I'm wondering if anyone has ever dyno'd a 2.0 N/A sunbird 5-speed with close to the same mods as I have (or not) I'm just curiouse what the engine really puts out. I know it's slow, I just wanna know. Plus I've had a few debates over what my car is most likley, putting out. I know it has 110hp stock, but I don't know if thats at the crank or the wheels.
WAI (home made, planning on changing it)
relocated IAT
Vented block and head / no pcv valve (no power gains there)
cat removed w/ glass pack muffler (stock piping and exaust manifold)
Cam taiming advanced 2 notches (made a heck of a difference, was retarded stock)
Plus a few other little things that really dont matter ( mainly just to make the engine run better) I think my reg is up to date but I'm not sure. Little things on that car like the intake, exaust, and espeicaially the cam timing made a huge difference on that thing.
probably about 60-70hp at the wheels
Where are you getting a 2.0 has a 110BHP stock where a 2.2 TBI has 95...and thats at the crank...
1990-94 Pontiac Sunbird Prices & Review........blah blah blah.......
Nearly all Sunbirds came with a 96-horsepower, 2.0-liter 4-cylinder engine as standard equipment. The lone exception was the GT model, which featured a 165-horsepower turbocharged version of the same engine. The turbo was also optional for the convertible.
Pezed has it about right. You expect a power loss of anywhere from 15% to 25% from the crank to the wheels. Meaning you are only getting, anywhere from 72 to 82.5 WHP
BTW those turbocharged 2.0s, even the N/A 2.0s sucked..made in Brazil and the quality of work shows it.
Whats blue, rides smooth as silk, and treats you right?
[URL=http://www.cardomain.com/ride/703819]See more of this lass by clicking here[/URL
Your kidding right......you think the 2.0 turbo engine sucks? haha youve obviously never been in one.....oh and by the way, The 2.0 turbo is a lot different than the N/A 2.0....most parts in the turboed are forged. There is no way that the N/A 2.0 could handle a turbo.
Ok...I can say that the turbo 2.0s will fly, it was just that they were cheap and people didn't take care of them... Keep the coolant filled and don't run them too hard and they will go...
I reckon no different than a HO Quad 4 found in early 90s GA's SCX's, 90-93 Beretta GTZ, and 204 in Old Calais. Just have to baby them...which MOST people dont...
1990 Corsica LT(U) - The Frankenstein Car, parts from:
89, 89 Z24, 93 Cavalier, 93, 92 Sunbrid, 90 Camaro, 88-90 Beretta base,
GTU and GTZ, 97 Malibu, 95 Acheiva, 89-96 Corsica, 93 Lumina
Charlotte de la Corsica
I can't remember all the sources I've looked up, but everywhere I've checked said 110HP. My old 87 VW golf GL had 86HP and I know that my sunbird had more power than that thing, and the golf weighed a LOT less, so you can't bring weight into play.
As for as 2.0's sucking......They might have been 200CC's smaller, but they have the most agressive cam out of all the J-s at the time, and switched to DIS first wich is a much higher output ignition, 2.0's made up for being smaller by having better equipment and being tuned more agressiive. Engine size isn't everything. Before you say I'm wrong, look of lift duration ect... on the cars first, you'll see I'm right.
I don't wan't to start an argument, I'm just tired of telling people I have no idea when they ask me how much power my car has. I also doubt that 70-80HP could roast my front cooper tires as long as I wan't without even moving the car. I've done it, they will leave a cloud of smoke and keep spinning until I let of the gas, and the engine doesn't ever bog down. It wouldn't do it stock though.
the 2.0l is a great motor if you take care of it. and what do you have against brazil???
To give you a bit of an idea on what kind of power you've got, think of this............
disconnecting the PCV line DECREASES power by not allowing your rings to seal properly thus ALLOWING blowby.
Most glass pack mufflers INCREASE backpressure even though they are loud. Run your fingers inside it. If they catch on the perferations in the muffler then there is more backpressure than stock(but low end power will be increased making you think you've got more power total)
On my 91 Cavalier 2.2L TBI rated at 95 hp, I had a Dynomax Super Turbo muffler, custom cold air intake, removed intake restrictor, relocated IAT, and K&N air filter. It put down 82 whp and 118 ft lbs. This was on a 5 speed manual. I could roast the front tires all day long. It wasn't the horsepower that did it, it was the torque.
Your 110 hp is rated at the flywheel. If you've got the 3 speed auto then these guys are right, expect around 80-85 hp to the wheels. Otherwise, if you get rid of and fix the parts on your car that are hurting power then you could be looking at around 90 whp for a 5 speed manual.
.
.
91 Cav "GT"<-- R.I.P.
91 Cavalier Wagonstein - Turbocharged wagon goodness
You can take my rifle when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
Well, Weebel,
I'm a little upset at the offhanded comments about the Pontiac OHC, too. But...
