cobalt 2.2 vs ss 2.4 cobalt
07-10-2006, 09:03 AM
#52
Originally Posted by avro206
Malibis SS does have leather or sunroof standard. It has a 3900 V6 auto as the only powertrain.
You cannot pick up 0.6 from an air intake
You cannot pick up 0.6 from an air intake
07-10-2006, 02:35 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-17-06
Location: Moncton Newbrunswick Can.
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kahless
thats what i was screaming. .6 from just an intake throws up a BS flag. and to the guy who said the diff between the 2.2 and the ss/sc is huge id have to say no chit. its amazing what around 40%hp difference will do huh.
wanna run?
07-10-2006, 07:13 PM
#55
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 06-27-06
Location: indiana
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok well i have a little more than an intake but not much my car is a month old so i havent been able to do much to it but little stuff if i get a chance tonight ill post my times up on here to shut all of you up
07-10-2006, 07:37 PM
#57
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 04-13-04
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bykryder83
heck yeah any time
07-10-2006, 09:09 PM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-17-06
Location: Moncton Newbrunswick Can.
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brandon97Z
Where are you from and what track do you go to? I've been lookin to get to a 1/4 track maybe we can do it there.
07-11-2006, 12:40 AM
#61
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 06-27-06
Location: indiana
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brandon97Z
Where are you from and what track do you go to? I've been lookin to get to a 1/4 track maybe we can do it there.
07-12-2006, 11:22 PM
#63
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 06-27-06
Location: indiana
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah man let me know i lined up another race with my buddy he has a fully stripped 95 civic hb with a sohc vetc and few mods so we will see i beat him when my car was stock from a dig once and head to head once so with my car modded im gonna **** on that thing hell if u come up you can too
07-12-2006, 11:43 PM
#64
Banned
Join Date: 03-30-05
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to chime in.
I own a 2.2 Auto, it's a stock sedan. I've driven a 2.4 VVT Auto (Stock Sedan). Both have identical features. The 2.4 weighed 127lbs net more then the 2.2 (Cat Scales) The only way the 2.4 creates power is after 4k VVT Kicks in. It's a slug otherwise down low. The 2.2 makes power between 2,200 RPM and 4,000 RPM. Big difference in when these cars make good power.
Now giving the fact I've seen both cars race at the track the times and 60fters are identical. The 2.4 only edged out the 2.2 in mph and a hair over the 1/8th. Quarter mile drag the 2.4 only beat the 2.2 by .15 of a second. Seems pretty small but driver error was eliminated with them being automatics because if it was sticks one could be better driver then another. The factor hence has been eliminated.
Straight facts, the 2.4 (in auto) was chasing the 2.2 (Auto) down the track more then half the time until it was making useable power up high.
Stock for Stock 2.2 = better down low 2.4 = better up top.
Difference in quarter mile times .15, difference in mph only 2-3mph. Remember this is autos. It gives a fair comparison because both motors are limited to being controlled not by a human but rather the computer (shift points). Human error in driving has been eliminated.
Food Chain Performance
2.0 > 2.4 > 2.2
I own a 2.2 Auto, it's a stock sedan. I've driven a 2.4 VVT Auto (Stock Sedan). Both have identical features. The 2.4 weighed 127lbs net more then the 2.2 (Cat Scales) The only way the 2.4 creates power is after 4k VVT Kicks in. It's a slug otherwise down low. The 2.2 makes power between 2,200 RPM and 4,000 RPM. Big difference in when these cars make good power.
Now giving the fact I've seen both cars race at the track the times and 60fters are identical. The 2.4 only edged out the 2.2 in mph and a hair over the 1/8th. Quarter mile drag the 2.4 only beat the 2.2 by .15 of a second. Seems pretty small but driver error was eliminated with them being automatics because if it was sticks one could be better driver then another. The factor hence has been eliminated.
Straight facts, the 2.4 (in auto) was chasing the 2.2 (Auto) down the track more then half the time until it was making useable power up high.
Stock for Stock 2.2 = better down low 2.4 = better up top.
Difference in quarter mile times .15, difference in mph only 2-3mph. Remember this is autos. It gives a fair comparison because both motors are limited to being controlled not by a human but rather the computer (shift points). Human error in driving has been eliminated.
Food Chain Performance
2.0 > 2.4 > 2.2
07-12-2006, 11:50 PM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-17-04
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sneaky
I'm going to chime in.
