Here are some pics, with a short vid to follow ....

My car being set up on the Dynapack
http://www.box.net/shared/static/x798pulw8w.JPG
http://www.box.net/shared/static/mj6vq68w0s.jpg
http://www.box.net/shared/static/qcez5nagow.JPG

Some of the great guys from Synapse Motorsports (Morgan/Shop Owner on left, not all in pic - Mike, Paul, Ryan, and Dom)
http://www.box.net/shared/static/0ijcdl5c0c.jpg

SS/T out back at Synapse, trying to sneak up on my Stage 2 SC!
http://www.box.net/shared/static/35f9pkdgkw.JPG
http://www.box.net/shared/static/yw52mrfuog.JPG

SS/T getting set up
http://www.box.net/shared/static/t5u5degowk.JPG

Overlay of my Stage 2 SC (no other mods) vs. Stock SS/T (only 75 miles on the odo)
**Stage 2 SC: 227whp/203ft lbs**
**SS/T: 237whp/258 ft lbs**
(Dotted Line = Stage 2 SC, Solid Line = SS/T)
http://www.box.net/shared/static/uygu8tikog.jpg

**VIDEO**
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/First-Dyno-08-Cobalt-SST_167224.htm

well hot damn those fuckers are gonna be sick when the after market starts building for them. look at the tq. difference fack me

Finally some numbers!!!

Finally some numbers!!!

QFT :cssNET:

great job frank

interesting differences in the curves there.

the shift points would make it a very interesting race to watch.

so does stand correct..gm numbers are accurate on the ss/tc...260hp is about 237whp and 260trq is little off..so its more like 260hp 280trq,same numbers are the ms3

cool....

whp with no wheels? :D

weird downward curve - hopefully some tunes take care of that and let it shoot upwards :-)

Epic!!!!!1

very impressive numbers for stock.

What gear was the pull done in with the TC? I've heard the engine uses torque management in the first two gears.

well they obviously wouldnt do it in 1st or 2nd lol.

usually pulls are done in 4th. (or whichever gear is close to 1:1)

usually 3rd gear if its 5spd and 4th if its 6 speed

you will have to much hp if done if 3rd

Very nice!!! Can't wait for some kick ass tunes to come out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I forsee over 300whp & 300 lb-ft of torque on the stock turbo!

you will have to much hp if done if 3rd

my damn balt got 225whp in 3rd. :cussing: gay gmstg 2 tune

What gear was the pull done in with the TC? I've heard the engine uses torque management in the first two gears.

All pulls were done in 3rd gear on both cars.

Wow... That's impressive... There's already a building aftermarket for the LNF so this motor has alot of potential.

my damn balt got 225whp in 3rd. :cussing: gay gmstg 2 tune

The reason why I insisted on doing a same day/same dyno comparo was so that there would be no comparison errors for having dynoed cars on different dynos, on different days, in different weather conditions, etc., etc., etc.

So your 225whp has no real bearing here as it pertains to our results, or to GM's Stage 2 for that matter ...

Very nice, and much appreciated.

Sweet. Looks like the SS/TC will net some big(ish) numbers when modded.

Very nice! It would be a sweet race to watch!

Firemanfrank...what is the elevation where you are at?

that seems low for a stage 2 dyno...and what the fuck is up with that dyno never seen anything like that

that seems low for a stage 2 dyno...and what the fuck is up with that dyno never seen anything like that

Not real sure but maybe they were gaping the brake pad so its not touching the rotor?

It's a Dynapack. An inexpensive alternative to a real chassis dyno. Yes, taking the wheels off the cars does remove an amount of accuracy too.

I'm going to move this to the LNF section and make it a sticky :)

Sweet. Looks like the SS/TC will net some big(ish) numbers when modded.

and then the motor will go b00m.

and then the motor will go b00m.
Wishing doesn't make it so :)

and then the motor will go b00m.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Makes me want to drive one though....before the big bang :lol:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Makes me want to drive one though....before the big bang :lol:
I doubt there's much to fear here...LNF has been quite dependable so far.

and then the motor will go b00m.

We will probably see more broken trannies then motors

Nice job, good numbers

We will probably see more broken trannies then motors

agreed. with its expected "ease of modability" there will be far more people "pushing the limits" than the ss/sc methinks.

Firemanfrank...what is the elevation where you are at?

Synapse Motorsports (where we tested), is a few miles away from Schenectady County airport, which has a surveyed elevation of 378ft.

It's a Dynapack. An inexpensive alternative to a real chassis dyno. Yes, taking the wheels off the cars does remove an amount of accuracy too.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.

But as I had stated before, my intent was to compare a Stage 2 SC to an SS/T on the same dyno, on the same day, at virtually the same time.

I was not trying to compare our dyno numbers to what anyone else around the country had gotten.

And I think I succeeded!

Nice job, good numbers

Thanks!

I think it was as fair a test as you could do between 2 cars (dynoing them together).

Don't you think? :)

Yeah no one can argue about the numbers, these were good conditions, and great numbers for both, hopefully we can stop all the fitting. But thanks for taking time out of your day to figure all of this out.:cssNET:

I'm going to move this to the LNF section and make it a sticky :)

OMG!

The first thread I ever started that became a "sticky".

Utter Coolness! :cool:

Yeah no one can argue about the numbers, these were good conditions, and great numbers for both, hopefully we can stop all the fitting. But thanks for taking time out of your day to figure all of this out.:cssNET:

No problemo.

I was as interested as anyone else here as to how much whp/trq the two cars would make when they were dynoed together.

P.S. A small sidenote regarding a quote from the manufacturers of Dynapack dynos:
"Dynapack™ attaches directly to the axle(s), thereby overcoming all the disadvantages of tyre distortion including noise, torque steer, loss of traction, tyre heat and design variations in the tyre."

We will probably see more broken trannies then motors
Well, they've learned here too...the TC does not have the 'wheel-hop-perpetuating-marshmalllow-mounts' that SC suffered from. Additionally, upgrades to the transaxle's internals have occurred.


P.S. A small sidenote regarding a quote from the manufacturers of Dynapack dynos:
"Dynapack™ attaches directly to the axle(s), thereby overcoming all the disadvantages of tyre distortion including noise, torque steer, loss of traction, tyre heat and design variations in the tyre."
Heh, as to be expected from an outfit selling such equipment. They fail to mention that these factors are also part of the car's overall behavior, and thus provide a more realistic depiction of the car's capabilities when it's on the only surface that really matters...the road or the track.

The inertial load alone of one's rolling stock (wheels/tires) is a significant aspect of the car's 'to the road' performance. Mind you, I'm not dissing the testing you guys did...I think it's cool and a very uniform session. Just addressing some of the unique aspects of this style of portable equipment. :cssNET:

Heh, as to be expected from an outfit selling such equipment. They fail to mention that these factors are also part of the car's overall behavior, and thus provide a more realistic depiction of the car's capabilities when it's on the only surface that really matters...the road or the track.

The inertial load alone of one's rolling stock (wheels/tires) is a significant aspect of the car's 'to the road' performance. Mind you, I'm not dissing the testing you guys did...I think it's cool and a very uniform session. Just addressing some of the unique aspects of this style of portable equipment. :cssNET:

I understand bro!

I'm no absolute expert on dyno types, I was just looking for a nearby dyno for the test.

And when Synapse reported they had an SS/T (and being they were only 20 min. from my home) it was a perfect place to go. :)

I'd love to see other people do a same day Stock or Stage 2 SC vs. SS/T test done on other dynos as well!

