Excuse, me the car has a k&n drop in filter, but that's it.
i was just looking at that on cobaltss.net
i cant decide.....ss s/c cobalt or new cavalier
ahhhhhhhhhh
97cavy22 wrote:i was just looking at that on cobaltss.net
i cant decide.....ss s/c cobalt or new cavalier
ahhhhhhhhhh
I hear ya, I still think the cav looks better. It's going to take alot of work for me to transform the cobalt to look as good as my cav. I just prefer the handling and refinement.
For the price though if I were you I'd get a new cav, can get a steal on one right now. Do that. The Cobalt SS is overpriced right now the only reason Im getting one Is cause im getting through GMS discount. Go for the Cav.
RkSport 2003 wrote:Excuse, me the car has a k&n drop in filter, but that's it.
stock was 217.4
w/ the filter was 221.3
nice
so much for 205 crank hp huh
lol
anyway im going to wait a year before i get either the redline or ss/sc
Impressive,
its like the gift from GM that keeps on giving all year long......
RkSport 2003 wrote:97cavy22 wrote:i was just looking at that on cobaltss.net
i cant decide.....ss s/c cobalt or new cavalier
ahhhhhhhhhh
I hear ya, I still think the cav looks better. It's going to take alot of work for me to transform the cobalt to look as good as my cav. I just prefer the handling and refinement.
For the price though if I were you I'd get a new cav, can get a steal on one right now. Do that. The Cobalt SS is overpriced right now the only reason Im getting one Is cause im getting through GMS discount. Go for the Cav.
Go for the Cobalt for sure, the handling, braking, the sound insulation(no more rattle) is way better then my old cavy, I drive both the SS(My black SS) and the base model and the difference between them and the cavy it' s like day and night. Go to a dealer for a test drive you will see. And the ss is not really overprice comparing them to the old Z24 or new LS full equip, And in Canada is near $4000 less the the SRT4. And I have you see the body kit for them, I'm sure they look better then the old cavy and if you wait more (6 to 12month) you will have tons of after market stuff for them.
"New Cobalt SS/SC owner" 2 x Brahma 15" 2 x A3000DB
Jypy- Post pics of your ride! Nice color choice.
Quote:
the sound insulation(no more rattle)
As of right now there is no rattle squeek's. Give it a little time or drop in a system. I've yet to see a chevy with out squeeks.
how many miles? still in break in period?
I hear that GM limits performance for the first while so you can't really abuse it during break in?
If that is true the car is only going to get more powerful.
I'm a forever skeptic, and i'm impressed.
www.drluc.ca
I don't go by dyno machines for accurate power numbers. I rather believe on the sophistication from the factory. You can play with with dyno read outs if you know the techniques. Cold engine, tire pressure, fan size, calibrations, climate, temp, the list goes on. C&D did a article that puts dyno machines into perspective. The dyno shop (Chevy dealer) that I did mine run pulled a more realistic 184HP 181TQ on a Saturn Redline. So I dunno about this.
Dynos to me don't hold water.
Sorry not gullible and was not born yesterday. Go find another sucker to believe it.
Also funny the TQ figure is so low compared to the HP figure. This is telling me that GM#s is pure bogus? ::rolls eyes:: Ya, try to educate Nasa how to build a computer as well too.
One one of the guys there said from the link:
Quote:
The peak numbers are a little off for hp after though as the dyno operator bounced off the rev limiter and created a spike which gave higher than normal dyno numbers
And there went another variable.
(If) this engine is underrated as this thread is trying to impose (dought GM is that dumb to that) it is a pity that the engine is strapped to a anvil. Can you imagine this engine on a J at 2600lbs instead of a Delta at 3000+lbs.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
^ ^ ^ i agree about the dyno, in terms of absolute power. They are good for tuning though.
This does show a 4HP increase with a K&N filter
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
(If) this engine is underrated as this thread is trying to impose (dought GM is that dumb to that) it is a pity that the engine is strapped to a anvil. Can you imagine this engine on a J at 2600lbs instead of a Delta at 3000+lbs.
Or better yet a 2400lb SC1. Just wait you won't have to image come next year.
www.drluc.ca
event you and your negativity. theres about 15 different dyno's showing cobalt ss/redline showing more than 205whp but yet u do 1 dyno that shows different and you believe that. weight, car weighs less than 3000lbs, it weighs 2800lbs. think outside the box for crying outloud. if its only 205hp then that is no where near enough for mid 14 1/4 mile runs. the dyno to question is where you took it.
