Stage kits..If you choose to belive me
06-21-2008, 09:18 AM
#126
Member
Join Date: 12-25-07
Location: Po-town Ny
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I don't know what Saab it's from. I'm geussing something with a v6 and turbo. I know very little about where it came from, how much it is or anything like that.
All I know is that word got to them about my car and they wanted me to try to destroy their fancy new stage clutch for the new Cobalts.
All I know is that word got to them about my car and they wanted me to try to destroy their fancy new stage clutch for the new Cobalts.
I currently drive a Saab 9-3, almost everything on the solstice, sky, cobalt tc, and hhr ss is saab based. even though the power output on the lnf is greater then saab's 4cyl turbo
06-21-2008, 09:40 AM
#127
It would be really nice.
Correction, stage kits would be awesome...but with the release of the Solstice Targa with a 300HP LNF option kinda shows where this is going.
Fuel Rail
Intercooler
Stock turbo with a reflash up to 22PSI and some other slight things.
Stage 2 maybe?
Correction, stage kits would be awesome...but with the release of the Solstice Targa with a 300HP LNF option kinda shows where this is going.
Fuel Rail
Intercooler
Stock turbo with a reflash up to 22PSI and some other slight things.
Stage 2 maybe?
06-21-2008, 03:10 PM
#129
New Member
Join Date: 06-04-08
Location: Motor City
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I don't know what Saab it's from. I'm geussing something with a v6 and turbo. I know very little about where it came from, how much it is or anything like that.
All I know is that word got to them about my car and they wanted me to try to destroy their fancy new stage clutch for the new Cobalts.
All I know is that word got to them about my car and they wanted me to try to destroy their fancy new stage clutch for the new Cobalts.
06-21-2008, 05:28 PM
#130
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-13-08
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not sure where you guys are getting all your facts from with a "SS/TC will run with a Mustang GT stock for stock"...has anyone done it and posted pictures/videos?
Where do you get this "runs high 13's stock" crap from? Theres alot of guys on here that have more HP/TQ than a stock SS/TC and run mid/low 14's.
You guys gotta figure, this car is pretty much unmoddable until GM allows you too, or until HPTuners says so.
Where do you get this "runs high 13's stock" crap from? Theres alot of guys on here that have more HP/TQ than a stock SS/TC and run mid/low 14's.
You guys gotta figure, this car is pretty much unmoddable until GM allows you too, or until HPTuners says so.
06-21-2008, 06:06 PM
#131
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-11-08
Location: The Mogadishu of the Midwest
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Im not sure where you guys are getting all your facts from with a "SS/TC will run with a Mustang GT stock for stock"...has anyone done it and posted pictures/videos?
Where do you get this "runs high 13's stock" crap from? Theres alot of guys on here that have more HP/TQ than a stock SS/TC and run mid/low 14's.
You guys gotta figure, this car is pretty much unmoddable until GM allows you too, or until HPTuners says so.
Where do you get this "runs high 13's stock" crap from? Theres alot of guys on here that have more HP/TQ than a stock SS/TC and run mid/low 14's.
You guys gotta figure, this car is pretty much unmoddable until GM allows you too, or until HPTuners says so.
I have no idea where you are coming up with your crap dude... I have yet to see a SS/SC with stage 2 dyno more hp than a stock SS/TC...
Here are some pics, with a short vid to follow ....
***VIDEO***
(16.8mb/50 seconds - downloads from my file server)
http://www.box.net/shared/static/0eptamyo0g.wmv
Vid of my 1st run: 224whp, my 2nd run: 227whp, SS/T run: 230.9whp (it's best was 237whp)
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)
**Stage 2 SC: 227whp/203ft lbs**
**SS/T: 237whp/258 ft lbs**
(Dotted Line = Stage 2 SC, Solid Line = SS/T)
***VIDEO***
(16.8mb/50 seconds - downloads from my file server)
http://www.box.net/shared/static/0eptamyo0g.wmv
Vid of my 1st run: 224whp, my 2nd run: 227whp, SS/T run: 230.9whp (it's best was 237whp)
Also, see this:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ive/index.html
Okay, of course we're not referring to the 2008 Corvette. That would be a ridiculous statement, an utter lie. And we wouldn't do that to you. No, no, we're talking about the 1989 Vette that, back in a May 1989 road test, impressed power junkies with its 245-horse, 5.7-liter V-8 that could consume 60 in 6.5 seconds and the quarter mile in 15.0 at 94.6 mph. My, how times change-this cute Cobalt SS you see here, with a puny 2.0-liter four-cylinder spinning the front wheels and with help from a new "no-lift shift" launch control can scorch 60 in just 5.5 seconds and the quarter in 13.9 at 102.5 mph. Legit? You should see it at the track.
