and not just any turbo.. a Squires turbo
anyone who has ever heard of squires already knows what they are all about.
for those that don't know, they are a remote mounted turbo system that mounts the turbo under the car at the rear of the vehicle, in alot of cases it replaces the muffler.
this remote mounting has ups and downs. it requires longer intake pipes, which usually increase lag. the upside however is that the turbo doesn't heat up as much because its away from the extreme heat of the engine bay and should increase efficiency.
anyways,
here is the article...
Quote:
Tuners: 2006 STS Chevrolet HHR
Boosted power; boosted appeal
By John Kiewicz
Photography by the author
Time will tell whether Chevrolet's retro-styled HHR will have the same sales appeal as Chrysler's PT Cruiser. But the aftermarket isn't waiting--a host of makers are already tooling up a cornucopia of performance parts for Chevy's new micro 'ute.
Squires Turbo Systems has made a name for itself in the performance marketplace with its innovative rear-mounted single- and twin-turbocharger systems. STS's unique design (with turbos located near the rear bumper where the mufflers reside) offers two distinct benefits over traditional turbo systems: a simple one-day installation (using normal hand tools) and reduced cost.
A rear-mounted turbo requires long induction tubing, which generates added turbo lag. Yet, after testing numerous STS-equipped cars, we've found the lag low and the power impressive. How impressive? We hustled STS's otherwise stock twin-turbo (and intercooled) 2005 Mustang GT to a 12.6-second quarter mile while running it on M+S radials and pump fuel. Thus, we had to have an STS HHR for a track test.
The rear-mount single-turbo system ($3995) looks great, but, at test time, STS's final calibration wasn't finished, so driveability and power suffered. On STS's chassis dyno, the system boosts output of the HHR's 143-horse, 2.2-liter Ecotec DOHC I-4 by 71 ponies--all while reducing emissions, according to STS. But, at the test track, the boosted STS HHR ran nearly the same acceleration times as a stock version.
Lifting the HHR's rear hatch revealed a cargo area full of aftermarket JL Audio stereo equipment. Add a set of monstrous Maya MT1 20x8.5-inch wheels and BFG g-Force KDW 245/30ZR20 tires, and suddenly the same-as-stock times made sense. We put STS's HHR on the scales, and it outweighed a stock HHR by 415 pounds. The general performance rule is that, for every 100 pounds lost, elapsed times drop by about one tenth of a second, equating to more than four tenths in the STS HHR's case.
for those who didn't catch this in the article...
Quote:
... the system boosts output of the HHR's 143-horse, 2.2-liter Ecotec DOHC I-4 by 71 ponies ...
i wonder if this system can be adapted for the cobalt /G5 / Ion platform (which i think is the same as the HHR) as well as ecotec equipped cavaliers and sunfires. this thing add 71 horse and wasn't even tuned! thats already 210hp, which puts it above the output of the cobalt SC and the Ion Redline. with a proper tune this thing could probably turn out an extra 100 hp over stock, though the article doesn't mention how much boost is being used (average STS uses 5 psi, but can be increased).
picture time!
- a picture of the intake tube and the engine bay of the HHR.
- a picture of the massive 20" wheels STS mounted on this thing, plus a picture of the huge sound system that combined to add over 400lbs of extra weight to the HHR over stock.... no wonder the times weren't really better than stock! dump the weight of the system and the huge wheels (for every extra 1lbs of non-moving or stationary weight added, thats like adding 7 lbs of moving weight to your vehicle) plus a properly tuned ECU, this thing could crank out some good numbers!
1997 RedR - ZedR
ahahahahaa , that hhr is a turtle , add boost to a 2.4 170hp , and its barely faster than a 2.2 hhr
hahahahahahahaha
[quote=97trd(???™)]ahahahahaa , that hhr is a turtle , add boost to a 2.4 170hp , and its barely faster than a 2.2 hhr
hahahahahahahaha
DID YOU NOT READ THE REST OF IT????
its untuned and has 4-500lbs of extra weight over a stock 2.2L ecotec HHR.
