theL61 wrote:Borsty wrote:gm doesnt have much reason to underated that car.
its a sport and power orientend vechile.
and what was a gn?
different times call for different measures my friend. back then GM didnt have a problem selling anything, nowadays sales are not as good as they used to be, and the more hp they rate it at, the more young sporty car drivers would pick if over an srt-4 or similar
-Borsty
ya i drive a cav', u drive a neon, i dont give a crap. I know what it takes to make one of these rattle boxes fast, i know what it takes to run 12's on street tires and 2k$ invetested in a z24. in fact my economy car has 142k miles on it and hasnt had much of any problems like i read over on srtfroums.
i WAS just stating that all the problems some people are having with this god's gift to the road and most havent gotten over 50k miles yet.
anyways, who gives a sh1t about a srt 4. dude just posted dyno #"s about a SS and right away some assclown like normal brings up a ES arr TEE Fo. SO there is another fast 4 banger out there, big f'n deal. I am gm FAN, this is a gm site and turbo dodge doesnt spell reliablity in any book.
Jake wrote:hey, at least it isnt a neon that has 4doors,burns/leaks oil,has TPS issues, boost leaking issues,some paint issues/engine recall's for 05, loud a$$ tires, coil pack gone bad, crappy plug wires/plugs,ugly wing, shift knob that falls off, oil pan cracking under hard launchs, crappy boost gauges, occassional water in cabin leaking, and random flywheel bolts coming loose and oil pumps going bad.
wow you're stupid.
as for everyone in here running to the cobalts rescue unless you own the car stop talking like its gods gift to what ever cause you think you have. its a great car leave it at that.
jake once again you're stupid.
19.2@104 2.0 60ft
does that work out? how many people actually read the sig....
Strat
after reading just at the graph now read the article on how they achieved those numbers, at least on the SRT-4.
Second, look at the times, do you see something odd with the times? 0-90, 0-100, then look at the 1/4 times. Going by that graph numbers alone, 1/4 times is about 0.5-0.7 secs off. A large discrepancy here as you can see.
Curb weight is not accurate as well, check on the Chevy site for a "closer to reality" numbers.
As for underrating for insurance purpose, that is an old wife's tale. I have called up Allstate and State farm in the past, and asked on this, how they determine their rates and they have many reason, one of which hp rating was not a determining factor.
------
Let me give you a experience test run I did 2 weeks ago on a DynoJet for s-h-i-t-s and giggles and how you can play with a dyno machine I also wanted to see how much I gained with the S/C. I paid close $110 for 5 runs from the regular 80 for 3 run. I tested my S/Ced Sunfire with engine completely cold under 40 degrees Celsius on the gage, with GM filter (9,000 miles of use in it), K&N filter, warm regular operating temp and extremely hot (fan kicked in).
In all those runs and just the S/C alone, all had different numbers from the lowest was 168.7WHP to the highest was 201.2WHP on the rollers. I did not get TQ figures because we could not get a good tach signal, so only WHP.
Point being, non-was true deciding factor for true HP measurement, just a theoretical number. With this in mind, we have seen all sort of dyno numbers for SRT-4s, RL, SS, and some sport cars and it is ridiculous to see the numbers spited out by a local shop, that makes factory #s look like a joke. (?)
Manufacturers know better, when selling and try to lure a purchase of a sporty car and hp figure could be the determining factor and could lead up to better sales. There is no reason for car companies to print lower numbers then what it is.
Ya, and like I said before, I'll believe a car manufacturer S.A.E. NET numbers over the local dyno
for power measurement.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
how am i stupid? Them are known problems with them cars since they came out? Appologize.
whatever dude, i am a big fan of both cars . I love what mopar is doing, and i am glad GM is answering back. I read up on both forums. I have my opinions about both just like everyone else.
I cant be too stupid though, i built my crapalier pretty well if i can run side by side with a stage 1 SRT with full exhuast and i am only running 5psi for now.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Strat
after reading just at the graph now read the article on how they achieved those numbers, at least on the SRT-4.
Second, look at the times, do you see something odd with the times? 0-90, 0-100, then look at the 1/4 times. Going by that graph numbers alone, 1/4 times is about 0.5-0.7 secs off. A large discrepancy here as you can see.