Cavalier 2.0 was DIS in 87 when the OHV engine was redesigned. Sunbird OHC engine stayed distributor until 92 or 93. And the OHV engine didn't need an aggressive cam to make power. The 87+ heads are better and the valves are larger. The OHC engine needed the larger cam to make up for shortcomings in the ports.
Have fun.
-->Slow
Well, I'm a dambass, I forgot about torque. I forgot the engine has a bit more torque than horsepower.
I "meant" that a SOHC normally has a flatter powerband than a DOHC, which is better suited for high rmp power. I didn't mean to offend anyone. I've got a 93 and it has DIS
Acording to by books from 82 to 94, sunbirds where the only ones with OHC MPFI, cavys always had OHV with TBI.
Both the 2.2 (VIN G and 4) and 2.0 (Vin 1 and H) came with DIS starting in 87, My engine is an H.
I'm not sure about the valves but both the 2.0 and 2.2 where rated at 110HP, FWHP or not, they have about the same output.
I might have been wrong about the DIS thing, but my point that the Sunbirds made up for there size with technology, is true. High 80's low 90 stock at the wheels is probably true, I'm just used to talking "factory" crank horsepower.
The PCV valve doesn't effect valve seating and cause blowby. Exccesive crankcase pressure does, and venting it streight to the atmoshphere instead of into the intake through the pcv valve will only decrease crankcase pressure.
The glass pack on the car is actually smooth inside, and if anything, it doesn't have enough back pressure, you can tell by the exaust note, and gained a bit of power up high and lost it down low.
Thanx for the horsepower numbers though, thats what I was REALLY looking for, I'm kinda curiouse what the crank / flywheel HP would be though just for comparison.
Quote:
Acording to by books from 82 to 94, sunbirds where the only ones with OHC MPFI, cavys always had OHV with TBI.
Turbo sunbird prior to 90 (or is it 91?) has mpfi. NA Sunbird 2.0 is tbi.
Toss out the book. DIS showed up on the OHC engine in 93.
-->Slow
you are wrong all around actually. The 2.0OHV was rated at about 110hp 110tq. the 2.2OHV came along and bumped it up to about 120, then in 93 went to the roller valvetrain and bumped it up to basically the MAX of the engine design, 140 where it has stayed until the last stand (2200 SFI).
The 2.0OHC engine remained distributor ignition until the early 90s and other than ignition i think the motor remained basically unchanged during its entire run and was rated at about 95hp. These ratings come from an engine connected to a dyno, not from the wheels. You always loose some power because of all of the gearing, axels to spin, wheels, brakes, alternator, etc etc.
For example, a 3400 swapped cavalier put down 160hp and about 200lb / torque on the dyno, when the engine itself is rated for 190hp and 210ft/lb.
Not trying to rip on you man, but every "mod" you've listed except for maybe the cam timing has probably decreased your total output. Now those mods might increase the output in narrow gaps of the powerband, but overall i'd say its declined (IE: Lower backpressure over stock, moves powerband up possibly out of the stock cam range) (relocated IAT: Sends ECM wrong temp info causing motor to run richer, you might burn more gas, don't expect more power)
I also don't know what kind of tires you are roasting, but you must be talking about on a wet road. Here i am running 225/50s and i wont be roasting any tires and i have 180ft/lb and 5 speed tranny. It will spin them if you dump it but what wont? I've yet to see any smoke come off them lol.
I think i have a new name for you, Hypsy Jr!!
And on a side note, if you don't like the replies you are getting, you should have never asked.
Weebel wrote:
The PCV valve doesn't effect valve seating and cause blowby. Exccesive crankcase pressure does, and venting it streight to the atmoshphere instead of into the intake through the pcv valve will only decrease crankcase pressure.
The glass pack on the car is actually smooth inside, and if anything, it doesn't have enough back pressure, you can tell by the exaust note, and gained a bit of power up high and lost it down low.
Thanx for the horsepower numbers though, thats what I was REALLY looking for, I'm kinda curiouse what the crank / flywheel HP would be though just for comparison.
Venting the PCV valve has NO effect on valve seating, it effects piston ring seal. By not creating a vacuum in the bottom end of the motor, the rings don't seal as well against the cylinder walls. Just look at the big block race cars. They add a vacuum pump in order to run power brakes, but also to make the rings seal better. This in turn has given a dyno proven 30+ whp on big block motors. You are right that ecessive crankcase pressure does induce blowby, and this is why you NEED vacuum to be applied instead of just venting it.
Back pressure is bad NO MATTER WHAT!! Even on an NA motor, back pressure is bad. People confuse back pressure with exhaust velocity and exhaust flow. They are all 3 VERY differant things. A proper exhaust won't loose any power down low but you will gain power up top from having as little backpressure as possible.