Visit
High Rev Motorsports for all your High Performance needs.
Visit
RSM Racing for j-body superchargers, throttle bodies, and much more.
Visit
Cobalt SS.Net and sign up to get the latest info on the cobalt and all other delta platform cars
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:I don't go by dyno machines for accurate power numbers. I rather believe on the sophistication from the factory. You can play with with dyno read outs if you know the techniques. Cold engine, tire pressure, fan size, calibrations, climate, temp, the list goes on. C&D did a article that puts dyno machines into perspective. The dyno shop (Chevy dealer) that I did mine run pulled a more realistic 184HP 181TQ on a Saturn Redline. So I dunno about this.
Dynos to me don't hold water.
Sorry not gullible and was not born yesterday. Go find another sucker to believe it.
Also funny the TQ figure is so low compared to the HP figure. This is telling me that GM#s is pure bogus? ::rolls eyes:: Ya, try to educate Nasa how to build a computer as well too.
Dude you are a complete moron. All you do is bash the Cobalt,
the @!#$ numbers prove that it is in fact making more than the advertised Horsepower, yet you still doubt it because "you are not a sucker"?? You may not be a "sucker" but you sure are a moron.
And nobody gives a @!#$ about your one specific dyno pull. Who's to say those numbers aren't off because "tire pressure, fan size, cold engine, climate, BS, BS, BS" like you originally said?? You're contradicting yourself throughout your whole post.
Besides, "tire pressure" and "fan size" would not affect the numbers by 30+ HP, thats just being retarded. If anything, the dyno run you did had an undersized fan, low tire pressure, a "bad climate", and "bad calibrations" - because if it was the other way around, the above numbers that were pulled would be even higher...
It's obvious that GM underrated the Cobalt SS S/C, just as they did with the Camaro and Firebird. Why is that so hard to believe?? You doubt everything anyone posts about the car, because you want people to think its a bad car. You are a screwed up individual, and it would be much better if you just wouldn't post in any Cobalt topics anymore.
Quote:
One one of the guys there said from the link:
Quote:
The peak numbers are a little off for hp after though as the dyno operator bounced off the rev limiter and created a spike which gave higher than normal dyno numbers
And there went another variable
All that does is prove that the engine is
still making power when it hits the rev-limiter. So with an aftermarket chip to raise the limiter by a few hundred RPM, the engine will be producing even more power. Of course you will have some bogus excuse as to why thats no possible either
Quote:
(If) this engine is underrated as this thread is trying to impose (dought GM is that dumb to that) it is a pity that the engine is strapped to a anvil. Can you imagine this engine on a J at 2600lbs instead of a Delta at 3000+lbs
More Bull@!#$. How the hell is the Delta an ANVIL????
. As I've stated so many times before, its about the same weight as the other cars in its class. And the J-body has nothing to do with it, even if you "put it in a J" as you said, you would still have a POS garbage car with a good engine under the hood, which is pointless. Thats the whole reason GM replaced the Cavalier with the Cobalt, so they could have a
nice platform to work from. That right there proves you know nothing about the automotive industry whatsoever, so I highly suggest you stop posting before you make yourself look like even more of a jackass with your retarded statements.
My CarDomain Page
Luc
Exactly!
Also, I think you are over estimating the weight on the SC1. I belive it is at 2300lbs.
Please keep us or atleast me updated!
Eddie,
There have been even more dynos then 15, and guess what they range in all sorts of numbers. From as low as 173Hp-to now as high as 218HP 2.0L S/C and if the trend continues, we will see 300HP by the end of this year (stock) 310HP with K&N drop in filter.
As for the weight issues, look at the chevy website.
Here
Base 2991lbs
SS 2991lbs
Sedan 3212lbs
2 weights 3 different cars. Leads me to believe 3000+Lbs
I see you are getting the Mid-14 run from MT as well. Look at the times from this months issue and you shall see a huge descrepency through their tests.
As for my dyno machine being questionable, when my 2.4L put 136 HP on N/A it sounds more reasonable (not say it is a accurate) and not over bloated as this new run. Then again I did not do any tricks to pull better numbers as I know now.