1997 RedR - ZedR
did you not read what i wrote ???
that hhr in those pics has a 2.4 vvt eco in it , not a 2.2 eco , so its already 30hp over the 2.2
which means with the turbo adding more power , PLUS the 30hp difference between the 2.2 and 2.4
its a freakin turtle , even with the extra weight'
1 other thing to think about hahn still ran 12's in their sunfire with a full sound system , and other show car goodies
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:24 PM
man, thats an extra 400 lbs of weight. i also included the ration in my original post aswell.
for every pound of stationary weight added, thats like adding 7 punds of moving weight.
so lets see. 415 * 7 =
2905 lbs!!
basically the STS HHR was towing a civic behind it. (figurativley speaking of course, if you took the weight of a civic and multiplied that by 7 it would be alot more, its just an example.)
Quote:
PLUS the 30hp difference between the 2.2 and 2.4
again, read the article....
Quote:
Quote:
... the system boosts output of the HHR's 143-horse, 2.2-liter Ecotec DOHC I-4 by 71 ponies ...
it was a 2.2L HHR, not a 2.4L...
all and all i think it was a good number for an untuned engine thats probably not runing more than 7 psi of boost. the hahn kit for sale on their website says it puts out 90-100 hp @ 8psi on a stock engine.
taken directly from the hahn website:
Quote:
In quarter mile testing at 12 PSI boost, our 3000 lb. Cavalier Attitude show car achieved 12.96 seconds @ 104 mph! This test car was fitted with slicks, the Stage II turbosystem, and an MBRP dual exhaust.
from GM Canada's website:
Quote:
Base Curb weight (kg / lb.): 1431 / 3155 (2.2L)
add 415 pounds to that and your at 3670 lbs for weight, which is 670 more than hahns cavalier their listed above.
i think the STS system is far better than a conventional turbo system. as good as hahn is, the STS once properly tuned is going to get its doors blown off.
1997 RedR - ZedR
dude that HHR has a 2.4 vvt in it not a 2.2
blow up the pic , the cover says ECOTEC vvt , also you can see the 2 vvt solenoids at the left of the #1 coil in the cam cover
and your 2900lbs is all a BS theory
and STS are not as good as a regular set up , they do work and decent systems
also hahn has dyno'd over 350whp on a 2.4vvt in a solstice , with the same motor that is in that hhr
your on the wrong end of a loosing battle man , research more before you post again
Eric is right. Sorry to burst your bubble but this photo...
..is a ***2.4L ECOTEC VVT***. That means that their claims are most likely skewed and not 100% accurate when the kit is installed on a 2.2L Ecotec.
whitegoose( RedR-ZedR) wrote:and not just any turbo.. a Squires turbo
You say that like its a good thing. Remote mount turbos are a bad idea. Sure they are easier to mount, but they are far from efficient. Dollar for dollar a car with a regular turbo system will smoke one with a remote turbo (when properly tuned, not installed by an amateur).
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about
the former." - Albert Einstein
2.2 eco
2.4 eco
sts turbo motor , for give my crappy photo shop skillz
sorry, didnt realize that actually was a 2.4 vvt ecotec. i was only going by the info in the article, but the pictures did help clear things up.
[quote=97trd(???™)]
and your 2900lbs is all a BS theory
i was wrong here as well. the theory of 1 pound of static weight adding 7 pounds of weight when moving is flase. the theory applies to unsprung weight, in this case the wheels and tires (also brakes, etc). the stereo system would not be included in this calculation, which would explain why it is so damn high.
i only have 1 thing left to say......
im not a complete looser, i still won something
i feel like an idiot and i appologize, but i still think it was a pretty decent gain over what numbers the car could have put out without a turbo. oh, and the numbers that they say this thing does in a 1/4 mi i would hope are being compared to the stock 2.4 rather than the 2.2L ecotec. anyways, this kit properly tuned with an intercooler (since most STS kits dont come with one) and running a bit more boost, im sure would be decent. by the pics of the engine bay, the HHR doesnt have alot of room under the hood for a traditional turbo set-up, atleast this is an option.
1997 RedR - ZedR
its all good man
some people just dont catch the small details , which i had to do when i used to street race , half the challenge to wining a race is to know your compitition , which means knowing ford , chrysler , amc , imports
also helps to be certified car crazy , lol
now you know what to look for