06-21-2008, 06:18 PM
#132
Senior Member
Join Date: 12-02-05
Location: Rhinelander WI
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-21-2008, 06:29 PM
#133
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-25-07
Location: Kissimmee, Fl
Posts: 6,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea where you are coming up with your crap dude... I have yet to see a SS/SC with stage 2 dyno more hp than a stock SS/TC...
Also, see this:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ive/index.html
Okay, of course we're not referring to the 2008 Corvette. That would be a ridiculous statement, an utter lie. And we wouldn't do that to you. No, no, we're talking about the 1989 Vette that, back in a May 1989 road test, impressed power junkies with its 245-horse, 5.7-liter V-8 that could consume 60 in 6.5 seconds and the quarter mile in 15.0 at 94.6 mph. My, how times change-this cute Cobalt SS you see here, with a puny 2.0-liter four-cylinder spinning the front wheels and with help from a new "no-lift shift" launch control can scorch 60 in just 5.5 seconds and the quarter in 13.9 at 102.5 mph. Legit? You should see it at the track.
Also, see this:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ive/index.html
Okay, of course we're not referring to the 2008 Corvette. That would be a ridiculous statement, an utter lie. And we wouldn't do that to you. No, no, we're talking about the 1989 Vette that, back in a May 1989 road test, impressed power junkies with its 245-horse, 5.7-liter V-8 that could consume 60 in 6.5 seconds and the quarter mile in 15.0 at 94.6 mph. My, how times change-this cute Cobalt SS you see here, with a puny 2.0-liter four-cylinder spinning the front wheels and with help from a new "no-lift shift" launch control can scorch 60 in just 5.5 seconds and the quarter in 13.9 at 102.5 mph. Legit? You should see it at the track.
I'm impressed with the tq to the wheels. I thought it would be less than that (cause the LNF is rated at the flywheel) At least I believe it is.
06-22-2008, 09:46 PM
#135
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: 03-08-08
Location: Farmington Hills, Michigan
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
How is this to throw a bone @ you guys. I'll see if this info actually gets out because it will be so deep in a thread.
SO here it goes. GM plans to offer a perfomance clutch, available for any F35 tranny, but targeted the ss/tc. They are still in the testing stage. It's borrowed from a car in Saab's lineup. GO ahead call it BS, but I know this for a fact. You can choose to belive me or not... LoL if anyone actually reads this.
I'll leave you with this, I know it's still in testing because I'm helping test it, but that's all I'm going to say about that.
SO here it goes. GM plans to offer a perfomance clutch, available for any F35 tranny, but targeted the ss/tc. They are still in the testing stage. It's borrowed from a car in Saab's lineup. GO ahead call it BS, but I know this for a fact. You can choose to belive me or not... LoL if anyone actually reads this.
I'll leave you with this, I know it's still in testing because I'm helping test it, but that's all I'm going to say about that.
I was at the GM tech center the other day and I talked to an engineer who is involved with the testing of these motors and he said they have gotton 320 HP out of these motors however the bottom end was starting to come apart.
While I was there I saw a few HHR panel vans in a SS version. If the HHR's looked better that would be one kool factory stripped hot rod (big power and light weight with no backseats and no windows).
06-22-2008, 10:25 PM
#136
Senior Member
Im not sure where you guys are getting all your facts from with a "SS/TC will run with a Mustang GT stock for stock"...has anyone done it and posted pictures/videos?
