lbs of Torque
1995 2.3 L.O. Quad 4 - 150@5600 Horsepower / 145@4800 lbs of Torque
1996-2002 2.4 TC - 150@5600 Horsepower / 155@2400-4400 lbs of Torque
2002-2005 2.2 ECOTEC - 140@5600Horsepower / 150@4000 lbs of Torque
well, I was close, not bad for going from memory, or lack thereof.
