how come im finding threads on here where people are saying there stock dyno whp is between 200 and 225??? Why would GM put 205 on there window sticker?? its just a litle confusing becasue i was telling my buddy.. a ford guy... n he was calling BS n i told him i was serious... he was tellin my how in the hell is it gonna be 205 at the crank and more to the wheels..... i mean i just thought they put it on there as maybe a roundabout?

 

205hp = cheaper insurance premiums = more affordable for the target segment (males 18-30) = just fine with me

 

hit the nail on the head

 

thanx.. i just wanted it confirmed from other people... my girlfriend aslo has an srt4 and thats what she told me......

 

Even the 2.2 has more power ***** then most honda coupes and toyota coupes and along those lines.

 

Does it suck that your G/F can whoop your ass in a race?

 

hell yea... she actually walked on me then the other night when she pulled off to race some Gti with a 60trim on it... i was sadly left behind... and my buddys Stage3 ss/sc also left me to go catch up with them... i couldnt keep up

 

just tell them you have a transmission turbo

 

It's sort of a long running tradition with GM, underrating "performance" models of cars is nothing new for them.
Notable instance were the 1969 COPO Camaros, the COPO 9560 aluminum 427 (ZL-1) rated at 430hp actually produced around 550 and COPO 9561 with the L72 rated at 425hp, many of which were sold by Don Yenko again producing over 500hp.

 

they do it so guys can yap off on their forums about how the slow ass cobalt is only rated at 205, which means barely 180 at the wheels right?
so my 140hp car should smoke them right? cuz im lighter right?

hehe. Being underrated is kinda fun

 

yeah it is

 

Its 205 to the wheels (not the crank) at 5600 rpm thats why some cars make 220 to the wheels at 6500 rpm!

 

One has to wonder, why for 07 the eigne was not rerated using the new SAE methods?

2.4L was (2.2L I am think so as well), the Corvette 7.0 and many other GM engines were.

 

Also they cant get called out like mazda did with the rx8 for having less than advertised hp. Better the err on the upside.

 

I'd rather have a car thats under-rated rather than one thats over-rated.

 

^ werd

 

Don't forget the 69 Ram Air V GTO Judge with a rating of the same 375 hp as the Ram Air IV GTO and it was dyno'd at about 525.(One of about 10 built) And don't even get me started on the Ram Air VI and VII. Tunnel ram heads on a 428 with all super duty parts. VI was single 800cfm and VII dual 650's, estimated over 550 and 600, respectively. I say estimated because they were only test cars, none sold production. Although out of the few dozen completed blocks ready to install in GTO's and Firebirds to sell for late 69 only 10 or so were destroyed on record, many just disappeared. Hmmm...

A little bit of GM/Pontiac history.

 

Damn...

That would depress me. Does your GF drive a manual as well? Man you must have a nice girl. She is into cars and stuff. But yeah, that stinks that that happened to you. You'll get faster than your GF one day!

 

Don't for get 1967 L88 (favorite of mine) listed as 435HP, but i read an article somewhere, forget the exact numbers but was over 500HP.

 

i think my 85 2.3L tempo was rated at like 120 HP.... im guessin it was about 125 lol

 

hey guys. I joined simply to ask a question ( I'm usually on LS1tech or NastyZ28, same sn). I'm not here to troll, and I'm pretty sure I'll never post here ouside of getting my questions answered.

Anyways here's my question:
My buddy Russ had an 04 Ion Redline. (I guess I could've joined the redlineforum and asked them, but I'm here already). When he dyno'd he had the following: MAF translator, 3.0 pulley, exhaust, CAI, injectors, and maybe a couple other little things (can't really remember). When he dynoed his car, he made 241 (corrected to 250) at the wheels. We are at 6k feet here in Wyoming (had it done in either Ft Collins or Denver), so I know our vehicles lose power being so high up. Shouldn't he have dynoed more? I'm just going on your guys posting of the SC Ecotec being underrated, and guys dyno'n stock at 205-225, so help me figure out why he didn't add more than a max of 45 horses. Thanks.



-Nate

 

type of dyno. dont go for numbers... go for the difference the numbers are from a stock run. all dynos are setup different and no 2 dynos will produce the same #. that number sounds about right with those few mods compared to a few around here.

1/4 time is all that matters or lap time if your na autocrosser!

 

Ram Air 3's were 366hp--RA IVs were 370hp

 

you gotta remember your asking a company to perfectly rate HP on a forced induction car.. thats impossible.. pressure/elevation/temp play a far more higher role in FI cars then NA.. theres no way for them to get close to it.. plus.. Chevy has always been known to underrate cars or rate cars at X rpms .. but not at Peak rpms

 

[QUOTE=mkulrey13;872938]type of dyno. dont go for numbers... go for the difference the numbers are from a stock run. all dynos are setup different and no 2 dynos will produce the same #. that number sounds about right with those few mods compared to a few around here.



the mods he had were CAI, Intense Tune,SFPH DUB setup, 3.00" pulley, NGK Plugs BKR7E i think,MAF-T,SMS Throttle Body,Header, 3" cat back, with high Flow cat, Boost Bypass mod,WideBand A/F gauge, interceptor obd-2 scan gauge. and made 241 fwhp and 237 fwtq at 6000 feet no less and on a dyno jet. and compared to a few of the cars on here he knows he wouldnt beat everyone, but he definitely didnt have a FEW mods.