The inertial load alone of one's rolling stock (wheels/tires) is a significant aspect of the car's 'to the road' performance. Mind you, I'm not dissing the testing you guys did...I think it's cool and a very uniform session. Just addressing some of the unique aspects of this style of portable equipment. :cssNET:


The only disadvantage about dynapack that I have ever seen is the setup time to get a car mounted on. Other then that I fail to see why having the wheels and tires on or off matters. Are you just suggesting that the numbers the dyno puts out are not as accurate as they could be, or that not having the weight and characteristic of the wheel/tire will affect tuning accuracy?

Well it looks like you TC guys can walk a stock SRT4 pretty well (on paper).

I'm waiting on you guys to get to the track and pull better than a 2.4 60ft & 14.3 1/4 time.

Goold ole' :usa: power

It's a Dynapack. An inexpensive alternative to a real chassis dyno. Yes, taking the wheels off the cars does remove an amount of accuracy too.

the dynapack is the most expensive dynamometer on the market, at more than double the price of a comparable dynojet. so im not sure what you mean by an inexpensive alternative to a "real" chassis dyno.

im just not sure what you are trying to get at with this comment, especially with such inaccurate information.

the dynapack is the most expensive dynamometer on the market, at more than double the price of a comparable dynojet.

^Exactly what I thought you had mentioned to me before. Glad you said it!

And just for fun, I found this Youtube video where a dyno shop that had a Dynapack tested a car on their dyno and on a Dynojet Dyno on the same day (just a few hours apart): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZXbk3o-xHg

The car tested ran in 2 different modes, Low Boost and Medium Boost.

RESULTS:
Low Boost
Dynapack - 219whp/160tq
Dynojet - 245whp/183tq

Medium Boost
Dynapack - 303whp/197tq
Dynojet - 332whp/217tq

They found that the Dynojet generated between 8-10% higher numbers than a Dynapack at the 200-350whp level. Applying their results to the test that we did at Synapse (using the lower 8% correction factor), this would translate into:

Stage 2 SC - 254whp
SS/T - 265whp

I'm thinking that maybe the Dynapack might be closer to true whp numbers than a Dynojet ...

the actual numbers may be different but both dyno's are consistant and will allow you tune the car properly.

nice test.

sweet nice to see some #'s finally

The only disadvantage about dynapack that I have ever seen is the setup time to get a car mounted on. Other then that I fail to see why having the wheels and tires on or off matters. Are you just suggesting that the numbers the dyno puts out are not as accurate as they could be, or that not having the weight and characteristic of the wheel/tire will affect tuning accuracy?

Are you suggesting that over 100lbs of rotational mass wont make a difference?!?

Are you suggesting that over 100lbs of rotational mass wont make a difference?!?


Won't make any difference tuning the car no. Loading the engine you are still hitting the same map cells with or without wheels and tires. On a inertia dyno such as dynojet it indeed does make a difference. You can make more power by raising the air pressure way up. I am not saying negative about dynojet brand or any other for that matter. Just trying to clear up some confusion about dynapack and how they work. Seems to be lots of questions and misunderstandings on them. A skilled dyno operater/tuner can have great results on either.

it looks like it would be a good race on paper, the ss s/c has a few more rpm's so it would probably be a drivers race with the edge given to the ss t/c.

Won't make any difference tuning the car no. Loading the engine you are still hitting the same map cells with or without wheels and tires. On a inertia dyno such as dynojet it indeed does make a difference. You can make more power by raising the air pressure way up. I am not saying negative about dynojet brand or any other for that matter. Just trying to clear up some confusion about dynapack and how they work. Seems to be lots of questions and misunderstandings on them. A skilled dyno operater/tuner can have great results on either.

tuning wise i completely agree.

i think maybe i may have misunderstood the point.

Im just saying that 100lbs of rotating mass is CERTAINLY going to make a difference to a reading.

it looks like it would be a good race on paper, the ss s/c has a few more rpm's so it would probably be a drivers race with the edge given to the ss t/c.

SS/SC also 5% shorter gears :) 4.05 vs. 3.85 final drive.

SS/SC also 5% shorter gears :) 4.05 vs. 3.85 final drive.

true statement. I think a race between a stage 2 SS/SC and a stock SS/TC would definitely be close.

But these definitely aren't god's gift to the fwd sport compact market. Hopefully there will be a few running around when I get back to omaha in september. I love get a vid of a stock pulley SS/SC raping one. lol.

Hmmm.

5% shorter gears vs. +10whp and +55 ft lbs. That's gotta be a close one.

I think for our next "test" (and seeing how too many variables enter into E.T.) we should get both cars on the same drag strip, on the same day, and then compare their Trap Speeds.

That'd be interesting ...

you def got 229.5 on that second one

you def got 229.5 on that second one

Not to split hairs, but that's exactly what I thought!

But you can hear Morgan saying "227".

???

its a sc vs tc conspiracy!!!

turbos always tryin to keep a blower down i tell ya! :D

Nice dyno's. Did they tell you if they will dyno the car again after 500 miles when its cherry is popped? Im curious to see what numbers it puts down then with a few more psi. Its wierd though seeing a SS at the dyno not whining away..

its a sc vs tc conspiracy!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

ahaha tc owns

finally got some numbers... thanks guys

Nice dyno's. Did they tell you if they will dyno the car again after 500 miles when its cherry is popped? Im curious to see what numbers it puts down then with a few more psi. Its wierd though seeing a SS at the dyno not whining away..

Morgan said that the 75 miles on the car were almost all testing/racing miles, and that the SS/T was making full boost as of right now.

So the SS/T's already broken in!

As far as the noise thing, yeah, that SS/T was almost "quiet" on the dyno (especially with no tires pressing up against a roller to make any noise).

The supercharger definitely took the "Best Sounding Engine" award that day. :twothumbs

ahaha tc owns

finally got some numbers... thanks guys

Finally? Where have you been?

And just to clarify PL2, the SS/T only owned in torque against my Stage 2. :guns:

A simple 10whp difference owns nothing! :poke:

Morgan said that the 75 miles on the car were almost all testing/racing miles, and that the SS/T was making full boost as of right now.

So the SS/T's already broken in!

As far as the noise thing, yeah, that SS/T was almost "quiet" on the dyno (especially with no tires pressing up against a roller to make any noise).

The supercharger definitely took the "Best Sounding Engine" award that day. :twothumbs

Thanks:)

Thanks:)

If I remember correctly, Morgan said the SS/T was boosting at 17.

So I don't know, is that full boost then?

So are Gm's numbers correct by their standards?

you def got 229.5 on that second one

And here's the proof!

http://www.box.net/shared/static/ciw6vwnsw8.jpg

^I'VE BEEN HAD! :lol:

If I remember correctly, Morgan said the SS/T was boosting at 17.

So I don't know, is that full boost then?

Well I know the turbo can make 21 psi to meet the 260hp if it needs to be. But my buddys dad who has a sky RL says his makes 23 psi out in vegas.

So are Gm's numbers correct by their standards?

Well, GM states that the SS/T produces the same amount of hp at the flywheel as it does torque (260/260).

But on the dyno, that the SS/T got 237whp and 258 lb ft.

???

In addition to that, I read an article where people who routinely tested on a Dynapack said this about drive train loss:

Church Automotive Testing
Dyno Tech
How the Dynapack Works
http://home.earthlink.net/~spchurch/churchautomotivetesting/id12.html
"In our experience, a manual transmission FWD car will lose 20-25 hp to the hubs on the Dynapack. A RWD car will lose 25-30 hp and an AWD car about 35-40 hp (the FWD case has been verified on an engine dyno). In contrast, losses on the Dynojet will be in the 12-14% range for FWD and 14-16% for RWD (opinions vary)."

