The sad thing is that it looks like it's still making power at the end of the run (rev limiter maybe?). Get rid of that, and you look like you could pick up a few more HP...
*yawn* =) why does this place always turn into chaos. good numbers.
19.2@104 2.0 60ft
does that work out? how many people actually read the sig....
Well, it's a fact that gm underrated the 4th gen vettes and f-bodies. Maybe they underrated the 2.0 s/c for insurance reasons? Most of the dyno's I've seen of cobalt ss's and ion redlines are usually much higher than 180hp. Mr. Goodwrench GT has contributed a lot to this site over the years, but he does seem really anti-cobalt.
...
Eddie wrote: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.
uhm actually if you click the last seat option then goto the next page you can select the performance package
and its says 4.05 final drive
-JaysonZ24- wrote: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. . .
hmm
they get paid thousands a year
wow
i bet those other guys do tooo
anyway
they are a pretty reputable site
also as far as highschool deploma
im sure i can do things many engineers cant
the dont have practical hands on experiance
in some instances
and as for harry black dude
they would underate a car to help keep insurance rates down
why would gm suck if dodge did the same thing w/ the srt-4
but its oo so grate cuz it has a lil bit more hp thanks to a turbo of course
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.
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. 
wow, people think u hate the coblat based on stuff like this?
hes saying dont believe everything u see.
your all morons, @!#$ morons.
-Borsty
For the love of god, you put things into perspective and suddenly you are "anti-whatever"
Anti this anti that. Blah blah blah
I am not anti-nothing. If you want to believe a local shop over a manufacturer go ahead by all means. There have been so many dynos on this 2.0L and as a new aproaches the HP figure jump by 10. Then the torque is compleatly lower compared to the HP figure. GM rates it at 205HP and 200TQ. Pretty close, but all these dynos show like if it has a Honda engine in them. Sky high HP with good torque.
The ONLY thing all these dynos are saying is GM does not know how to rate engines, and they don't know the formula how to figure power ratings. GM should contract these local dynos when they print out power rating in their brochures, because all these dynos are saying that GM does not JACK $HIT.
Like I said before, let the circuit city guy teach NASA how to build a computer. Or a Best Buy tell Bose how to build a radio.
Get f-ing real people. Are you guys really this freaking gullible? I will repeat I don't hate the F-ing car, I just don't when people bring $hit here and claim it is legit.
Lets turn the tables. If a Cavalier comes here claiming 170HP at the wheels woith a dyno sheet and says it is stock, now would you question it? Looking at ur response I bet you would probably not.
Like I said earlier there have been dyno from 170sHP to now 218HP is the latest. Do you see there is no consistency. RL with the same engine supposedly dynoing 200WHP now with the same engine the SS pulls 18 more ponies???? That is like a Cavalier with a Eco makes 125WHP stock and a Sunfire witht the same engine makes 140WHP stock.
Do guys see where I am coming from? Like I said before, go find another sucker eat that $hit. I for one WILL NOT BUY IT, no matter what car it is!
Quote:
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.
YOu want to see annoyance, look at "wesman."
But wait... he likes the car, so he is o.k. correct?
Rememeber you post something, expect somebody to disagree with you. Sorry to tell you, but that is part of life.
One thing is for sure, the moment the moment you all read what I got to say and took the time of your day type and pin-point me accuse for something I am not, means I got your brain thinking, usually the end result is a 3rd grade response or a the quick and easy : "Mr.Goodwrench you are anti-GM." Laime!
JaysonZ24
Quote:
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. . .
You are right
THANK YOU! You quention it too?
Hairy Blackdude
Quote:
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.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
^^^ Oooop I pressed post instead preview, so excuse writting since I did not prrofread. sorry for any confusion.
Quote:
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!*
THANK YOU! Somebody that know how things work
Flatfour
Quote:
Bench racing at its finest.
Could not say it better myself.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Anyone want to place bets on how many times Wesman calls Mr. Goodwrench a Moron if he responds?!
^^lol
I already told (it) off one time and one time only, (it) seems to forget easily. But whatever let (it) waste his time responding as I don't respond to him for awile now. (It) still has not notice that I just don't give a rat's ass what he has to say! What a dumbass fool. lol
Oh well... .
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:^^lol
I already told (it) off one time and one time only, (it) seems to forget easily. But whatever let (it) waste his time responding as I don't respond to him for awile now. (It) still has not notice that I just don't give a rat's ass what he has to say! What a dumbass fool. lol
Oh well... .
The only "dumbass fool" here is you GGT. And Tribals, how about you STFU, you are like GGT's little supporter. Every time someone goes against his bull@!#$ you are right there trying to back him up. Get a @!#$ life.
