Guys ,

I was just doing some exploring on the other websites and found a HHR SS on the (hhrforums.com) just ran his HHR SS with the Hahn BSR stage 1 tune and ran a 13.48@99.89mph with a 2.2 60ft..... WOW! just awesome times for the Cobalt/HHR SS forums. That is amazing that a big vehicle like the HHR can run like that..... The Caliber SRT better watch out!

 

I've seen LNFs run 12.98@109

 

The SRT is already in the 11's with slicks and a tune...

 

13.4 @99.89..how come so low of a trap?

 

prob on slicks or spinning the whole way down with enough power to get through a 13 sec run.... idk

 

wow that's awesome. I've seen only two around town. Buy just with a tune that's great. Great stuff coming out if those LNF's!!!

 

would take alot more than a tune and tires to get a 3200 lb csrt 4 in the 11's

 

Yeah that's impressive. Esp for the HHR SS. But hey it's pretty much just like the Cobalt...

 

This is an example of a good driver/car setup. ET determines how well a driver drove the car, Trap determines the HP and performance of the car.

 

Sorry we are allready in the 11s
http://www.caliberforums.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8238

 

You do realize that it is far from a "tune and slicks" car right? All you did was prove his point.

 

rofl rofl rofl

u also realize the csrt4 has a 2.4L and the Cobalt SS Turbo only needed a 2.0L?? Same with the Evo-X.............enjoy your 2.4L with less MPG and a fugy ass body

 

prolly not much spinning with a 2.2 60ft

 

110 octane gas ? Thats a pretty heavy tune man, im pretty sure if we did like he did (striped the car a bit and do weight reduction) + a tune on 110 octane witch seems kinda too intense i.m.o and had a decent driver with slicks most ppl wud run that much. You str4 ppl take way too much pride in the str stuff.

P.S
Both the HHR and the caliber look soooo retarded, looks like ur guna rape little kids when you drive that around.

 

13.4 @ 99 with a 2.2 60'...numbers do not compute. Especially when compared to the stock ss/sc times...

1.)madeinUSA,14.06@99.34 w/2.18 60'
2.)Tofu,14.12@97.29 w/2.00 60'
3.)STG2BALT,14.16@99.94 w/2.21 60'
4.)R&C_rallySS,14.24@100.06 w/2.23 60'
5.)Julex,14.29@99.60 w/2.19 60'
6.)X3r0,14.34@97.81 w/2.23 60'
7.)NGalaxyTimmyo,14.35@99.36 w/2.27 60'
8.)NewEraPerformance,14.37@97.65 w/2.29 60'
9.)chipmonk212121,14.37@98.26 w/2.22 60'
10.)SS4ME,14.39@96.01 w/2.28 60'

Look at all those 2.1 - 2.2 60' times with traps in the 97-99 range. 60' and trap sound about right, maybe even a little low for a tuned HHR turbo, but that 13.4 is nuts. Screams of track error.

 

I haven't been over there for a while. I'm guessing it was a five speed car as removing the torque management on the 4T45E and then increasing torque over what a stock 5-speed car has would be, how would you say, "interesting" to see how long it would live at the track. The HHR is comparatively porky which probably explains the trap speed but without seeing a time slip I'd bet it was a combination of good driver with good track conditions with good traction that played a big part in the E.T.



They get fairly decent mileage for being a shoebox on wheels with a bigger engine. You may not like the appearance and they don't and won't handle anywhere near what the Cobalt is capable of, but they do have a strong powertrain that is turning out to be fairly modification friendly. And since you mentioned the Evo X's engine, it may be a 2.0L like the Cobalt but it's also built in the same GEMA (Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance) plant and is based on the same Hyundai-developed architecture as the GEMA World Engine in the Caliber.

 

meh, they didn't need to bore it out for 2.4L it's just overkill and a waste of potential MPG in a non fuel friendly economy, and ya, nobody wants a shoebox on wheels, as said above, csrt4 and hhr ss both look like old men out to rape little children, not a very good image for the company, the PT Cruiser wasn't like that at all, lol that's wat u get for crossing the PT cruiser with the Neon

 

You guys are talking like a 2.0 automatically gets you better mileage than a 2.4...fact is, the SRT-4 gets much better mileage than the Evo X. Evo gets you an SUV-like 17/22 compared to Dodge's 19/27.

 

they gutted that SRT-4 to hell, lol

"only tune and a tires" turned into:

110 octane gas
70 lbs of "removed weight"(God knows what)
Lighter wheels
NO BACK SEAT
oh and its their Stage II, meaning: 625cc injectors, MBC, turboback exhaust, short ram intake, and the Realtune Approved Compressor upgrade.


that is hardly a tune and tires...

 

Yeah I'll buy that. There's TOO many variables in the gas mileage. I'm betting the Evo X has a much more aggressive setup as far as the factory tune and gearing and such.

 

True, and awd sucks a ton of mileage as well. The AWD Calibers that make more than 100 less hp than the SRT get 17/25.

 

hrmm i didn't think they ended up making em awd

 

We....as in YOU?! We.........as in, We defeated the ****'s during WWII?! We......I don't think WE did anything. I remember sitting on the couch eating Doritos, but I sure as hell don't remember fighting off the German offensive in the French forests, or landing on any sandy beaches. I checked my pants, no mud stains. I don't think that WE deserve any credit.

Did YOU run 11's?

 

Rofl ^^

 

are you talking about the one that was totally re-built even though they claimed it wasn't, and then blew up? or a different one.