Where do you get this "runs high 13's stock" crap from? Theres alot of guys on here that have more HP/TQ than a stock SS/TC and run mid/low 14's.
You guys gotta figure, this car is pretty much unmoddable until GM allows you too, or until HPTuners says so.
Where do you get this "runs high 13's stock" crap from? Theres alot of guys on here that have more HP/TQ than a stock SS/TC and run mid/low 14's.
You guys gotta figure, this car is pretty much unmoddable until GM allows you too, or until HPTuners says so.
i have done it but no vids
and for me being the shitty driver that i am and spinning from 1st gear to 2nd running a 14.3 @ 102.7... they can definately run high 13's
idk where you are coming from at all
06-23-2008, 06:34 PM
#138
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 06-27-05
Location: Wilson, NY
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we could find out that they were rated at the wheels after all, if the hp numbers come up after 5 or 6 hundred miles, after the supposed electronic controlled break in period that everyone has talked about.
06-23-2008, 08:47 PM
#139
New Member
Join Date: 06-08-08
Location: NH
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just thought id add my 2 cents in here, about people saying that the ss/tc will run with a mustang. i owned a 95 trans am comp cam .510 lift, 1 3/4 inch headers, flow master, centerforce clutch, cold air intake, and a set of c5 wheels with 285/40 tires. POINT the thing had way more then the 275hp that was stock back in 95 and it felt barly faster then my new ss/tc. The car was just to heavy and the same could be said for those 3500lb stangs. sorry cars over 3000 pounds suck
06-23-2008, 10:12 PM
#140
New Member
Join Date: 03-01-08
Location: nowere
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not sure where you guys are getting all your facts from with a "SS/TC will run with a Mustang GT stock for stock"...has anyone done it and posted pictures/videos?
Where do you get this "runs high 13's stock" crap from? Theres alot of guys on here that have more HP/TQ than a stock SS/TC and run mid/low 14's.
You guys gotta figure, this car is pretty much unmoddable until GM allows you too, or until HPTuners says so.
Where do you get this "runs high 13's stock" crap from? Theres alot of guys on here that have more HP/TQ than a stock SS/TC and run mid/low 14's.
You guys gotta figure, this car is pretty much unmoddable until GM allows you too, or until HPTuners says so.
to answer you stupid quistion the reason a SS/TC can keep up if not beat a slowstang is beacuse
1 its a slowstang
2 its turbo
and 3...well 3 is probley beacuse the person in the cobalt was smarter and probley drives a hella lot better...
heres to you jr.!!
06-24-2008, 11:17 AM
#141
New Member
Join Date: 05-04-06
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol.. lets think about this one for a sec k... the ss/sc comes with a supercharger right ... right... so being as its supercharged its going to use diffrent internals and a completly diffrent boost setup... its all belt driven boost... now the reason slow stangs are being beat by ss/tc is being ... well beacuse its turbo... turbo boost is so much better and pulls way harder then any supercharger could... for instence... go to streetfire.net and check out some 1000hp vidoes... first some supercharged 1000hp videos.. then some turbo 1000hp videos... and what how diffrent the cars act... main reason being beacuse... the supercharger is allways boosting right when you hit the pedal you have boost ye it takes a sec for it to full boost.. you dont get the full boost responce like turbo.. the boost keeps going high and higher as the rpms go up...now turbo... well depending on the size... a turbo will take a sec or two to spool up and when it does whatch out... now... to answer your quistion... take a car.. a cobalt in this case... and put 300 hp and 350 lbs in it k.. 2 cars exactly the same k... who do you think is going to win? the turbo? wow congrats kid your right!... why you ask jr.? well beacuse when the guy in the sc car had to wait to hit 6k rpms to hit full boost the guy in to turbo was at full boost at 3k... basiclly the diffrence is... when the turbo goes... it doesnt stop..
to answer you stupid quistion the reason a SS/TC can keep up if not beat a slowstang is beacuse
1 its a slowstang
2 its turbo
and 3...well 3 is probley beacuse the person in the cobalt was smarter and probley drives a hella lot better...
heres to you jr.!!
to answer you stupid quistion the reason a SS/TC can keep up if not beat a slowstang is beacuse
1 its a slowstang
2 its turbo
and 3...well 3 is probley beacuse the person in the cobalt was smarter and probley drives a hella lot better...
heres to you jr.!!