Seeing that their FWD conversion numbers were verified by actually testing the engine on an ENGINE dyno, and then on the Dynapack dyno, I'd say those figures are probably right on.

That would mean 247-252 crank hp for my Stage 2 SC, and 257-262 crank hp for the SS/T.

Pretty believable ...

Well I know the turbo can make 21 psi to meet the 260hp if it needs to be. But my buddys dad who has a sky RL says his makes 23 psi out in vegas.

It was like 70 degrees and dry out the other day when we tested, so does that mean the engine only needed 17psi then?

well hot damn those fuckers are gonna be sick when the after market starts building for them. look at the tq. difference fack me

I agree but that is a bad reading on the stage 2. My stage 2 on a mustang dyno pulled 241 in third gear with nothing but an intake. Think about it....800+ dollars for 12 whp? (stock cobalts can pull 215)

Don't get me wrong....id much rather have a turbo ;)

I agree but that is a bad reading on the stage 2. My stage 2 on a mustang dyno pulled 241 in third gear with nothing but an intake. Think about it....800+ dollars for 12 whp? (stock cobalts can pull 215)

Don't get me wrong....id much rather have a turbo ;)

Believe me, if you had put your SC on our dyno the day we tested, you would not have been making 241whp.

But we gotta remember something here, we're not comparing dyno vs dyno.

We're comparing 2 different cars on the same dyno, on the same day, at the same time.

And that's what counts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

^Men Of Few Words

:)

I'm just glad someone did it finally, and took a Stage 2 in for comparison on the SAME dyno...

now we know where numbers stand for the most part, but I think after about 1000miles on the TC, you may see even more power...

I'm all for having a drag race with cobalts in various "stages" of tune at the track.

At 75 miles, i'm confident our engine is 95% broken in. Brand new engines built here get broken in on the dyno, tuned and are ready to go.

It was great meeting Frank, and i'll agree his stage 2 sounded better. I think once the TC is "opened up" it will have a nice sound to it. Supercharger whine is tough to beat though :)

No a/f readings? I'm curious to see how GM has it (ss/tc) tuned under boost.

We did do a few pulls reading a/f. Its running really lean down low and gradually gets richer with rpm. The direct injection can run leaner then standard fuel injection but I was still surprised to see ~14:1 at full boost:eek:

I'm all for having a drag race with cobalts in various "stages" of tune at the track.

At 75 miles, i'm confident our engine is 95% broken in. Brand new engines built here get broken in on the dyno, tuned and are ready to go.

It was great meeting Frank, and i'll agree his stage 2 sounded better. I think once the TC is "opened up" it will have a nice sound to it. Supercharger whine is tough to beat though :)

Was also nice meeting everyone down at Synapse Motorsports!

Good people there. People who really want to get their hands dirty with an SS/T. :twothumbs

They told some of the things they've got planned for the SS/T, but they swore me to secrecy or else! :eek:

Nice This What I've Been Waiting For
Satge 2 Dyno Numbers..now I Get A Ruff Estimate What Im Pushing,kinda:lol:
And The Tc Dyno Results Too:twothumbs:lol:

F-YOU FRANK, no wonder mike didn't contact me about getting my car dynoed. They used your car instead. :thumbsdow

I kid.. those T/C's are no joke.. Damn.

We did do a few pulls reading a/f. Its running really lean down low and gradually gets richer with rpm. The direct injection can run leaner then standard fuel injection but I was still surprised to see ~14:1 at full boost:eek:

I understand:twothumbs Thanks.

F-YOU FRANK, no wonder mike didn't contact me about getting my car dynoed. They used your car instead. :thumbsdow

I kid.. those T/C's are no joke.. Damn.

BE THERE, OR BE SQUARE CHRIS! :lol:

Yeah, SS/T put down good numbers (especially in the torque dept.).

But I'm happy that my Stage 2 SC made 227whp, within 10whp of the SS/T (even though I saw AND posted a pic of the monitor which showed 229.5whp!).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dyno Vid
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/First-Dyno-08-Cobalt-SST_167224.htm

BE THERE, OR BE SQUARE CHRIS! :lol:

Yeah, SS/T put down good numbers (especially in the torque dept.).

But I'm happy that my Stage 2 SC made 227whp, within 10whp of the SS/T (even though I saw AND posted a pic of the monitor which showed 229.5whp!).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dyno Vid Now On Streetfire
For those of you who want to see the vid but not download it, I set it up on Streetfire.net:

(NOTE: I just downloaded it, so Streetfire might still be encoding the vid ...)
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/First-Dyno-08-Cobalt-SST_167224.htm

I would have went today but I never heard back from Mike. Oh well.. Stage II is a better comparison anyway.

Thanks to all parties involved for the comparision, now we know where they stand.

I would have went today but I never heard back from Mike. Oh well.. Stage II is a better comparison anyway.

Is your car completely stock?

The perfect comparo would have been to see a 100% bone stock SC, a Stage 2 + 0 SC, and a completely stock SS/T.

Guess 2 out of 3 ain't bad ...

Thanks to all parties involved for the comparision, now we know where they stand.

:twothumbs

we want to get all 3 chris. we will still put your car on the dyno if you want, we just cant do a back to back like we did with the stage 2 since the car is all pulled apart. weve already made our charge piping kit, and we have the exhaust removed.

we want to get all 3 chris. we will still put your car on the dyno if you want, we just cant do a back to back like we did with the stage 2 since the car is all pulled apart. weve already made our charge piping kit, and we have the exhaust removed.

Do it Chris!

Well I know the turbo can make 21 psi to meet the 260hp if it needs to be. But my buddys dad who has a sky RL says his makes 23 psi out in vegas.

Listen the boost is controlled to always make 260HP depending on elevation because Vegas elevation is at ~2000ft boost will be higher to deal with thinner air. And since this testing was done at a much lower altitude the computer will adjust the boost so its lower. Boost is just a number that can change Ive done testing from VA beach to West Virginia in mine and I gained almost 3 pounds a boost from VA beach to Virginia. But anyway 17 psi sounds like it would be full boost at this elevation.

we want to get all 3 chris. we will still put your car on the dyno if you want, we just cant do a back to back like we did with the stage 2 since the car is all pulled apart. weve already made our charge piping kit, and we have the exhaust removed.

:nuts: Awesome. I'm glad to see someone putting time and effort into domestics, for once. Especially a quality name like Synapse. Keep it up guys. :twothumbs

:nuts: Awesome. I'm glad to see someone putting time and effort into domestics, for once. Especially a quality name like Synapse. Keep it up guys. :twothumbs

I'll ask again ...

Is your car stock or has it been modded in some way?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Forget it, questioned answered ....
http://www.cobaltss.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2497823&postcount=22

Believe me, if you had put your SC on our dyno the day we tested, you would not have been making 241whp.

But we gotta remember something here, we're not comparing dyno vs dyno.

We're comparing 2 different cars on the same dyno, on the same day, at the same time.

And that's what counts.

extremely valid point. :)

extremely valid point. :)

Thanks!

But it seems no matter how much I say it, someone will always remark "But I got XXX whp on XXX dyno."

So unless a dyno is used for the sole purpose of tuning an individual car ...

A comparison of one individual dyno to another individual dyno is an exercise in futility.