I don't care what you "notice" retard. I don't care if you "don't give a rat's ass". I'd think you would have noticed that by now, but you are obviously pretty damn slow. Not responding just proves that you can't back up the bull@!#$ you constantly post.
As the others mentioned, you should change your name. You are Anti-everything, especially GM. How ironic, considering your name is GOODWRENCH, yet you don't know jack @!#$ about GM vehicles or the auto industry in general
.
Quote:
Get f-ing real people. Are you guys really this freaking gullible? I will repeat I don't hate the F-ing car, I just don't when people bring $hit here and claim it is legit.
Lets turn the tables. If a Cavalier comes here claiming 170HP at the wheels woith a dyno sheet and says it is stock, now would you question it? Looking at ur response I bet you would probably not.
How about you "get f-ing real" idiot. See, in the real world, you are not always right. In fact, its just the opposite,
you are completely wrong. No stock 2.2 Ecotec has ever "dyno'd 170HP," so that a stupid and unrealistic example. However, if every stock Eco dyno'd aroound 170HP, then obviously it would be making thart much at the wheels. There's no way "every dyno is totally off" as you claim, you act like its some kind of conspiracy
borsty wrote:your all morons, @!#$ morons.
Now theres an intelligent comment
. Another insecure person who thinks the world is out to get him. Go back to your mental institution.
Quote:
Like I said earlier there have been dyno from 170sHP to now 218HP is the latest. Do you see there is no consistency. RL with the same engine supposedly dynoing 200WHP now with the same engine the SS pulls 18 more ponies???? That is like a Cavalier with a Eco makes 125WHP stock and a Sunfire witht the same engine makes 140WHP stock.
Maybe you should actually know what you are talking about before you post dumbass. Almost all Redlines and SS S/C's have been dynoing between 200-210 WHP. The 218 WHp number was with a K&N intake installed. Why should anyone listen to you when you can't even get your facts straight??
Quote:
Bench racing at its finest.
Stupid remarks at their finest. What numbers do you suggest people go by? The magazines test in a realistic situation, with unbiased reviewers. I suppose you think we should go by a single individuals personal experience, because that is so much more accurate
@!#$ idiot.
Quote:
I for one WILL NOT BUY IT, no matter what car it is!
Heres the number of people who actually care: ZERO What a surprise. You can believe what you want, but it just makes you look like a fool. As usual, you can't back up your BS with any actual facts.
Quote:
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!*
The fact that Goodwrench even supports this @!#$ proves that he is pathetic. Everyone knows that "Hairy Blackdude" is not a credible source for anything, in fact his posts never even make any sense. The both of you deuschbags should go live together on a desserted island, where you can bash GM and the Cobalt all you want, and nobody will have to listen to it
My CarDomain Page
......Kid is that all you can say to me is to "Get a life"?! You argue with people over the internet about a dumbass Cobalt. Hmmm?
too much garbage to read. GM is right give it up.
19.2@104 2.0 60ft
does that work out? how many people actually read the sig....
Tribals wrote: ......Kid is that all you can say to me is to "Get a life"?! You argue with people over the internet about a dumbass Cobalt. Hmmm?
Yea you're just hilarious
. You call me a "kid", but you are the idiot who keeps supporting GGT's Bull@!#$ like you're his personal cheerleader.
If the internet and the Cobalt are so dumb, then why do you bother using the internet and posting in a thread about the Cobalt??
You sir are a @!#$ dumbass.
My CarDomain Page
^^2 questions I only have for you?
Why do you come here?
&
Are you you Jewish or Orthodox Jewish? I ask this because when I used to play soccer in HS we used to share our field with a Hebrew academy school, I swear the 12 and under children had the same nasty, disgusting, repulsive attitude as yours? Curious to know.
Oh and after you respond, please take note on my last comment I left for you. Scroll down
HERE.
Have a nice day.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
wesmanw02 wrote: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.
ggt doesnt really bash the cobalt, hes just saying it as it is. you cobalt nut swingers see crap like this and all of a sudden all cobalts dyno at 218 hp!! and hes right on the dyno's. belive me. stop swinging on the cobalt so much and you wont have people here setting you straight lol. for gods sake there are only a few of them out there and your already thinking its going to run mid 14's, just because a magazine said so. you are so much of a magazine/bench racer its not even funny, but i would rather bench race then race my car if i were you too.
Ok, I started this post and have said minimal, but I feel I should end this drama fest accordingly.
Mr Goodwrench, again you have been a constant supportive member on the org. and In know way was my remark about you being "annoying" refering to you in general, but rather certain posts containing quick responses, however I understand how emotions can cause people to spill their first instinct righ then and there.