Hmm... not much that was said here makes sense. First of all, I'd imagine that every NHRA Pro Stock, SuperStock, Top Fuel, Funny Car driver, crew and chief mechanics would disagree with you here. And while it may be true that supercharging utilizes increasing boost in a linear fashion, most supercharged cars will have full boost as early as 1800RPM. This doesn't mean that the boosting capacity of a supercharger ends at that RPM, but rather excess pressure is dumped above the set boost limit. We had a 2001 Grand Prix GTP which reached full boost (about 9lbs.) by 2000 rpm and held there all the way to redline. Also, with supercharging, your response curve is much more predictable. Boost is for the most part either on or off. Turbos are a much different animal, best suited to the mid to upper range rpm band.
Not saying that I prefer superchargers... I'm more of the road racing personality than drag racing. But certainly there are ways to make even a turbo behave how you'd like. (see sig)
06-24-2008, 12:47 PM
#143
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-25-06
Location: Dacula, Georgia
Posts: 3,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol.. lets think about this one for a sec k... the ss/sc comes with a supercharger right ... right... so being as its supercharged its going to use diffrent internals and a completly diffrent boost setup... its all belt driven boost... now the reason slow stangs are being beat by ss/tc is being ... well beacuse its turbo...turbo boost is so much better and pulls way harder then any supercharger could... for instence... go to streetfire.net and check out some 1000hp vidoes... first some supercharged 1000hp videos.. then some turbo 1000hp videos... and what how diffrent the cars act... main reason being beacuse... the supercharger is allways boosting right when you hit the pedal you have boost ye it takes a sec for it to full boost.. you dont get the full boost responce like turbo.. the boost keeps going high and higher as the rpms go up...now turbo... well depending on the size... a turbo will take a sec or two to spool up and when it does whatch out... now... to answer your quistion... take a car.. a cobalt in this case... and put 300 hp and 350 lbs in it k.. 2 cars exactly the same k... who do you think is going to win? the turbo? wow congrats kid your right!... why you ask jr.? well beacuse when the guy in the sc car had to wait to hit 6k rpms to hit full boost the guy in to turbo was at full boost at 3k... basiclly the diffrence is... when the turbo goes... it doesnt stop..
to answer you stupid quistion the reason a SS/TC can keep up if not beat a slowstang is beacuse
1 its a slowstang
2 its turbo
and 3...well 3 is probley beacuse the person in the cobalt was smarter and probley drives a hella lot better...
heres to you jr.!!
to answer you stupid quistion the reason a SS/TC can keep up if not beat a slowstang is beacuse
1 its a slowstang
2 its turbo
and 3...well 3 is probley beacuse the person in the cobalt was smarter and probley drives a hella lot better...
heres to you jr.!!
buwhahahah
dude.. you need to learn about how FI products work.. i have heard some asshat explanations before.. but this one just made me laugh.. hah
06-24-2008, 01:24 PM
#144
Rent me! per hour
Join Date: 03-22-07
Location: Still fixing others mistakes.
Posts: 24,185
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes
on
14 Posts
lol.. lets think about this one for a sec k... the ss/sc comes with a supercharger right ... right... so being as its supercharged its going to use diffrent internals and a completly diffrent boost setup... its all belt driven boost... now the reason slow stangs are being beat by ss/tc is being ... well beacuse its turbo... turbo boost is so much better and pulls way harder then any supercharger could... for instence... go to streetfire.net and check out some 1000hp vidoes... first some supercharged 1000hp videos.. then some turbo 1000hp videos... and what how diffrent the cars act... main reason being beacuse... the supercharger is allways boosting right when you hit the pedal you have boost ye it takes a sec for it to full boost.. you dont get the full boost responce like turbo.. the boost keeps going high and higher as the rpms go up...now turbo... well depending on the size... a turbo will take a sec or two to spool up and when it does whatch out... now... to answer your quistion... take a car.. a cobalt in this case... and put 300 hp and 350 lbs in it k.. 2 cars exactly the same k... who do you think is going to win? the turbo? wow congrats kid your right!... why you ask jr.? well beacuse when the guy in the sc car had to wait to hit 6k rpms to hit full boost the guy in to turbo was at full boost at 3k... basiclly the diffrence is... when the turbo goes... it doesnt stop..
