Unless I could actually see the test report/actual documentation its not admissible. As an engineer you learn that unless its official, its not official. Don't claim its official if you can't back it up, because eventually you will get F'ed in the A.

edit: unless you are talking about the numbers they quote from the manufacture, not sure exactly what you are talking about

 

it says "whp or bhp", that makes no sense.

 

so from what im found i think the sae standards where the sae when they where both done

lsj s/c 205 hp sae rating march 2005 standard

lnf t/c 260 hp sae rating from may 2007(march 2005 standard)

so from my research you guys are throwing around bullshit

 

wheel horse power. brake horse power. tell me you know the difference

 

bhp would be crank HP
whp would be wheel HP

 

road and track is down right now. there is proof

 

I know this, but how can they claim either/or? It's either one or the other. 260bhp isn't going to be 260whp.

 

thats what we are saying. ss/tc is bhp ss/sc is whp. at some point they had to say bhp instead of whp. thats why they dont say whp for the ss/tc.

 

yea I'm not sure what point he is making, I've never seen a manufacturer rate a car in whp

 

well im gonna go change my oil. hopefully when i get back i dont get this on roadandtrack:
Error: 6/9/2008 7:11:15 PM

We could not display the information you requested due to a temporary problem.
Our development team has been notified of this problem and is working diligently to resolve it as quickly as possible.
We apologize for this inconvenience.

 

i'm confused. lol. It's my bed time though. I'll be back online tomorrow. 12hr shift in the desert will kick your ass.

 

Starting in 1971 automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower (as defined by standard J1349). This reflected the rated power of the engine in as-installed trim, with all accessories and standard intake and exhaust systems. By 1972, US carmakers quoted power exclusively in SAE net hp. The change was meant to 'deflate' power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies, as well as to obfuscate the power losses caused by emissions-control equipment.



so the lnf falls under this

https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/show...1&postcount=63

look under results

SAE net ratings, while more accurate than gross ratings, still represent the engine's power at the flywheel. Contrary to some reports, it does not measure power at the drive wheels.

there both at the flywheel

 

OK FOLKS, STRAIGHT FROM GMs OWN MOUTH

LNF CERTIFIED TO SAE J1349
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...obalt%20SS.pdf

LSJ NOT CERTIFIED TO SAE J1349 [thus why it seems to be underrated]
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en..._Cobalt_SS.pdf

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...cs+page-2.html
Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged - Specs

(continued)



VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door coupe

BASE PRICE: $21,995

ENGINE TYPE: supercharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 122 cu in, 1998cc
Power (SAE net): 205 bhp @ 5600 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 200 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 103.3 in Length: 180.5 in Width: 68.4 in Height: 55.6 in
Curb weight: 2900 lb

C/D-ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.0 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.7 sec @ 97 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 140 mph

PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMY (MFR'S EST):
EPA city driving: 23 mpg
EPA highway driving: 29 mpg


http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...cs+page-2.html


2008 Chevrolet Cobalt SS - Specs

(continued)



VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door coupe

PRICE AS TESTED: $24,685 (base price: $22,995)

ENGINE TYPE: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 122 cu in, 1998cc
Power (SAE net): 260 bhp @ 5300 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 260 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 103.5 in Length: 180.5 in Width: 67.9 in Height: 55.7 in
Curb weight: 2960 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 24.6 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.2 sec
Standing ź-mile: 14.2 sec @ 102 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 146 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 162 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.92 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 22/30 mpg
C/D observed 20 mpg
31 votes
Add a review to your rating

 

ive never driven a turbo car but everyone keeps talking about turbo lag and low end torque being better on the lsj than the lnf. It doesn't really appear to be true yet all i hear is about low end power and better street manners of supercharging over turbocharging. I know there is no turbo lag on the lsj but low end torque on the turbocharged car seems way better than ours. I dunno just my .02.

 

so im right

 

no, the LSJ does have more low end torque than the LNF, it quickly gets surpassed though (takes ~0.5 seconds before the LNF is higher)

 

look at those two charts and tell me where the lsj has more torque

 

I have not driven a stick for 20 years and the first thing I said is man that clutch is soft. I just picked up my 08 turbo tonight and I have 1 word SWEET. It looks and feels sweet. Have driven a truck for the last 20 years so a little different but I like it.

I was in there on Memorial weekend put down a deposit and on June 9th I have 1.

 

im afraid to even go into a chevy dealer with my peon..they will automatically reject me,lol

 

260 ft/lbs at 2k rpm sounds pretty insane to me. especially in a fwd.

 

Those charts are derived at steady state, aka, for hold each rpm @ 100 throttle & wait until power peaks, then they record the value. I've also read some interesting tech reports of LSJ vs. LNF, but I can't share any info from that.

I mean just think about it, a roots style supercharger is always going to have better throttle response than a turbo.

 

i agree with you there for sure. i was just looking at those two charts and i didn't really think a turbo could put the much low end torque down. I figured the eaton would have the edge there. but on the charts, according to them, the lnf has more torque than the lsj throughout the entire rpm range. throttle response is different though, like i said i haven't ever driven a turbo'd car so i don't know what turbo lag feels like. numbers are great but its really about driving, how does it drive, whats it feel like in the seat.

 

never seen so many people be so negative about the same car, just with a different induction system. you guys are being really lame about this, sad to say when they crack into the computer and find bigger turbo's its lights out, and there's always stand alone set up's.

 

the clutch on the T/C feels NOTHING like the clutch on the S/C, i promise..
under the hood looks no where near as good as the S/C..
power was just my opinion, i could be completely wrong, just going off of what i felt..

everyone just keep ignoring the positives we are all posting too.