Curb weight is not accurate as well, check on the Chevy site for a "closer to reality" numbers.
As for underrating for insurance purpose, that is an old wife's tale. I have called up Allstate and State farm in the past, and asked on this, how they determine their rates and they have many reason, one of which hp rating was not a determining factor.
------
Let me give you a experience test run I did 2 weeks ago on a DynoJet for s-h-i-t-s and giggles and how you can play with a dyno machine I also wanted to see how much I gained with the S/C. I paid close $110 for 5 runs from the regular 80 for 3 run. I tested my S/Ced Sunfire with engine completely cold under 40 degrees Celsius on the gage, with GM filter (9,000 miles of use in it), K&N filter, warm regular operating temp and extremely hot (fan kicked in).
In all those runs and just the S/C alone, all had different numbers from the lowest was 168.7WHP to the highest was 201.2WHP on the rollers. I did not get TQ figures because we could not get a good tach signal, so only WHP.
Point being, non-was true deciding factor for true HP measurement, just a theoretical number. With this in mind, we have seen all sort of dyno numbers for SRT-4s, RL, SS, and some sport cars and it is ridiculous to see the numbers spited out by a local shop, that makes factory #s look like a joke. (?)
Manufacturers know better, when selling and try to lure a purchase of a sporty car and hp figure could be the determining factor and could lead up to better sales. There is no reason for car companies to print lower numbers then what it is.
Ya, and like I said before, I'll believe a car manufacturer S.A.E. NET numbers over the local dyno for power measurement.
that post just owned every single person who thinks GM under rated the Cobalt SS S/C. Sorry but it does. Anyone who believes other wise is just buying into propaganda. Who do you think is more qualified to determine the power output of an engine, Gm engineers with master degrees in automotive engineering, or some kid with a high school degree making 10 bucks an hour?
2006 Black Cobalt SS Supercharged G85
13.91@102.77
Kyle Kyle wrote:Jake wrote:hey, at least it isnt a neon that has 4doors,burns/leaks oil,has TPS issues, boost leaking issues,some paint issues/engine recall's for 05, loud a$$ tires, coil pack gone bad, crappy plug wires/plugs,ugly wing, shift knob that falls off, oil pan cracking under hard launchs, crappy boost gauges, occassional water in cabin leaking, and random flywheel bolts coming loose and oil pumps going bad.
wow you're stupid.
as for everyone in here running to the cobalts rescue unless you own the car stop talking like its gods gift to what ever cause you think you have. its a great car leave it at that.
jake once again you're stupid.
Why can't I talk about the car? Because I can't afford it right now? What are you talking about?
For sale: Subwoofer box. Check Classifieds or email me at jwkenna2@comcast.net
Jake wrote:ya i drive a cav', u drive a neon, i dont give a crap. I know what it takes to make one of these rattle boxes fast, i know what it takes to run 12's on street tires and 2k$ invetested in a z24. in fact my economy car has 142k miles on it and hasnt had much of any problems like i read over on srtfroums.
i WAS just stating that all the problems some people are having with this god's gift to the road and most havent gotten over 50k miles yet.
anyways, who gives a sh1t about a srt 4. dude just posted dyno #"s about a SS and right away some assclown like normal brings up a ES arr TEE Fo. SO there is another fast 4 banger out there, big f'n deal. I am gm FAN, this is a gm site and turbo dodge doesnt spell reliablity in any book.
dude i dont own an srt4, but i know the cars pretty well, my friend has one, and its pretty damn nice and quick for the money, if i wanted a new car there would be no doubt in my mind of what i would buy, that is if i coudlnt afford an evo.
and dont brag too much about beating a s1 srt4, s1 sucks so bad its not even funny, i put 3 cars on a s1 on 8 psi and my wga going out half way down the course so my car was boosting 25 psi and pretty much stopped moving because of knock. s1 really sucks.
Im lifelong friends with one of the main engineers for GM Peformance division. He knows the SS motor forward and backwards, and better than any of us here on this board. Again he himself admitted that the SS supercharged 2.0 ecotec is more in the 215-218 range.