It's just a lot of "Blah, Blah, Blah" to me.

So the ss/tc is really around 260/280 and a stage 2 ss/sc is around what?

So the ss/tc is really around 260/280 and a stage 2 ss/sc is around what?

here we go again..EVERY CAR PUTS OUT DIFFRENT NUMBERS

So the ss/tc is really around 260/280 and a stage 2 ss/sc is around what?

**EDIT**
Upon reviewing the article that I referenced regarding Dynapack whp to crankshaft hp conversions ("Dyno Tech - How the Dynapack Works"), I see that they never mentioned anything about applying their "+20-25hp" to torque figures. So I won't either!

SS/T - 260 crank hp
Stage 2 SC - 250 crank hp

here we go again..EVERY CAR PUTS OUT DIFFRENT NUMBERS

No reason to get overly excited there S/SS.

Let's just say for those two cars, that those are what the numbers would have been converted to.

Calm down super ss we know different cars have different capabilities im not saying they are all the same its called A ROUGH ESTIMATE......boy how i love people who jump on shit to make comments.

I edited the video and posted it to youtube... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V0nqBrmgxQ

I edited the video and posted it to youtube... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V0nqBrmgxQ

NICE JOB! :twothumbs

(tiny, tiny mistake ... SS/T had 74 miles on the clock, not 47 miles :))

Even though it's already too late to do a "Same Day/Same Dyno" test of a completely stock SC against the stock SS/T, we should still try to get a 100% box stock SC on Synapses's Dyno.

I'm going to query the owners on the SC part of the forum to see if we can get that set up ...

at the end of the day a stock car dynoed at more hp and hell lot more torque then a modded one....

at the end of the day a stock car dynoed at more hp and hell lot more torque then a modded one....

You did not understood my request.

I'm looking for a stock SC to dyno on Synapse's Dynapack, which would make what you said impossible.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about ...

at the end of the day a stock car dynoed at more hp and hell lot more torque then a modded one....

But it still did not put down the 260 it claims

But it still did not put down the 260 it claims

No, it didn't.
It put down more.

But it still did not put down the 260 it claims

Your getting the idea of the "claim" wrong.

The "claim" made by GM is that the SS/T makes 260hp at the crank.

On Synapse's dyno, it made 237 hp at the wheels.

If you add in the 20-25 hp drive train loss that another Dynapack owner had tested to be true, then the 237whp of the SS/T figures out to 257-262 hp at the crank.

Exactly what GM said it made ...

But it still did not put down the 260 it claims

yes it did. manufacturers rate at the crank. what is so difficult about this concept.

But it still did not put down the 260 it claims


... im speechless. I suppose you think that the stg 2 s/c puts down 250hp to the wheels (even now with the dyno?)

And I might point out the T/C appears to be underrated in the torque department.. 258 lb-ft of torque at the WHEELS.....

... im speechless. I suppose you think that the stg 2 s/c puts down 250hp to the wheels (even now with the dyno?)

And I might point out the T/C appears to be underrated in the torque department.. 258 lb-ft of torque at the WHEELS.....

yes I do--->BRN169 - 2007 Sport Red Cobalt SS Supercharged <262whp/224ft lbs> on a mustang dyno I was there and this is what he put down.His numbers are in the dyno thread

"227whp/203tq Dynapack Dyno=252whp/228tq So YES I DO or does only the t/c get the extra 25.Now I am really getting confused I know I have seen on here many time people saying the 205 hp of the ss s/c was at the wheel. So did GM change the way they advertise their hp ? Or was the s/c auctually 180hp ? If thats the case then holy shit you gained 72 hp from just a stage 2 kit .

"227whp/203tq Dynapack Dyno=252whp/228tq So yes I do or does only the t/c get the extra 25.Now I am really getting confused I know I have seen on here many time people saying the 205 hp of the ss s/c was at the wheel. So did GM change the way they advertise their hp ? Or was the s/c auctually 180hp ? If thats the case them holy shit you gained 72 hp from just a stage 2 kit .

every car and every dyno is going to give you different numbers bc of the variables like how much weight you set on the rollers, etc. but I don't think the 205 hp for the ss/sc was to the wheel bc I never dyno'd my car stock but when I did after a Stage 2 install something like 2 years ago...I dyno'd in at 211whp w/ the stage 2......so it really depends but on an acurate dyno I think you'll find that the stockers were about 190 whp or so.......

yeah I know all dynos are different so just look at the numbers for the ones here the gm stage 2 did still put down over 250. and I think saying you can get over 70 more hp at the wheel with a GM stage 2 and no other mods is high

MODS: *too many to list...and still not fast*
lol yup I know what you mean

I think saying you can get over 70 more hp at the wheel with a GM stage 2 and no other mods is high

Your right, which is why you've got to stop comparing one dyno against another.

There's already been "same dyno testing" of before/after Stage 2. I've linked to this post at least half a dozen times already, but here it is again.

**remember, the actual numbers aren't what's important - it's the difference in the numbers that counts**
--------------------------------------------------------

Modified Mag dyno test results for GM Stage 2 Kit on SS/SC + results for K&N Typhoon
http://cobaltss.net/forums/showthread.php?t=46905&highlight=dyno

The March 2007 edition of Modified Mag has the before/after test results for installing the GM Stage 2 kit on a stock SS/SC.

Without the Stage 2 kit, the car dyno'ed at 199.6 WHP and 177.3 ft/lbs torque

With the kit, the car dyno'ed at 223.8 WHP and 207 TQ

So, plus 24.2 WHP, plus 29.7 TQ with the Stage 2 kit.

The kit demands premium fuel from that point forward, of course. There is a big improvement in the midrange of the hp/tq curves, where a lot of spirited driving occurs.

They then added to the system the K&N Typhoon Air Intake System to the car.

This added 11.4 WHP and 1.6 TQ at the high end of the curve. Results were much less in the midrange of the hp/tq curves...very slight improvement in the 3500 to 5000 rpm range. And that was after the stage 2 kit installed....

-----------------------------------------------------------

So there you go, 223.8 WHP and 207 TQ with Stage 2 (+24.2 WHP, +29.7 TQ).

BTW, whp/trq #'s are almost EXACTLY what I got. ;)

I am not comparing anything but the numbers you posted and I dont see where you think I am.
There was one dumbass who said
"... im speechless. I suppose you think that the stg 2 s/c puts down 250hp to the wheels (even now with the dyno?)
I said
"yes I do--->BRN169 - 2007 Sport Red Cobalt SS Supercharged <262whp/224ft lbs> on a mustang dyno I was there and this is what he put down.His numbers are in the dyno thread"
<I am not compaing it to the dyno you used just saying what it put down on the dyno he was on.

Stage 2 - 227whp/203tq Dynapack Dyno(not being compared to any other dyno so STOP and read again if you think I am.)
(Stock 08 SS made 237whp/258tq on **SAME DYNO/SAME DAY**)

so if the t/c made 257-260 at the crank then the stage 2 did make only about 10 less at the crank ,correct? Adding the numbers you added to the t/c to the s/c is what about 247-250?
some people are looking at you putting up the t/c number with the added 20-25 hp (257)and putting it against the 227 you saying for the s/c and seeing a much bigger diff then there really is

I have said noting bad about the t/c. I for one like to see each genaration of car made better . Hell I wish the t/c pu out 305 like the Si .I cant wait to see what they will start putting out when mods become available.