Most of you all know I loved my Cav, and miss it already. Look at a stock even ls sport cav (again opinions always vary), not to attractive. All cobalts, even the SS. Same senario in my opinion.
The cobalt, like the Cavalier, with the right body mods and right stance looks like a completely different vehicle. Again like I have stated before, I prefer the looks of the cavalier body lines still.
The only reason I wanted an SS was because when I drove one, I felt the built quality and overall experience with the car was more satisfying. (Again, personal preference.)
It's not what car you drive, but rather how you build it.
I will be the first to admit, everyone opinions here although dramatized were both equally debatable. Again, I don't trust simply one dyno run on one machine either, I will wait until further company's test, or until a couple of weeks until my SS arrives and I can make my own assumptions.
The bottom line is this. We are all GM small car supporters. (At least I hope we are). And personal preferences aside, we should be able to support one anothers opinions/car opinions without the personal attacks.
I posted this as something to look at, nothing more. I recieved it with a grain of salt as Im sure we all initially did. Cavalier/Cobalt, it doesn't matter. PEOPLE ARE TAKING NOTICE IN GM'S SMALL CARS AS FAR AS AFTERMARKET.
Back in 97 when I started modifying my first Cav with RkSport's import fighter kit there was hardly anything available for our J cars.
Currently there's an abudance of J parts not once available and a new interest in developing for the cobalts as well.
ALL BECAUSE OF SUPPORTERS LIKE US> YES LIKE US> We all share a common hobby and love for a common manufacturer.
Hold opinions and respect them, but support one another.
all i can say is they have a reason to underate engines
im not saying by that much but i believe they are a lil underated
as for running 14.5s
how many people ran a cavalier faster then the projected 16.0?
i bet a few
i hope u all get cancer.
-Borsty
Borsty wrote:i hope u all get cancer.
Prime Example right there. And I've had close family and friends die from Cancer recently so I found that extremely offensive. Show's your maturity level Borsty.
MODERATORS PLEASE LOCK
hairy learn some crap before you post
dodge still under rates the neon, so much in fact so that their rating is still below what its pushing at the wheels, why? laws and insurance plain and simple
japan rates the skyline and cars the like at 276 hp, when we all know they are much more because if they rate them true they have to limit production raise price and do other things of the sort....
LE61T PTE6262 Powered
wesmanw02 wrote:Tribals wrote: ......Kid is that all you can say to me is to "Get a life"?! You argue with people over the internet about a dumbass Cobalt. Hmmm?
Yea you're just hilarious . You call me a "kid", but you are the idiot who keeps supporting GGT's Bull@!#$ like you're his personal cheerleader.
If the internet and the Cobalt are so dumb, then why do you bother using the internet and posting in a thread about the Cobalt?? You sir are a @!#$ dumbass.
Yes....kid you have your nose so far up GM's ass with your Cobalt loving self it's sickening. Just because I agree with Mr. Goodwrench about the Cobalt SS doesn't mean I support him on all his reviews on other cars too. You just hate when people doubt or post anything bad about the Cobalt. Get over yourself a post over at the Cobalt forums if you don't like the comments here!
Prime examples of why I would never take your word about anything you post:
wesmanw02 wrote:The Cobalt is slightly larger than the Cavalier, both inside and out.
The curb weight for the Cavalier coupe is 2749lbs, while the Cobalt coupe is 2991lbs. Thats a negligible difference considering the improvement in chassis structure, quality, and features over the ancient Cavalier.
The Cobalt Coupe 2.2 manual runs 0-60 in about 8.0 seconds, which is on par with the Cavalier 2.2 Manual.
Cavalier coupe weighing 2749? Sure.
wesmanw02 wrote:
You aren't even making any sense. The "little" 2.0, as you refer to it, is making well over 200HP at the wheels. You praise the RSX-S like its extremely quick, even though its making hardly any torque and even less HP than the Cobalt, with almost the same weight.
The 05' RSX-S is rated at 210hp(at the fly wheel)N/A and weighs about 150lbs less.
RxSport2003........Sorry about your post going to S*#t. I'm done talking to this kid.
Tribals,
Dont worry, i said something slighly negative towards GM a few weeks back and the kid totally jumped on my back for having a toyota
Nah.....no worries here man. That shows you his maturity level knocking on you just because you own a Toyota. I'll take a Toyota anyday!
Quote:
The dyno tests were done at Carboy in Houston Texas, 3rd gear runs for both dyno results. We gained a consistent 1.5 - 2 hp across the board, even more for torque on the lower end. 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.
This does seem a little wierd. Dynos can read anything if their not operated correctly. It would take the same results over and over to prove this car is that much underrated.