I don't buy dyno numbers, but when Im hearing it from the engineer himself I most definitely do.
I love the Srt-4 and the Cobalt SS, more power to domestics is what I say........
Jake wrote:hey, at least it isnt a neon that has 4doors,burns/leaks oil,has TPS issues, boost leaking issues,some paint issues/engine recall's for 05, loud a$$ tires, coil pack gone bad, crappy plug wires/plugs,ugly wing, shift knob that falls off, oil pan cracking under hard launchs, crappy boost gauges, occassional water in cabin leaking, and random flywheel bolts coming loose and oil pumps going bad.
Not yet, but it did have headlights falling off and superchargers popping off (LSJ in the ION) before it even left the factory.
--------------------------------------------------
'97 Z24
Jake wrote:ya i drive a cav', u drive a neon, i dont give a crap. I know what it takes to make one of these rattle boxes fast, i know what it takes to run 12's on street tires and 2k$ invetested in a z24. in fact my economy car has 142k miles on it and hasnt had much of any problems like i read over on srtfroums. .
Last I heard, that "12-second" cavalier didnt run for very long after its 12-second pass.
Any idiot can lean their engine out, and run 1 quick pass. Its just whether you're willing to pay $1000 (the cost of a new engine+install..blah blah blah) for a timeslip that says 12.xxx @1xx mph. But hey, at least you got that 10 cent piece of paper that says 12.xx, and it only cost you your engine.
There are SRT-4's running faster times than your buddy for LESS than $2000. A friend of mine actually ran a 12.6 @ 112mph for about $800, and he didnt get his parts from a junkyard, or buy them used....we're talking all brand new parts. So if he were to buy them used, like your 12-second buddy, he would have run 12's for IM guessin around $400-500
Strat,
Quote:
after reading just at the graph now read the article on how they achieved those numbers, at least on the SRT-4.
Quote:
huh? care to explain a little better the question you are asking?
The SRT-4 tested was relatively new engine which is why the SRT was slow here. I know you tried to pin-point that both were equal in performance but the playing field was not equal.
I quote from MT p.90:
"But in real life, build variations and green engines (1450miles) can conspire to lower performance, as our test car's 6.0 sec 0-to 60mph sprint and 14.4-second 100.8mph quarter-mile suggest."
Quote:
agreed... although it the cobalt pulls a bit on the srt in the lower range... as suggested by the 0-30, 40, and 50 times... although, not enough to justify the top end discrepancy.
.
Agreed here too. Part of the reason the SRT lost in earlier sprints was 1. green engine, 2. SS carries some tough tires which ultimately gives excellent grip and is especially needed in a launch, while on the other hand the SRT carries average grip tires combine with 250 ft-lbs of torque mean lots of initial wheelspin, as the MT graph shows, once the SRT grabs asphalt good bye SS.
Quote:
Curb weight is not accurate as well, check on the Chevy site for a "closer to reality" numbers.
What I meant closer to reality.as the chevy site shows, the base coupe and SS weigh in the same while the base sedan is at 3200. Going by that, if the base is 2991 the SS has to be at more (3000+lbs) for the obvious reasons. Again I am basing off GM's numbers.
Quote:
i find that hard to believe... i only say this because if you insure a 6 cylinder camaro vs. a z28 camaro, your premiums will be higher on the z28... i understand pricing differences between the two cars (cost of replacement in lieu of an accident) but i'd bet that the premiums are considerably more on the z...
I had a complete list of how insurance companies determine their price. Like I said before, power rating was not one reason. Engine size is one though, and history of getting into accidents or getting stolen of a particular car.
Case in pont and a odd one to that. When I was car shopping in 2002 I looked for a V6 Camaro and the S/F GT, while I was still driving my 96 S/F SE. A new 2002 Camaro's insurance rate for Allstate was $70 dollars less every 6-months compared to my old 1996 Sunfire S/E and $95 less then on a new 2002 Sunfire GT.
Remember Camaro had 200HP while the Sunfire GT has 150HP and my Sunfire has 120HP. But here with more power, coupe, and classified as sports car had a better rate then the econoboxs with less power.