But for thoses that think their t/c will walk all over a stage 2,you are sadly mistaken it would be a drivers race not a hp race.

and damn thoses t/c tq numbers are insane for a fwd car.But since the time attack cars specs were Engine: ECOTEC LSJ Supercharged with larger injectors and 77.9 mm pulley
Engine displacement (cu. in / cc): 2000 cc
Horsepower maximum (hp / kw): 236 hp
Torque maximum (lbs-ft / Nm): 270 lb-ft
Transmission: F35 5 spd mt with 4.45 final drive
high tq is nothing new to these cars

I am not comparing anything but the numbers you posted and I dont see where you think I am.

Ok, np buddy. :)

(more on what my car would have put down on a Dynojet at end of thread)

... the stage 2 did make only about 10 less at the crank ,correct? Adding the numbers you added to the t/c to the s/c is what about 247-250?

Yup!

some people are looking at you putting up the t/c number with the added 20-25 hp (257)and putting it against the 227 you saying for the s/c and seeing a much bigger diff then there really is

Didn't realize they were doing that ... :eek:

But for thoses that think their t/c will walk all over a stage 2,you are sadly mistaken it would be a drivers race not a hp race.

I'll say this much. That the dyno test bears out that a race between a Stage 2 SC vs. and a SS/T would be a lot closer than what people would have originally thought.

and damn thoses t/c tq numbers are insane for a fwd car.

Yes they are!

------------------------------------------------

Ok, now for what my Stage 2 would have made on a Dynojet ...

I recently posted a link where a Dynapack shop had a Youtube video showing how they tested a car on their dyno, and then on the same day on a Dynojet:
"Dynapack and DynoJet head to head comparison"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZXbk3o-xHg

In their back-to-back testing, they reported a 10% loss on the Dynapack vs. the Dynojet.

That being said, my 227whp/203tq on the Dynapack would have been the equivalent of 252whp/226tq on a Dynojet.

Very interesting!

I recently posted a link where a Dynapack shop had a Youtube video showing how they tested a car on their dyno, and then on the same day on a Dynojet:
"Dynapack and DynoJet head to head comparison"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZXbk3o-xHg

In their back-to-back testing, they reported a 10% loss on the Dynapack vs. the Dynojet.

That being said, my 227whp/203tq on the Dynapack would have been the equivalent of 252whp/226tq on a Dynojet.

Very interesting!

^I should also have noted that those same 10% conversion factors verified by that dyno shop would put the SS/T at 263whp/286tq on a roller dyno.

That would place the SS/T at #13 on the list of 49 results on this forum's "OFFICIAL Dyno Thread (take two)".

My Stage 2 SC would be at the #24 spot!

But since the time attack cars specs were Engine: ECOTEC LSJ Supercharged with larger injectors and 77.9 mm pulley
Engine displacement (cu. in / cc): 2000 cc
Horsepower maximum (hp / kw): 236 hp
Torque maximum (lbs-ft / Nm): 270 lb-ft
Transmission: F35 5 spd mt with 4.45 final drive
high tq is nothing new to these cars

where did you get these specs?

I have said noting bad about the t/c. I for one like to see each genaration of car made better . Hell I wish the t/c pu out 305 like the Si .I cant wait to see what they will start putting out when mods become available.


Si? Honda civic Si? That doesnt make sense since the 08 civic Si is 197 horsepower at 7800 rpm and 139 lb.-ft. of torque at 6100 rpm. What car are you referring to?

I agree about the aftermarket - I cant wait to see what these cars are capable of - for all we know they are about maxed out for reliability right now :). I am really concerned with how well the transmission will hold more power, since we are at its max now, and it looking at the graphs, it seems as though GM intentionally tuned the power back.

BTW I am going to a Dynojet dyno later this week. Ill open a new thread with the results, since it wouldn't be valid comparing it here. I still havent found anyone in the Raleigh/Durham area with a Stage 2 that would be willing to dyno with me (I'D EVEN PAY!)

BTW I am going to a Dynojet dyno later this week. Ill open a new thread with the results, since it wouldn't be valid comparing it here. I still havent found anyone in the Raleigh/Durham area with a Stage 2 that would be willing to dyno with me (I'D EVEN PAY!)

Umm, how far is Raleigh from Upstate N.Y.? :lol:

Seriously, Stage 2 SC peeps that live near I/I/F ...

Take him up on his freakin offer already!

Si? Honda civic Si? That doesnt make sense since the 08 civic Si is 197 horsepower at 7800 rpm and 139 lb.-ft. of torque at 6100 rpm. What car are you referring to?

I agree about the aftermarket - I cant wait to see what these cars are capable of - for all we know they are about maxed out for reliability right now :). I am really concerned with how well the transmission will hold more power, since we are at its max now, and it looking at the graphs, it seems as though GM intentionally tuned the power back.

BTW I am going to a Dynojet dyno later this week. Ill open a new thread with the results, since it wouldn't be valid comparing it here. I still havent found anyone in the Raleigh/Durham area with a Stage 2 that would be willing to dyno with me (I'D EVEN PAY!)

lol yeah sorry I ment STi

where did you get these specs?

here you go
http://www.tuninglinx.com/html/cobalt-ss-supercharged-2.html

Did you see my dyno numbers frank? ;)

Did you see my dyno numbers frank? ;)

Yup!

See my reply. :)

here are chris' dyno numbers.

http://www.synapseturbo.com/gallery/cache/ae57b48fb1c8a05ee8f21cf3f5144032290b960d_800.jpg

good job synapse and firemanfrank on all that work done.

it means alot since i dont think i can get anything dynoed where i live.

keep it up guys.

i wan to get the catback system form gm. do you guys think its worth it. any gains?

BTW I am going to a Dynojet dyno later this week. Ill open a new thread with the results, since it wouldn't be valid comparing it here. I still havent found anyone in the Raleigh/Durham area with a Stage 2 that would be willing to dyno with me (I'D EVEN PAY!)

Hey, I sent you a PM, but i'm definately down for a comparison. If you don't already have a shop picked out, there is Phantasm off Capital Blvd, or RPM down in Raleigh.

Nice video. I noticed the nearly $500 Snap-On Impact wrench. I got one out in the shop. I LOVE IT.

Dynopack don't have to worry about the car taking off due to poor strapping. :lol:

Nice video. I noticed the nearly $500 Snap-On Impact wrench. I got one out in the shop. I LOVE IT.

Dynopack don't have to worry about the car taking off due to poor strapping. :lol:

haha you got that right, its definately a must have around the shop. a lot of money but definately worth every penny. we use them so much we got two now.

haha you got that right, its definately a must have around the shop. a lot of money but definately worth every penny. we use them so much we got two now.

I love mine got a extra battery for it too. How much you end up paying? Mine was around $521 or close to it out door because I bought about 9K that day on the truck.

Speaking of which I need to call them and find a settlement. Being unemployed SUCKS. I'm losing everything. But I'm going to start on a fresh clean slate when I leave for basic training.

The only disadvantage about dynapack that I have ever seen is the setup time to get a car mounted on. Other then that I fail to see why having the wheels and tires on or off matters. Are you just suggesting that the numbers the dyno puts out are not as accurate as they could be, or that not having the weight and characteristic of the wheel/tire will affect tuning accuracy?

Wheel and tire combinations have significant effect on the overall car's inertial response to acceleration. Removing them during testing removes a dynamic aspect of the car's actual 'on-road' performance. It's almost as if the results then fall into some vague range between engine dynos and real wheel dynos. In order to compensate for this, the dyno's software has to 'fudge' the numbers somewhat, and the compensation factor can only be an approximation.