No problem on the hp numbers. I'm a firm believer in dynoing after every mod to make sure your butt dyno isn't lying to you!!
.
.
91 Cav "GT"<-- R.I.P.
91 Cavalier Wagonstein - Turbocharged wagon goodness
You can take my rifle when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
Whadda bunch of experts we all are.
Quote:
Back pressure is bad NO MATTER WHAT!! People confuse back pressure with exhaust velocity and exhaust flow.
AMEN to that.
The OHC engine gained a boost in hp and torque in 92 / 93, when it was converted from tbi to mpfi. Even if the cam hadn't changed from .237 / .237 lift to .263 / .263, the longer runners, larger plenum, and larger throttle body of the new mpfi system would have helped performance. With the cam, hp/ tq went from 96/ 118 to 110/ 124 (autoconsumerguide.com). It's a shame that GM never installed a 4 valve/ cylinder head like what was used on the European version of this engine. Along with the turbo, that would have made many a v6 owner very jealous.
In the early days of my career, I accidentally installed a Chevette timing belt so the cam was one tooth advanced. I figured it out to be something like 13 degrees, IIRC. That mistake caused the engine to have so much cranking pressure that it wouldn't turn over with just one battery. I had to use 2 of them to get it started. Once it was running the engine was fairly smooth at idle, but off idle it was an animal! I could actually break the tires free from a standstill just by flooring the throttle! It was waaay too much fun. But by 34 mph, the engine was all done. There was just no more power. I tried to convince the boss to let me leave it that way, as it was a fleet vehicle that was only used in town, but it really wouldn't have been convenient to install 2 batteries just to get it started.
Weebel, I'm not sure how you decided that the cam timing was originally retarded. If it's from a stretched timing belt, you're tempting fate if you're running the same belt. If you used a degree wheel then you should be able to tell how many degrees advanced the cam is now. "2 notches" leaves a little to be desired. Really, in the end it's almost pointless to ask what someone else's dyno results are. I worked on a dyno for a couple of years and I've seen cars that seem the same produce different numbers. Get yours dyno tested and be done with it.
$.02
-->Slow
you almost make your car sound fast hahaha
I have no problrm with the replies, for some reason I just seem to come off forcefull, but thats not my intention.
All the information I was getting was out of the service manuals, so if the manuals are wrong, there's no way I would know. I justs assumed they where true.
My car does have DIS, I know that for sure.
The only reason I know about the timing belt, was because I had to replace the water pump wich is drivin by the timing belt. Before I took the old belt off, I noticed that the cam sprocket was exactly 2 teeth off from being dead on with the crank. I advanced it the 2 notches clockwise to dead on, when I installed the new belt, and now the car takes off a bit better, I thought about moving it farther, but I didn't want to rip averything apart again if it didn't run right. I did find out however that the valves won't hit the pistons if the timing belt breaks, or slips horably.
Backpressure is bad, and my car desn't have much of it at all. I also know that for sure.
The PCV valve only opens if pressure in the head drops to a point lower than intake vacuum, wich is usually all the time. It doesn't make sense, but pull the PCV valve and hose of the cam cover when the car is running sometime and slowly slide your finger over it. It will open with the air restriction. The pcv valve doesn't really create vacuum in the block, it just keeps too much pressure from building. Actually...enough pressure would keep the valve from opening, but it would be rediculessly high.
I've got stock sized tires on 15" steelies. There Cooper Lifeliners. There soft, and sticky as all hell. I have had smoke barelling out from under my fenderwells, covering the car in smoke in a perfectly dry sand free parking lot on a hot day. I can keep the rpm's at 5500 as long as I wan't, but the front end likes to side step a little. As for the secret...I had my E-brake on. I just pull the handle and dump the clutch, and then I just keep spining until I wan't to stop. The engine never even feels like it trying. If I punch it without the E-brake on, the tires still light up like crazy, but the car starts moving forward and eventually hooks up. I tried doing that when the car was completely stock with the crappy BF goodwrench tires on it, and all it did was bog down and die almost imediatly. So I know there is a significant power gain coming from somewhere.
I would get it dyno'd, but finding one here would be harder than contacting aliens. I was just looking for a rough estimate. But I'll never really know until I find a dyno.
I know it sounds like I come off mad or offended sometimes, but I'm really not, just read the post as if it was said in a calm collected manner, thats how it is in my head when I tpye it. I'f I'm actually upset about something, there won't be a doubt about it
Thanx guys
Ah.. well see the ebrake doesnt do anything for me.. if i do that i'll spin about the same as without ebrake, then gain traction and start dragging the rear tires around lol.
My car used to do that, but then I'de get too much traction and have to push the clutch in or it would kill itself. I't must not take much of a horsepower gain to get the tires really smoking because I haven't done much to my car, but theres a noticable difference in performance since I first bought it stock.