With this being said, HP figure was not a factor for higher insurance. Now a base Camaro vs a Z28 is a different story, because the history of getting into trouble is greater on a V8 then a V6, as these insurance companies explained to me.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
RkSport 2003 wrote:Im lifelong friends with one of the main engineers for GM Peformance division. He knows the SS motor forward and backwards, and better than any of us here on this board. Again he himself admitted that the SS supercharged 2.0 ecotec is more in the 215-218 range.
I don't buy dyno numbers, but when Im hearing it from the engineer himself I most definitely do.
I love the Srt-4 and the Cobalt SS, more power to domestics is what I say........
bs, its funny before you said it was your firends dad, now its your lifelong friend. BS!!!
RKSports been around here for a while so i wouldn't raise the bs flag so soon. Just casue you dislike the cobalt doesn't mean you have to kiss Goodwrenches ass. Atleast he brings valid (most of the time) points to the table.
2006 Cobalt SS 2.4L 9.6 @74mph 1/8th mile w/2.28 60ft
Drove a SS today, nice, but i'm not rushing to buy one either.
Why can't everybody just get along LOL...The SS may not be a powerful beast as the SRT-4 BUT the SS is a great car! All I am gonna say is please do not bash on a car(s) you do not own and base your opinion on what a magazine states....
mr. goodwrench... gotcha on the green engine... i did read that... just wasn't understanding what you were trying to get at.
as for the base vs. ss curbweight... perhaps a typo on gm's part? i dunno. just seems like alot of weight. also, that wouldn't be gvw (in other words including full capacities?) listed would it? if so, that would put the cars lower on the scales for the MT test... just a thought.
so instead of saying HP numbers, it comes down to what kind of "law enforcement troubles" the model car typically has? kinda the same thing but not i guess...
ThE03FiRe wrote:Why can't everybody just get along LOL...The SS may not be a powerful beast as the SRT-4 BUT the SS is a great car! All I am gonna say is please do not bash on a car(s) you do not own and base your opinion on what a magazine states....
the ss is a deacent car, but not for the price. and what the hell do you mean dont bash on a car you dont own, LOL thats the stupidest thing ive EVER heard, if i wanted the car enough to own it, i wouldnt bash it, and if i bash it i wont own it, that is just dumb. ive driven the car, thats enough to base an opinon on it.
and uhlgreen, i dont give a @!#$ how long hes been here, he totally just @!#$ up his story, so im calling bs!
Kyle Kurtz wrote:ThE03FiRe wrote:Why can't everybody just get along LOL...The SS may not be a powerful beast as the SRT-4 BUT the SS is a great car! All I am gonna say is please do not bash on a car(s) you do not own and base your opinion on what a magazine states....
the ss is a deacent car, but not for the price. and what the hell do you mean dont bash on a car you dont own, LOL thats the stupidest thing ive EVER heard, if i wanted the car enough to own it, i wouldnt bash it, and if i bash it i wont own it, that is just dumb. ive driven the car, thats enough to base an opinon on it.
and uhlgreen, i dont give a @!#$ how long hes been here, he totally just @!#$ up his story, so im calling bs!
I think all he is trying to say is don't comment on the vehicle if you have no experience with it and are just baising it off of what other people, magazines, etc have said about the it. Ohh and when you say @!#$ and @!#$ and all that in your response you look like a moron.
2006 Cobalt SS 2.4L 9.6 @74mph 1/8th mile w/2.28 60ft
i am glad your friend ran 12.6 with 800$ invested. hats off to him.
my 12 seckkkond cavy buddy used all new parts too... assclown., he made a mistake of not turning up his fuel pressure for a daily driven outting and cost him his engine, so just rebuild it stronger, pretty simple.. and the cost of his 12 second crapaloser plus 2000$ puts him way under the price of a used srt 4. and he didnt use slicks or DR'S to get there, full interior too. but who cares. i know you dont.
anyways, kyle- didnt mean to jump on ya, you sound like a coool guy just talking cars on this site. we need more people like u to keep things going .
I wasnt braging, i know my car is slow, but for 5 psi (and a slew of other mods) i was impressed.
YOu drive a DSM? my bro has a heavly modded 91 gsx, maybe u can hit me up on aol - and we can chat.
ya i found that headlight one pretty funny, but you neon guys have nothing to laugh at, you have recalls/tsb's too, just they are little more major(ie engine/tps/plugs/wires).
word out
Jake wrote:i am glad your friend ran 12.6 with 800$ invested. hats off to him.
my 12 seckkkond cavy buddy used all new parts too... assclown., he made a mistake of not turning up his fuel pressure for a daily driven outting and cost him his engine, so just rebuild it stronger, pretty simple.. and the cost of his 12 second crapaloser plus 2000$ puts him way under the price of a used srt 4. and he didnt use slicks or DR'S to get there, full interior too. but who cares. i know you dont.
anyways, kyle- didnt mean to jump on ya, you sound like a coool guy just talking cars on this site. we need more people like u to keep things going . I wasnt braging, i know my car is slow, but for 5 psi (and a slew of other mods) i was impressed.
YOu drive a DSM? my bro has a heavly modded 91 gsx, maybe u can hit me up on aol - and we can chat.
ya i found that headlight one pretty funny, but you neon guys have nothing to laugh at, you have recalls/tsb's too, just they are little more major(ie engine/tps/plugs/wires).
word out
yea man dont get me wrong, i have so much respect for anyone who turbo's a cavalier its not even funny, turbo's any car for that matter. a turbo cavalier is a sleeper, thats awesome. its so hard for me to make money with a dsm, everyone knows what they can do, and there are probably about 10-15 low 13 second or faster ones in my town, so it makes it really hard to make money on the ricers. so more power to the turbo cavi, but just gotta think reliablity there too, im sure the srt will win over the turbo cavi in the long run, since the car was designed that way.
Kyle Kurtz wrote:RkSport 2003 wrote:Im lifelong friends with one of the main engineers for GM Peformance division. He knows the SS motor forward and backwards, and better than any of us here on this board. Again he himself admitted that the SS supercharged 2.0 ecotec is more in the 215-218 range.
I don't buy dyno numbers, but when Im hearing it from the engineer himself I most definitely do.
I love the Srt-4 and the Cobalt SS, more power to domestics is what I say........
bs, its funny before you said it was your firends dad, now its your lifelong friend. BS!!!
LOL nope, no bs there Kyle. That's my best friend's FATHER who I've known since I was four years old. My family and his family frequently do things together and all work for GM. Just because he's my friend's dad does that also not make him mine? LOL
I raced a Neon Srt-4 today. Through first and second gear it was dead even, but halfway through third he started to pull from me. He was about a car lenth and a half ahead after the quarter mile.
The neon is just not an attractive automobile other than the power. It looks like an egg, the interior doesn't even come close to the quality of the SS's, neither does the build quality. And with minor engine work and the best proven 4 cylinder under the hood I could easily take a str-4 after some minor work. Again mopar has stage 2,3 etc. But the chassis and build quality don't change. You build a better ecotec motor combined with a better overall automobile and it's an easy decision to me to pick the ss.
I got the Cobalt for 19, 600. Roughly two grand more than the Srt-4 (maybe less) But in the long run it's the best option to modify. Looks, interior, build quality, and motor potential all point in the Cobalt's favor.
I don't blame you guys about being sick of hearing cobalt this and cobalt that, I am also quite frankly but the fact of the matter is you can't deny the quality of the car that is there. A little overpriced? Maybe, but most definitely worth every penny. GM did a great job building this car. Just my .02
On my post above I mistyped, what this paragraph was supposed to say was:
LOL nope, no bs there Kyle. That's my best friend's FATHER who I've known since I was four years old. My family and his family frequently do things together and all work for GM. Just because he's my friend's dad does that also not make him my friend? LOL
ya!! thats it anyone can make a 12 sec cavalier, your dumb. like DUMB.
if we want to compar sh!t. how about a SRT-4 ( wow i say the letters and i get weak in the knees.) agenst a GTO. ?
its a 2.4 with problems.... its a new motor.
the z-24 is a 2.4 ( wooooow. same displacment.)
im beating a dead horse.
ill I can say is, there fun cars, small turbo, tdo-4lg?
as for the colbalts... im not impressed with them.
chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