It works, it's just missing this detail of actual on-road results, which is what we typically rely on a chassis dyno to show.

the dynapack is the most expensive dynamometer on the market, at more than double the price of a comparable dynojet. so im not sure what you mean by an inexpensive alternative to a "real" chassis dyno.

im just not sure what you are trying to get at with this comment, especially with such inaccurate information.
Well, heh, if you indeed paid double the price of a comparable Dynojet, then I can understand why you'd feel a bit raw...I would too! But as far as inaccurate information goes, I don't see this as a true statment based upon published pricing.

Expense also goes to installation, which is a key component of the overall cost, and this lower cost (read: Less Expensive) is touted by Dynapack's own website as a 'selling point':

Our cost: Purchase price or lease payment

Our competitors cost:

Purchase price or lease payment
Additional components
Computer
Installation costs
Training costs
Insurance
Electricity
Lost shop space

So, no offense intended....Dynapack has its fans. I just offered an explanation to a question asked.

Wheel and tire combinations have significant effect on the overall car's inertial response to acceleration. Removing them during testing removes a dynamic aspect of the car's actual 'on-road' performance.

Having made the statement "Wheel and tire combinations have significant effect on the overall car's inertial response to acceleration", then it follows that different wheel/tire combinations adversely effects the accuracy of the testing procedure itself.

What an awful way to measure hp numbers.

Seems to me like some sort of vague way to compute hp in which certain parts that can/do effect the results are in a constant state of flux.

A fudging of the test procedure if I ever heard one.

But if that's what you and others want, don't feel like you got a raw deal by having purchased/used a Dynojet.

No offense intended....

I'm sensing a lot of TC envy from the SC owners. Which is all well and good, I guess. The TC is a progression. Excellent work by GM.

Only in the EVO family are the earlier 8s & 9s better than the 10s.

I'm sensing a lot of TC envy from the SC owners. Which is all well and good, I guess. The TC is a progression. Excellent work by GM.

Only in the EVO family are the earlier 8s & 9s better than the 10s.

Maybe you see it that way , but i could have a tc sitting in the driveway by tommorrow if i REALLY wanted one, there's a black one on a lot 20 miles away . I bet there are alot of SC guys that could too, but have decided against it same as I . To me it's just not a big enough progression. Now if it 300 to the wheel i might be more interested.

I don't think 300 is far off for this car. But we'll see. I do sense a lot of hostility towards the the tc from sc guys, I dunno maybe i'm making more out of it than there is. But it seems like every thread is getting tc vs sc. I'm sure its pretty much envy cause there really is no reason to hate the car. I think GM really got it right now, I love my car and I love how the power feels for daily driving but if you really want to make more power its pretty clear that turbo is the way to go for pure power. Driveablility may go to the supercharger idk. I've never driven a turbalt so I can't say anything about lag. But the power seems pretty good for a stock car. They aren't far from being outta reach for stock superchargers.

does anyone else find it odd that the SS/TC' torque peaks at about 3200 RPMS and steadily falls off after that (and pretty quickly too) while the SS/SC peaks around 5000? I was under the impression that the turbos produced more power at the top of the RPM range and superchargers gave a lot more power at the low end. Provides an argument for short shifting the SS/TC. Impressive numbers none the less!

does anyone else find it odd that the SS/TC' torque peaks at about 3200 RPMS and steadily falls off after that (and pretty quickly too) while the SS/SC peaks around 5000? I was under the impression that the turbos produced more power at the top of the RPM range and superchargers gave a lot more power at the low end. Provides an argument for short shifting the SS/TC. Impressive numbers none the less!

i always thought that too, but then again I don't know shit. Anyone explain?

The torque curve seems really ragged and almost seems like it's starving for air in the higher RPM's or something

The torque curve seems really ragged and almost seems like it's starving for air in the higher RPM's or something

I'm pretty sure the the ECM is trying to keep the TC to it's rated 260 ft lbs of torque.

To the TC VS SC thing ... there is hostility from some SC owners who are worried about the pecking order around here i guess. There are also some TC owners convinced of their cars superiority. It's human nature i suppose, me .... i'm more curious about the TC than anything else. When tuning solutions come out for the TC the disscussions will end . Turbos are more efficient , the only SC that comes close is the TVS.

I'm pretty sure the the ECM is trying to keep the TC to it's rated 260 ft lbs of torque.

To the TC VS SC thing ... there is hostility from some SC owners who are worried about the pecking order around here i guess. There are also some TC owners convinced of their cars superiority. It's human nature i guess.

I could see if it was constantly near 260ft/lbs but it drops off drastically in an RPM range when turbos are supposed to come alive. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Larger turbos are more about top end, this turbo is one made to be a low end mid range turbo. Hence why it provides great low end and mid range

I could see if it was constantly near 260ft/lbs but it drops off drastically in an RPM range when turbos are supposed to come alive. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Your right , past 4K it really falls off compared to the lower rpm ranges . I must have been thinking of the other dyno they posted where they changed the charge pipes.

I had my car dynod this weekend and the dyno guys actually commented on that. The turbo is way undersized to make any power up top, its asthmatic even. Great for driving around town, but not so good for making real power up top. (this turbo is tiny!)

I'm thinking with just a minor turbo upgrade this car would easily make over 300 whp and torque (of course with that pesky nanny out of the way).

it is nice though not having a long spool time though w/ the small turbo

I had my car dynod this weekend and the dyno guys actually commented on that. The turbo is way undersized to make any power up top, its asthmatic even. Great for driving around town, but not so good for making real power up top. (this turbo is tiny!)

I'm thinking with just a minor turbo upgrade this car would easily make over 300 whp and torque (of course with that pesky nanny out of the way).

Like I said it seems like it's gasping for air above 3500 RPM's. I think that with this torque curve it would be a close race between an SS/SC and an SS/TC. But like you said a turbo upgrade and it wouldn't even be close...

yea well a tvs upgrade on the ss/sc and it wouldn't even be close with a stock ss/tc.

what dumb thing to say. OBVIOUSLY a turbo upgrade would demolish a stock or stage 2 ss/sc.

Well if you look dude the SS/SC I'm comparing to the SS/TC is stage 2. It's not stock. Stock SS/SC VS. Stock SS/TC the SS/TC is gonna win as long as the driver can put the power to the pavement. My point was if you can get it to breath a little better higher in the RPM's the things gonna be a beast!

And here's the proof!

http://www.box.net/shared/static/ciw6vwnsw8.jpg

^I'VE BEEN HAD! :lol:
Nice TQ! LOL

Well if you look dude the SS/SC I'm comparing to the SS/TC is stage 2. It's not stock. Stock SS/SC VS. Stock SS/TC the SS/TC is gonna win as long as the driver can put the power to the pavement. My point was if you can get it to breath a little better higher in the RPM's the things gonna be a beast!

then what you should have said what a boost controller to turn the boost up would beat a stock or stage 2 ss/sc.

You're missing the point the turbos are to small on the SS/TC that's why there is virtually no turbo lag and they spool up so quick. It's pretty clear that there's an issue with the engine breathing near the top end which is an area where a turbo should thrive (tells me that the turbo can't push enough air up top). Turning up the boost won't help when there probably isn't much more boost it can put out. Bigger turbo and/or a less restrictive air intake system would probably do wonders for the SS/TC

Stock SRT-4 Neons put down nubers just like the new SS/TC correct? Everyone over there was posting about the new SS/TC.

Stock SRT-4 Neons put down nubers just like the new SS/TC correct? Everyone over there was posting about the new SS/TC.