Hmm that gave me a thought, maybe I should have tested my car where they ran it. I could have gotten 163 at the wheels (stock) with 167HP (K&N). Smell the sarcarsim there?
In the end, I still stand by what I said earlier:
Quote:
(If) this engine is underrated as this thread is trying to impose (dought GM is that dumb to that) it is a pity that the engine is strapped to a anvil. Can you imagine this engine on a J at 2600lbs instead of a Delta at 3000+lbs.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
ok, and we all know how accurate chevy's website is, they update it once a year. only thing chevy cares about is their pride and joy vette thats it. if you notice on chevy's website it doesnt have the option for the lsd and recaro package, and it says 1st gear is 4.05:1 and final drive is 3 something : 1 those are just a few things. chevy's site is completely wrong.
Visit
High Rev Motorsports for all your High Performance needs.
Visit
RSM Racing for j-body superchargers, throttle bodies, and much more.
Visit
Cobalt SS.Net and sign up to get the latest info on the cobalt and all other delta platform cars
^Eddie, thats the only source that we can go by. As it comes from GM itself.
Oh well.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
i think goodwrench just has a stick up there ass, it seems gm always underates there cars.. i know my car put down 131 and 133 whp stock between 2 different dynos
LE61T PTE6262 Powered
Wow here goes another forum post gone to sh_t. I agree Goodwrench does always seem negative. It's one thing to state your opinion, everyone has one, but there's such a thing as being an annoyance.
I appologize for posting what turned into another WAR forum.
Moderator's please delete.
RkSport 2003 wrote:Wow here goes another forum post gone to sh_t. I agree Goodwrench does always seem negative. It's one thing to state your opinion, everyone has one, but there's such a thing as being an annoyance.
I appologize for posting what turned into another WAR forum.
Moderator's please delete.
At least someone besides me realizes that GGT is always negative and constantly bashes the Cobalt for no reason.
If you look at the post you can see that it was going perfectly fine until he chimed in with his BS, which happens in every Cobalt post. I responded to his post and questioned his biased opinions, but he doesn't respond, because he can't back up what he says with facts.
As you said, its one thing to state your opinion ("I don't really like the Cobalt") but its a completely different thing to bash the car by distorting (and making up) facts and then trying to pass it off as the truth.
Its too bad you can't even post a dyno run on here without some deuschbag going off about how it "can't possibly be correct" and how the car is "slow and heavy and bad ect ect ect.
I assume you are a member of CobaltSS.net?? Try posting it over there (if you haven't already), I'm sure you will get a much more positive response.
Anyway thanks for posting it up.
My CarDomain Page
i dont believe any of those dyno numbers for one reason. GM pays engingers thousands of dollars a year to rate that engine. A guy operating a dyno gets prolly 10 bucks an hour. Hmm one guy has a degree in automotive enginering, the other graduated from high school. Hmmm, yup GM doesnt have a clue. . .
2006 Black Cobalt SS Supercharged G85
13.91@102.77
maybe GM dynoed it with 87 for insurance purposes.
<img src="http://registry.gmenthusiast.com/images/jiggaman/personal_pic.jpg">
Bench racing at its finest...
here we go again. WHY WOULD GM UNDERRATE THERE CARS? IF IT WAS MAKING LETS SAY 220 INSTEAD OF 205or whatever. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? GM IS IN A HOLE AS IT IS, AS MUCH AS THERE MARKETING TEAM SUCKS, THEY ARE NOT THAT DUMB. i love these GM sites, always good for a laugh.
Example: my madd tyyte ECOTEC is under ratted y0! i saw it once on a dyno! (SEE: Post a while ago about the ecotec having 5more hp then what it is rated)
WAKE UP! like goodwrench said, dynos are ALWAYS
plus or minus. what if i dynoed my typeS and it came up with 5more hp on the dyno? would you see me going OMGZ ACURA UNDERATTED MY ENGINE OMGZ!!!!! No, because it was just slightly higher. A car manufactor will not want to under rate a car because then its not as much of a selling point. If the cobalt was making that HP on every test, then i am sure they would market the cobalt closer to the SRT-4. Eitherway, its still sad that the slowbalt is only
making low 200HP with a supercharger ::snicker::
*Jammit has been here since 1998 everybody!!!!!!!Should you care? YES!*