I own a 2.2 Auto, it's a stock sedan. I've driven a 2.4 VVT Auto (Stock Sedan). Both have identical features. The 2.4 weighed 127lbs net more then the 2.2 (Cat Scales) The only way the 2.4 creates power is after 4k VVT Kicks in. It's a slug otherwise down low. The 2.2 makes power between 2,200 RPM and 4,000 RPM. Big difference in when these cars make good power.
Now giving the fact I've seen both cars race at the track the times and 60fters are identical. The 2.4 only edged out the 2.2 in mph and a hair over the 1/8th. Quarter mile drag the 2.4 only beat the 2.2 by .15 of a second. Seems pretty small but driver error was eliminated with them being automatics because if it was sticks one could be better driver then another. The factor hence has been eliminated.
Straight facts, the 2.4 (in auto) was chasing the 2.2 (Auto) down the track more then half the time until it was making useable power up high.
Stock for Stock 2.2 = better down low 2.4 = better up top.
Difference in quarter mile times .15, difference in mph only 2-3mph. Remember this is autos. It gives a fair comparison because both motors are limited to being controlled not by a human but rather the computer (shift points). Human error in driving has been eliminated.
Food Chain Performance
2.0 > 2.4 > 2.2
I own a 2.2 Auto, it's a stock sedan. I've driven a 2.4 VVT Auto (Stock Sedan). Both have identical features. The 2.4 weighed 127lbs net more then the 2.2 (Cat Scales) The only way the 2.4 creates power is after 4k VVT Kicks in. It's a slug otherwise down low. The 2.2 makes power between 2,200 RPM and 4,000 RPM. Big difference in when these cars make good power.
Now giving the fact I've seen both cars race at the track the times and 60fters are identical. The 2.4 only edged out the 2.2 in mph and a hair over the 1/8th. Quarter mile drag the 2.4 only beat the 2.2 by .15 of a second. Seems pretty small but driver error was eliminated with them being automatics because if it was sticks one could be better driver then another. The factor hence has been eliminated.
Straight facts, the 2.4 (in auto) was chasing the 2.2 (Auto) down the track more then half the time until it was making useable power up high.
Stock for Stock 2.2 = better down low 2.4 = better up top.
Difference in quarter mile times .15, difference in mph only 2-3mph. Remember this is autos. It gives a fair comparison because both motors are limited to being controlled not by a human but rather the computer (shift points). Human error in driving has been eliminated.
Food Chain Performance
2.0 > 2.4 > 2.2
Interesting but people with the 2.4L auto have gotten 15.7 to 15.8 on this board.
What the best et for a stock auto 2.2?? Not in the 15's thats foir sure.
07-13-2006, 01:16 AM
#66
Banned
Join Date: 03-30-05
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by avro206
Interesting but people with the 2.4L auto have gotten 15.7 to 15.8 on this board.
What the best et for a stock auto 2.2?? Not in the 15's thats foir sure.
What the best et for a stock auto 2.2?? Not in the 15's thats foir sure.
2.2's are not to be under-estimated. Just because the 2.4 has slighly more displacement and VVT doesn't mean it's perfect.
I respect all three ecotec motors. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
07-13-2006, 02:01 AM
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-08-05
Location: Oxford,MA
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sneaky
I've seen 2.2 Autos run bone stock a 15.9 and one who got an insane 15.6 on a 5 speed stick bone stock with a good 60'ft
2.2's are not to be under-estimated. Just because the 2.4 has slighly more displacement and VVT doesn't mean it's perfect.
I respect all three ecotec motors. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
2.2's are not to be under-estimated. Just because the 2.4 has slighly more displacement and VVT doesn't mean it's perfect.
I respect all three ecotec motors. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
07-13-2006, 07:38 AM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-17-04
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sneaky
I've seen 2.2 Autos run bone stock a 15.9 and one who got an insane 15.6 on a 5 speed stick bone stock with a good 60'ft
2.2's are not to be under-estimated. Just because the 2.4 has slighly more displacement and VVT doesn't mean it's perfect.
I respect all three ecotec motors. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
2.2's are not to be under-estimated. Just because the 2.4 has slighly more displacement and VVT doesn't mean it's perfect.
I respect all three ecotec motors. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
Two tiny mods and I am trapping 91mph---at 3490 ft above sea-level. I have never seen a time slip posted on here of a 2.2L auto in the 15's
Originaly I was planing on just gettting a 2.2L---but after test driving the 2.4L, I had to have it because the was noticeably faster, handles very good ect.
If some one in Calgary would show up, I'll race him and I'll gladly post results.
07-13-2006, 09:23 AM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-01-06
Location: Atlantic Canada
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sneaky
I'm going to chime in.
I own a 2.2 Auto, it's a stock sedan. I've driven a 2.4 VVT Auto (Stock Sedan). Both have identical features. The 2.4 weighed 127lbs net more then the 2.2 (Cat Scales) The only way the 2.4 creates power is after 4k VVT Kicks in. It's a slug otherwise down low. The 2.2 makes power between 2,200 RPM and 4,000 RPM. Big difference in when these cars make good power.
Now giving the fact I've seen both cars race at the track the times and 60fters are identical. The 2.4 only edged out the 2.2 in mph and a hair over the 1/8th. Quarter mile drag the 2.4 only beat the 2.2 by .15 of a second. Seems pretty small but driver error was eliminated with them being automatics because if it was sticks one could be better driver then another. The factor hence has been eliminated.
Straight facts, the 2.4 (in auto) was chasing the 2.2 (Auto) down the track more then half the time until it was making useable power up high.
Stock for Stock 2.2 = better down low 2.4 = better up top.
Difference in quarter mile times .15, difference in mph only 2-3mph. Remember this is autos. It gives a fair comparison because both motors are limited to being controlled not by a human but rather the computer (shift points). Human error in driving has been eliminated.
Food Chain Performance
2.0 > 2.4 > 2.2
I own a 2.2 Auto, it's a stock sedan. I've driven a 2.4 VVT Auto (Stock Sedan). Both have identical features. The 2.4 weighed 127lbs net more then the 2.2 (Cat Scales) The only way the 2.4 creates power is after 4k VVT Kicks in. It's a slug otherwise down low. The 2.2 makes power between 2,200 RPM and 4,000 RPM. Big difference in when these cars make good power.
Now giving the fact I've seen both cars race at the track the times and 60fters are identical. The 2.4 only edged out the 2.2 in mph and a hair over the 1/8th. Quarter mile drag the 2.4 only beat the 2.2 by .15 of a second. Seems pretty small but driver error was eliminated with them being automatics because if it was sticks one could be better driver then another. The factor hence has been eliminated.
Straight facts, the 2.4 (in auto) was chasing the 2.2 (Auto) down the track more then half the time until it was making useable power up high.
Stock for Stock 2.2 = better down low 2.4 = better up top.
Difference in quarter mile times .15, difference in mph only 2-3mph. Remember this is autos. It gives a fair comparison because both motors are limited to being controlled not by a human but rather the computer (shift points). Human error in driving has been eliminated.
Food Chain Performance
2.0 > 2.4 > 2.2
GM Powertrain also plots the 2.4 VVT as having the torque advantage at all rpm ranges.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...g%20trans.html
That being said, a fully loaded 2.4 auto and a stripper 2.2 auto would probably be close.
One thing is for sure, our 2.2 auto feels a lot more powerful now with 8,000 kms on it than it did new. I hope it works out the same way with mine!
07-13-2006, 09:35 AM
#70
Banned
Join Date: 03-30-05
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The nature of the beast. I would be happy to take my 2.2 Sedan back to the track and get a 15.9 run. It's possible because I've seen it happen but the guy cut a 2.0 60'fter with a crazy launch on sticker tires (not drags though).
07-13-2006, 10:36 AM
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-26-05
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 6,375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sneaky
I'm going to chime in.
I own a 2.2 Auto, it's a stock sedan. I've driven a 2.4 VVT Auto (Stock Sedan). Both have identical features. The 2.4 weighed 127lbs net more then the 2.2 (Cat Scales) The only way the 2.4 creates power is after 4k VVT Kicks in. It's a slug otherwise down low. The 2.2 makes power between 2,200 RPM and 4,000 RPM. Big difference in when these cars make good power.
Now giving the fact I've seen both cars race at the track the times and 60fters are identical. The 2.4 only edged out the 2.2 in mph and a hair over the 1/8th. Quarter mile drag the 2.4 only beat the 2.2 by .15 of a second. Seems pretty small but driver error was eliminated with them being automatics because if it was sticks one could be better driver then another. The factor hence has been eliminated.
Straight facts, the 2.4 (in auto) was chasing the 2.2 (Auto) down the track more then half the time until it was making useable power up high.
Stock for Stock 2.2 = better down low 2.4 = better up top.
Difference in quarter mile times .15, difference in mph only 2-3mph. Remember this is autos. It gives a fair comparison because both motors are limited to being controlled not by a human but rather the computer (shift points). Human error in driving has been eliminated.
Food Chain Performance
2.0 > 2.4 > 2.2
I own a 2.2 Auto, it's a stock sedan. I've driven a 2.4 VVT Auto (Stock Sedan). Both have identical features. The 2.4 weighed 127lbs net more then the 2.2 (Cat Scales) The only way the 2.4 creates power is after 4k VVT Kicks in. It's a slug otherwise down low. The 2.2 makes power between 2,200 RPM and 4,000 RPM. Big difference in when these cars make good power.
Now giving the fact I've seen both cars race at the track the times and 60fters are identical. The 2.4 only edged out the 2.2 in mph and a hair over the 1/8th. Quarter mile drag the 2.4 only beat the 2.2 by .15 of a second. Seems pretty small but driver error was eliminated with them being automatics because if it was sticks one could be better driver then another. The factor hence has been eliminated.
Straight facts, the 2.4 (in auto) was chasing the 2.2 (Auto) down the track more then half the time until it was making useable power up high.
Stock for Stock 2.2 = better down low 2.4 = better up top.
Difference in quarter mile times .15, difference in mph only 2-3mph. Remember this is autos. It gives a fair comparison because both motors are limited to being controlled not by a human but rather the computer (shift points). Human error in driving has been eliminated.
Food Chain Performance
2.0 > 2.4 > 2.2
then why did i race my friend with a fully loaded ls coupe auto 2.2 and me in my fully loaded 2.4 auto coupe have such a big time difference and i never saw his tailights. 2.2 16.3 at best me 15.8 at best
07-13-2006, 06:27 PM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-29-05
Location: AZ
Posts: 7,926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thats a pretty close race man...I don't think thats helping the 2.4's case 
in any event yes the 2.4 is faster, there really is no need in arguing about it. By how much is the true question.
I'm pretty confident that I could beat a 2.4 auto and I think it'd be a drivers race with the 5 speed 2.4 with the advantage to them but I'm not stock either (I/H/E).
in any event yes the 2.4 is faster, there really is no need in arguing about it. By how much is the true question.
I'm pretty confident that I could beat a 2.4 auto and I think it'd be a drivers race with the 5 speed 2.4 with the advantage to them but I'm not stock either (I/H/E).
09-09-2006, 10:28 PM
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-09-06
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Halfcent
One thing I noticed above...
The stock automatic trans in these two cars does have one difference.
The SS model automatic has a higher ratio differential. The idea being to take the extra power and spin the wheels a little faster at the same RPM.
The stock automatic trans in these two cars does have one difference.
The SS model automatic has a higher ratio differential. The idea being to take the extra power and spin the wheels a little faster at the same RPM.
actually with a higher gear ratio, your wheels will spin the same amount at higher rpm's. The idea of this is, you can reach peak power faster because you rev higher. Higher gear ratios will give you more torque to the wheels (not at the crank) It can move your wheels more easily because your engine wont have to work as hard. A lower gear ratio turns the wheels more at the same rpm which makes you have a higher top speed. a lower gear ratio is also known as taller gears. It may not seem like it makes sense, but if you dont understand you will some day. For example- one of my friends at school has the same car as me with 4.10 gears. I have the stock 3.35. He rapes me from a dig and runs about a 14.5 in the 1/4 with a tune an intake and the gears. I run high 14's low 15's but im stock. I have a higher top speed and on the freeway if we are doin around 110 i will start to pull because he is runnin out of gear. you either gain acceleration and lose top speed or the reverse....you cant have the best of both.
09-09-2006, 10:29 PM
#75
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-17-04
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cobalter LS
07 Pontiac G5 2.4 GT comes with 3.91 final drive. 07 SS 2.4 still has 3.63.
All F23 (Cobalt/Pursuit) Getrags have 3.84 ratio
The autoimatics are 3.63
I have had this information verfied by GM canada---the US site has bad info. Trust me.