The neon could be 500hp at the wheels and I would still rather bend over and let the whole site pound me in the shitter before I owned one. The neon is about as attractive as an Omni, oh wait the Omni actually looks BETTER than the neon.

yea well a tvs upgrade on the ss/sc and it wouldn't even be close with a stock ss/tc.

what dumb thing to say. OBVIOUSLY a turbo upgrade would demolish a stock or stage 2 ss/sc.

do you have to be an ass in every thread? jk i already know the answer to that. how about a turbo upgrade vs the tvs then it wouldn't be close either. Pointless round and round logic here. I am curious to see what the tc can do stock, and probably with a little work that car will whip. I mean a turbo swap is a bit easier than anything we can do to make that much power. They just need the hptuner support which is coming soon.

The neon could be 500hp at the wheels and I would still rather bend over and let the whole site pound me in the shitter before I owned one. The neon is about as attractive as an Omni, oh wait the Omni actually looks BETTER than the neon.

BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAH AWSOME DOOD!!!

The neon could be 500hp at the wheels and I would still rather bend over and let the whole site pound me in the shitter before I owned one. The neon is about as attractive as an Omni, oh wait the Omni actually looks BETTER than the neon.

I owned a Black '04 SRT-4, and I LIKED the way it looked ...

(not my pic, but you get the idea)
http://imgs.getauto.com/imgs/ag/ga/31/85/1/1B3ES66S85D123185-1.jpg

The neon could be 500hp at the wheels and I would still rather bend over and let the whole site pound me in the shitter before I owned one. The neon is about as attractive as an Omni, oh wait the Omni actually looks BETTER than the neon.

Pm me ill pound you in the shitter real good.

Definitely disappointed by the numbers... with wheels on it will be still in the low 200's. You'd need a better flowing head and a larger turbo to get anywhere NEAR 300 to the wheels.

Definitely disappointed by the numbers... with wheels on it will be still in the low 200's. You'd need a better flowing head and a larger turbo to get anywhere NEAR 300 to the wheels.


Im sorry, you must not be paying much attention. Bill Hahn's '08 is putting down 289 whp and 313 torque with just an exhaust and a tune. With all the correct supporting mods and a good tune it will be very close to 300 to the wheels, and strap on a bigger turbo and EASILY well over 300.

How can you be disappointed with 240whp and 250-260 torque to the wheels stock and getting over 30mph highway???????! You must have some VERY high standards.


http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k297/ecoboost/Before-AfterPPCExhonCobaltTC.jpg

Im sorry, you must not be paying much attention. Bill Hahn's '08 is putting down 289 whp and 313 torque with just an exhaust and a tune. With all the correct supporting mods and a good tune it will be very close to 300 to the wheels, and strap on a bigger turbo and EASILY well over 300.

How can you be disappointed with 240whp and 250-260 torque to the wheels stock and etting over 30mph highway???????! You must have some VERY high standards.



I looked at the numbers from the first post that this thread is about:

**Stage 2 SC: 227whp/203ft lbs**
**SS/T: 237whp/258 ft lbs**

Can't quote something without paying attention :thumbsdow

Those are numbers without wheels on a dynapack. Which means with wheels, the numbers go down even lower. I don't know who Bill Hahn is nore do I care; unless his car is the one that was on the dyno at the start of this thread. But there is a big difference between HP at the wheels and HP at the 'HUB'. So yes, I stand by what I said.

**Stage 2 SC: 227whp/203ft lbs**
**SS/T: 237whp/258 ft lbs**

Those are numbers without wheels on a dynapack. Which means with wheels, the numbers go down even lower. I don't know who Bill Hahn is nore do I care; unless his car is the one that was on the dyno at the start of this thread. But there is a big difference between HP at the wheels and HP at the 'HUB'. So yes, I stand by what I said.

Where did you read that with wheels, the numbers would go down lower? Could you please point me to the reference you used to make that statement?

Because here's my reference showing how a Dynojet made 8-10% MORE whp than a Dynapack (test done on same exact vehicle, same day, just a few hours apart):

Dynapack and DynoJet head to head comparison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZXbk3o-xHg

Already knowing long ago that Dynapacks made less whp than "roller" type dynos ... GREAT!
Being lucky enough to find a recent video test confirming what I already knew ... PRICELESS!

Where did you read that with wheels, the numbers would go down lower? Could you please point me to the reference you used to make that statement?

Because here's my reference showing how a Dynojet made 8-10% MORE whp than a Dynapack (test done on same exact vehicle, same day, just a few hours apart):

Dynapack and DynoJet head to head comparison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZXbk3o-xHg

Already knowing long ago that Dynapacks made less whp than "roller" type dynos ... GREAT!
Being lucky enough to find a recent video test confirming what I already knew ... PRICELESS!

That's great; but there is a flaw in your logic. Different dynos can be calibrated to read differently. And that video was made specifically to show that that shop's dyno read lower than most dynojets... BECAUSE THEY USUALLY READ HIGHER.

You cannot tell me that proper HP measured at the HUB is going to be LOWER than a car with HP measured at the WHEELS. That my friend defies physics. Now if you know anything about dyno's, then you know that a dynapack can be calibrated to read 'like' a dynojet. Same as how mustang dynos are known to read lower than a dynojet, even though the wheels are on the car. Your logic says... my car makes 200hp at the wheels.. but if I take the wheels off, the car and measure; it will only now generate 184whp

http://hondata.com/dynok20a2nos.html

Look at that link. Here is THE PREMIERE Honda tuners with a direct statement "The vehicle was dyno'd on a DynoPack so the figures are 10-15 hp higher than what you will see on a DynoJet." And that is just one example.

Are you really trying to say that the SS/TC should in fact be making 256hp AT THE WHEELS STOCK?

That's great; but there is a flaw in your logic. Different dynos can be calibrated to read differently. And that video was made specifically to show that that shop's dyno read lower than most dynojets... BECAUSE THEY USUALLY READ HIGHER.

You cannot tell me that proper HP measured at the HUB is going to be LOWER than a car with HP measured at the WHEELS. That my friend defies physics. Now if you know anything about dyno's, then you know that a dynapack can be calibrated to read 'like' a dynojet. Same as how mustang dynos are known to read lower than a dynojet, even though the wheels are on the car. Your logic says... my car makes 200hp at the wheels.. but if I take the wheels off, the car and measure; it will only now generate 184whp

http://hondata.com/dynok20a2nos.html

Look at that link. Here is THE PREMIERE Honda tuners with a direct statement "The vehicle was dyno'd on a DynoPack so the figures are 10-15 hp higher than what you will see on a DynoJet." And that is just one example.

Are you really trying to say that the SS/TC should in fact be making 256hp AT THE WHEELS STOCK?

You are getting confused here, and here is why ...

You are mentally "stuck" on this "with/without wheels" thing, when instead, you should be concentrating on the fact that these are two completely different types of dynos.

Another one of your stumbling blocks is that you don't believe that Dynojet's read ARTIFICIALLY high numbers. So when you ask if the SS/T would show 256whp on a Dynojet, the answer is YES. That is to say, on a Dynojet it would show that number.

Also, I asked you to provide PROOF of what you said. The link you listed was just a single person's thoughts/beliefs, with nothing to back it up.

IT PROVIDED NO PROOF WHATSOEVER OF ANYTHING, NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.

Take this into consideration as well ..

Several years ago, I used a totally different car on Synapse's dyno. Compared to what other people were consistently reporting with that car around the country on Dynojets (with the exact same mods), I was getting the SAME reported whp % difference as what was stated in the video test I linked to.