to answer you stupid quistion the reason a SS/TC can keep up if not beat a slowstang is beacuse
1 its a slowstang
2 its turbo
and 3...well 3 is probley beacuse the person in the cobalt was smarter and probley drives a hella lot better...
heres to you jr.!!
to answer you stupid quistion the reason a SS/TC can keep up if not beat a slowstang is beacuse
1 its a slowstang
2 its turbo
and 3...well 3 is probley beacuse the person in the cobalt was smarter and probley drives a hella lot better...
heres to you jr.!!
06-24-2008, 01:43 PM
#146
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: 04-18-07
Location: Dallas
Posts: 4,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IDK Why you guys think it will run with a Stock GT Mustang.... 0-60 on the Mustang is 5.1 and quarter miles is 13.6 while the Cobalt is 0-60 in 5.7 and quarter mile in 14.2 per car and driver. Also in a recent post on here, an SS/TC owner went to the strip and ran a 14.5 I believe. No, the SS/TC cannot run with the GT Mustang.
06-24-2008, 01:55 PM
#149
Rent me! per hour
Join Date: 03-22-07
Location: Still fixing others mistakes.
Posts: 24,185
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes
on
14 Posts
useless posts?
have you EVER raced a mustang?
have you EVER driven one at the track?
i have personally driven a couple of them. they lack topend pull. i have witnessed several at the track racing. anywhere from 13.5 bone stock. to 14.5 bone stock. THIS is why you don't magazine race. real life vs fantasy land.
et shows traction.
mph shows power.
maybe some of you should get this "it won't run with XXX vehicle." **** out of your heads
and yet im the one who makes a useless post?
have you EVER raced a mustang?
have you EVER driven one at the track?
i have personally driven a couple of them. they lack topend pull. i have witnessed several at the track racing. anywhere from 13.5 bone stock. to 14.5 bone stock. THIS is why you don't magazine race. real life vs fantasy land.
et shows traction.
mph shows power.
maybe some of you should get this "it won't run with XXX vehicle." **** out of your heads
and yet im the one who makes a useless post?
06-24-2008, 02:03 PM
#150
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: 04-18-07
Location: Dallas
Posts: 4,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
useless posts?
have you EVER raced a mustang?
have you EVER driven one at the track?
i have personally driven a couple of them. they lack topend pull. i have witnessed several at the track racing. anywhere from 13.5 bone stock. to 14.5 bone stock. THIS is why you don't magazine race. real life vs fantasy land.
et shows traction.
mph shows power.
maybe some of you should get this "it won't run with XXX vehicle." **** out of your heads
and yet im the one who makes a useless post?
have you EVER raced a mustang?
have you EVER driven one at the track?
i have personally driven a couple of them. they lack topend pull. i have witnessed several at the track racing. anywhere from 13.5 bone stock. to 14.5 bone stock. THIS is why you don't magazine race. real life vs fantasy land.
et shows traction.
mph shows power.
maybe some of you should get this "it won't run with XXX vehicle." **** out of your heads
and yet im the one who makes a useless post?
By the same logic you just stated SS/TC will run anywhere from a 13 to 15. Yes, I have driven an S197 GT Mustang an 06 GT Manual. I have not seen a single run of an SS to get as low as a 13.6, i've never seen a GT run over a 13.9 unless driver error yet the best we've seen out of the SS/TC is 14.2. Everyone on here is saying that it can best the GT and that just isn't true. I haven't seen a single test drive of the GT either that ran slower than a 13.8 and trust me there's alot of them. If the SS/TC can beat a GT then it can beat an LS1 GTO as well.