2200 vs 2.2Eco - Racing Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
2200 vs 2.2Eco
Friday, October 15, 2010 2:02 PM
So...I was driving around the other day and decided, hell, why not go to the eighth mile in town, pay my $10 and run all night. I'm not posting up times, cause honestly I'm not consistent enough to really know WHAT my POS runs. So I get to the track and there's this beat up 2005+ cavalier. I didn't ask the guy what engine he had, but it was either a 2.2 Eco or a 2.4 eco, as those were the engines those cars came with correct?

Well, my point is, sitting beside the guy at the light, we go and I lose...2200, yeah I knew I'd lose, but I thought it would have been worse of a beating.
The motor had no induction noise, from what I could hear (It was hard to tell over the fart can), so I doubt he had an intake. But I didn't even lose by a car length, more like my bumper was at the rear seam of his doors.

Cavalier, coupe, 2005+ with a 2.2L (I think)

But I was proud of my 2200 last weekend. I raced the guy three times before I decided to go find him and ask what he was running, but he'd already left. I wanted to know cause all three passes, the results were the same. By finish line I lined up with the rear of his door.

So, it's been established....the 2200 is slow, but in relation to the other 4cylinders GM builds...I am in no way impressed with the 2.2 eco. is it faster than the 2200? Not by much, and i'm running an auto transmission. If the 2200 had a 5spd, exhaust, and a tune...I'da beaten him.

Re: 2200 vs 2.2Eco
Friday, October 15, 2010 6:08 PM
your 2200 is slow. don't kid yourself. either the eco had been through hell and back or the driver wasn't trying. that's it, end of argument. stock for stock the eco will win everytime. and not just by a doorlength. it's a full second (at least) faster in the quarter than your 2200. is the eco slow? yes, it's got 140 hp stock (and not to the wheels), that certainly qualifies it as slow. but your 2200 is even worse. probly less than 100 whp. so don't pat yourself on the back too much.

btw the j-body's never came with a 2.4 eco.



Re: 2200 vs 2.2Eco
Friday, October 15, 2010 6:10 PM
One problem with your story. 2005 was the last year Cavaliers were made and they never came with a 2.4L Eco.

Not to mention there is this from your profile.

Quote:

About Me: I drive an '02 Chevy Cavalier z24...it's yellow...I'm not the fondest of it actually....








its an old concept. time for something new to take the reigns. - Z yaaaa

Re: 2200 vs 2.2Eco
Saturday, October 16, 2010 5:49 PM
1/8 mile is not much to really be comparing cars to...he has dohc, higher top end, he woulda pullled away from you in the long run....my car(2.2ohv) has stayed side to side from launch with a v6 mustang up until about 65mph then he started pulling away slowly, we both only had intake and exhaust



Re: 2200 vs 2.2Eco
Sunday, October 17, 2010 5:36 PM
There was this one time, when i was in 4th gear,

I was redlining, revving to 10,000. still had three inches of pedal to go.

I was racing a 2010 jeep Cherokee, and i had him all the way.



Nah. Im lyin.
Im honestly satisfied with my 2200.
Then again, i dont bring her to the track, but she keeps up on the highway.




Re: 2200 vs 2.2Eco
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:47 AM
jamie fix wrote:


Nah. Im lyin.
Im honestly satisfied with my 2200.
Then again, i dont bring her to the track, but she keeps up on the highway.


x2 love my ohv , has some kick, its nothing crazy fast but im surprised a single 8valve pulls like it does



Re: 2200 vs 2.2Eco
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:46 PM
2200 run on average high 10's in the 1/8 mile.

My stock 2.2L Ecotec ran a 10.0.

Losing by a Full second in the 1/8 especially is ALOT.

Either buddy can't drive or his car was @!#$.


Post your 1/8 mile times....I'd be curious to see what times you ran.





Re: 2200 vs 2.2Eco
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:50 PM
Hahah my bad, just checked some old time slips....

My car ran a 9.7 in the 1/8 STOCK!...lol





Re: 2200 vs 2.2Eco
Friday, October 22, 2010 3:09 PM
The 2005 2.2 Eco car was likely heavier too, thus counteracting some of the power difference. The J's got real porky near the end, what with all the crashworthiness and creature comfort "improvements" over the years.



Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft

World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com

Re: 2200 vs 2.2Eco
Saturday, October 23, 2010 4:34 PM
She's pretty damn spiffy.

I dont run at the track. Never tried, never even thought about it.
I value my daily driver WAY too much to worry about breaking her.



Re: 2200 vs 2.2Eco
Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:15 PM
my 2002 2200 ran 16.4@80 mph just intake and header back exhaust... when i eco swapped it stock eco times were 15.667@90 mph ..... with just a cheap intake stock exhaust manifold and a cat back it ran 14.8@92mph on street tires... ecotec 2.2's are alot faster than a 2200....... even faster with hp tuners lol

Re: 2200 vs 2.2Eco
Sunday, November 07, 2010 9:53 AM
i just race a 1998 2200 he was a auto sedan with a short ram intake i have a a 2003 sedan with a eco is auto and has a aem cai.



me 60ft 2.32 him 60ft 2.63
1/8 10.30 1/8 11.44
1/4 16.11 1/4 17.77
mph 83.94 mph 77.75





guys it wasnt even close i won by what 1.5 sec and like over 7 car lenghts lmao
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search