Again and again, it keeps adding up. So in summation:


I provided physical proof for my statement in the form of my link's back-to-back testing (and then confirmed it on my own with another vehicle)
in reply, I received absolutely no proof whatsoever which would counter my statement


Thanks, and ... The End

Are you suggesting that over 100lbs of rotational mass wont make a difference?!?

Dude could you be anymore buttsoar thats the new tc'd model is faster then your sc'd one..Every post you brew something up to put the new car down...The new balt has over 50 more hp (and a ton more torque) and from what im seeing can run all over a stage 2 bone stock. Race and dynowise. Thats before tuning, bolt ons, and playing w/ the boost...Pick up a new one or live w/ it, because once the mods come out the ss/sc doesnt have a chance without some extreme work.

The neon could be 500hp at the wheels and I would still rather bend over and let the whole site pound me in the shitter before I owned one. The neon is about as attractive as an Omni, oh wait the Omni actually looks BETTER than the neon.

Well i own an 08 ss/tc and i love it,

I traded my 06 ss/sc and i really love it too,

And i still own a blue srt4 and i really like the way it looks and sound.

I would really like to race you with your 06 portable disco or your grandpa cherookee just for the fun of it in my ugly car !!!!

to each their own a$$wipe :cssNET:

sorry for the tread hijacking !

does anyone else find it odd that the SS/TC' torque peaks at about 3200 RPMS and steadily falls off after that (and pretty quickly too) while the SS/SC peaks around 5000? I was under the impression that the turbos produced more power at the top of the RPM range and superchargers gave a lot more power at the low end. Provides an argument for short shifting the SS/TC. Impressive numbers none the less!

Technically a turbo charger is a specific type of supercharger. Having said that, your impression is correct however because of the way they work, a turbo will peak below a supercharger. Turbochargers are notoriously hard to tune and the work above looks like a great tune for this engine.

A good FAQ is located at http://www.superchargersonline.com/content.asp?ID=19 and has both pros and cons for both.

- Solo

interesting differences in the curves there.

the shift points would make it a very interesting race to watch.

I agree....should be pretty close...say a car length or two difference between them is all....can't wait to see how much the aftermarket will get out of the turbo.

Definitely disappointed by the numbers... with wheels on it will be still in the low 200's. You'd need a better flowing head and a larger turbo to get anywhere NEAR 300 to the wheels.

i put down 297fwhp and 346fwtq with bolt ons and tune

Definitely disappointed by the numbers... with wheels on it will be still in the low 200's. You'd need a better flowing head and a larger turbo to get anywhere NEAR 300 to the wheels.

I wonder if this dude still belongs to the site. If so I hope he is eating humble pie right now. As I and many other members of this site have proven these cars can easily surpass 300whp with just a tune and maybe a few boltons. More than a tune only SRT neon could hope for and they have a larger motor.

there is already many many ppl getting over 300 hp 300 tq on stock turbos for these things.. in fact hahn is making 330hp 360tq 2 wheels on a cai, dwn pipe, 3" catback, chg piping, intercooler upgrade, and the tuner they sell. basic bolt on's, mucho power with out tune(sort of) ithink the gm lnf upgrade is a worthy upgrade also

Just updating the video link from my original posting (the old one no longer works):

2007 cobalt ss supercharged VS 2008 cobalt SS turbocharged
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V0nqBrmgxQ

i just had my new turbo kit from synapse put in and tuned at 23/24 psi on pum p gas and made 353whp/34trq. next im goin to get tuned on race gas and turn up the boost hopefully to 28psi. heres a link to my car profile i havent yet updated my dyno sheets those are the old one i was tuned yesterday.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3373688

i just had my new turbo kit from synapse put in and tuned at 23/24 psi on pum p gas and made 353whp/34trq. next im goin to get tuned on race gas and turn up the boost hopefully to 28psi. heres a link to my car profile i havent yet updated my dyno sheets those are the old one i was tuned yesterday.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3373688

Nice! Everything else stock? (Clutch, fuel, ect...)

All of the vids i've seen the SRT-4 always gets the jump (The tires and the more toque help) and by 2nd gear the SS always pulls and by halfway through second it's over and done. And in terms of track #'s.

14.119 @ 102.19 mph (R/T=.289) (60ft=2.282)
14.122@102.21 mph (R/T=.217) (60ft=2.319)
14.211@102.17 mph (R/T=.209) (60ft=2.351)

Out of over 57 runs, about 87% were sub 2.4 60 ft times and sub 14.3.

And my personal best is still the slowest of the LNF's on the OCC. Next time i'm lowering the tire pressure and using 94 octane. Seems to work for everyone else who hit 13's.

Well it looks like you TC guys can walk a stock SRT4 pretty well (on paper).

I'm waiting on you guys to get to the track and pull better than a 2.4 60ft & 14.3 1/4 time.

Goold ole' :usa: power

Lol, I owned one and I loved the looks. Plus, at least Dodge gave the car good tires and it took GM how many years after the first SRT-4 rolled out to build a compact capable of at least 300hp? Lol, I love my 'Balt but lets not forget that the Neon SRT-4 and the SS T/C are basically the two biggest icons for North American Sport Compacts for under $25,000 these days. And they blow the doors off of all the Jap cars in the same price range (save for the mazdaspeed 3 perhaps) North American all the way. End of rant I swear :cssNET:

The neon could be 500hp at the wheels and I would still rather bend over and let the whole site pound me in the shitter before I owned one. The neon is about as attractive as an Omni, oh wait the Omni actually looks BETTER than the neon.

All I know is....When I had my SRT-4 and it was bone stock I was raping SS S/C's all day long. When I upped to the stage III kit with toys I was spanking damn near everything on the road. With my bone Stock SS T/C i'm spanking SRT-4's (stock) and once I get a good tune and a bigger turbo (I saw a Ball bearing Turbo that pushed it to 350whp and 371 trq.) I'll be raping stage III SRT-4's as when I dynoed mine on 94 Octane it was putting 337 to the wheels and 351 trq. on 94. 100 Ocatne in high octane mode it jumped to 357whp and almost 380 trq. The LNF can do that without race gas. The LSJ is lucky to push 300 on the stock Supercharger. The new SS also has better skid pad numbers and overall handling. Beefier axles. IMO, the T/C is the better car. The SS S/C was known for being lacklustre in it's performance class. Don't take it as an insult, i'm sure when the Cruze gets a high performance sport model it will rape my T/C too. It already looks way nicer inside and out in it's stock form. Progression, just love your car. The S/C has it's pros and Cons, the T/C has it's pros and cons, but unlike Dodge, GM actually made the next incarnation of their High Performance compact better. As we all know the Caliber SRT-4 is fugly, slow, bulky, handles like shit and has the interior of a fucking Caravan. Lets all be friends, we all rock SS badges and frankly we virtually all ass rape the best of the import market (stage 2 S/C and stock T/C). It could be worse, you could be driving a Civic.

Ms3's won't touch SS T/C's ;)

Ms3's won't touch SS T/C's ;)


True enough but it's the only somewhat affordable sport compact that comes close :) SS owns. :guns:

Ms3's won't touch SS T/C's ;)

Seeing how my dyno face off showed Stage 2 SC's were virtually identical to TC's ...

Then that goes for Stage 2's as well!

Whoot! 19,373 views.

Didn't know when I posted this was gonna be the 6th most viewed thread in the 2.0L LNF Performance Tech section. :guns: