2.2L L61 Performance Tech 16 valve 145 hp EcoTec with 155 lb-ft of torque

future mod list, expected gains?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 05:07 PM
  #26  
Jn2's Avatar
Jn2
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 05-04-07
Posts: 7,791
Likes: 3
From: Texas
Originally Posted by D4u2s0t
you can't use ricer math, and the fact that you beat a car to determine your hp. it doesn't work like that.

fact is, many fully bolted 2.2's are putting down in the 130whp range. with the 2.4 tb and mani, guaranteed, if you get it to work properly you lose power. you're simply not going to be moving enough air to require a bigger tb. the air is going to lose velocity, slow down, and in turn rob you of power.

from a full exhaust and a tune, honestly i would expect about 10-15whp on a 2.2, MAYBE.

i had my 2.2 for 2 years, did alot of research when i had it, and realized that my goals were un-reachable without spending shitloads of money. that's why after 2 years, and lots of money spent i sold it and got my 2.0.

i'll put money that you are not at 175 now, and i'll also put money that you don't hit your goals with your mod list. realistically, it's not going to happen.
me and you r on the same page, to the OP how bout u go get that stuff than dyno, than sell you car and have a part out...cuz thats what ur setting yourself up for...trust me, i am a dyno friendly ************...i have been thru 3 headers, 3 intakes, 2 catbacks, i know out of everything, none of them added more than 2-3whp each...
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 05:08 PM
  #27  
OneSlowGto's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-27-07
Posts: 1,970
Likes: 0
From: Rio Rancho, NM
I cant wait to see the for sale thread
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 05:24 PM
  #28  
teh_punk's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-21-07
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
From: Palm Springs
trolls and haters can gtfo. if you dont have constructive advise, please go kick rocks.
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 05:27 PM
  #29  
OneSlowGto's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-27-07
Posts: 1,970
Likes: 0
From: Rio Rancho, NM
Originally Posted by teh_punk
trolls and haters can gtfo. if you dont have constructive advise, please go kick rocks.
Dont cry like a little girl when you ask a question and you don't get the answer you want. We are just trying to help you realize that your expectations are unrealistic.
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 05:31 PM
  #30  
D4u2s0t's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 12-18-05
Posts: 17,838
Likes: 1
From: North Jersey
Originally Posted by teh_punk
trolls and haters can gtfo. if you dont have constructive advise, please go kick rocks.
i hope that doesn't apply to me, because i'm not a troll or a hater. i'm simply sharing my experience, from someone that has been through it, and letting you know that your goals are unrealistic. i even told you why the mani and tb was not a good idea.

take it for what it's worth. but you're going to be disapointed with what your building up in your head.
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 05:31 PM
  #31  
umrdyldo's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 03-06-06
Posts: 11,663
Likes: 65
From: MO
I agree results vary a lot

But also, we have multiple cars in the high 140's and low 150s. So what gives?

Especially when the tunes have yeilded 10whp by itself
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 05:58 PM
  #32  
teh_punk's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-21-07
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
From: Palm Springs
Originally Posted by OneSlowGto
Dont cry like a little girl when you ask a question and you don't get the answer you want. We are just trying to help you realize that your expectations are unrealistic.
theres a difference between saying "160-170whp is unrealistic from those mods" and what has been said. i'll be sure to hi-jack the next thread you make when you want some help and just be an ass all over it.
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 06:11 PM
  #33  
OneSlowGto's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-27-07
Posts: 1,970
Likes: 0
From: Rio Rancho, NM
Originally Posted by teh_punk
theres a difference between saying "160-170whp is unrealistic from those mods" and what has been said. i'll be sure to hi-jack the next thread you make when you want some help and just be an ass all over it.
Go right ahead. Your gains are unreasonable..... We try to tell you this and you argue.
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 06:32 PM
  #34  
burzumaske20's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 03-26-08
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
From: north aurora
what I don't understand is people throw numbers but don't know the exact numbers for their cars,why not get it dyno to see where you're at.any 4 banger needs force induction no matter what.Its not like a cobalt is a 6 cylinder or v8.If you want more hp you need to turbo or supercharge it,port n polish,cams stage 1(stage 2 if turbo will not work well together)also for more boost obviously need pistons that will handle whatever boost you want,new connecting rods,ect.Also I have heard you can bore and stroke the motor where it will be a 2.6,but that is only a rumor I have heard.
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 06:43 PM
  #35  
ChevyRockstar's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: 03-10-08
Posts: 6,629
Likes: 1
From: El Paso
Originally Posted by teh_punk
I have: SRI, SS exhaust manifold, 2.5" catback

I want: 2.4 intake manifold & tb, aftermarket header & hi-flow cat, tune

What should my whp be around with all that? I'm not looking to mess with the internals much, probably wouldn't even do any of that kind of work myself. Having said that.. any other mods I should look into that can be done w/ stock or nearly stock internals? No f/i or nitrous either.
high flowing injectors(some stock ss/sc), sportlines they add HP but help 1/4 mile times not sure what else you be around 155-165hp i think
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 06:58 PM
  #36  
IonNinja's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-29-05
Posts: 7,915
Likes: 0
From: AZ
Originally Posted by umrdyldo
I agree results vary a lot

But also, we have multiple cars in the high 140's and low 150s. So what gives?

Especially when the tunes have yeilded 10whp by itself
variances in dynos and conditions can effect those numbers

however without knowing the starting numbers its hard to measure actual gains.

even if thats the case though, I feel 150+ is a little generous. Have you raced a 2.4 at all? those put down 150whp stock so if you can beat one that might be a good indication of power.
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 07:05 PM
  #37  
YSUsteven's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-19-06
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 0
From: North Carlonia
Originally Posted by umrdyldo
I agree results vary a lot

But also, we have multiple cars in the high 140's and low 150s. So what gives?

Especially when the tunes have yeilded 10whp by itself
We all don't live at sea level.
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 07:29 PM
  #38  
teh_punk's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-21-07
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
From: Palm Springs
Originally Posted by IonNinja
variances in dynos and conditions can effect those numbers

however without knowing the starting numbers its hard to measure actual gains.

even if thats the case though, I feel 150+ is a little generous. Have you raced a 2.4 at all? those put down 150whp stock so if you can beat one that might be a good indication of power.
sort of, we were cruising one night, in mexico of course, and were just trying to catch up to the others and started around 30-40mph and shut down at 90ish im guessing, by then my front bumper was at his front door(sedan). he had intake and exhaust for sure, i think he had a header, not sure about anything else. I had intake and exhaust.
Reply
Old Jul 15, 2008 | 11:40 PM
  #39  
Jn2's Avatar
Jn2
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 05-04-07
Posts: 7,791
Likes: 3
From: Texas
the whole racing a 2.4 thing isnt accurate either, i can beat a 2.4, and he still dyno's 20 more whp than me...to many things can go wrong, driver wight, driver mod lv, cars dont weight the same, etc...only way to know your whp is to go dyno, wanna know ur 1/4, go to the track, oh and me and that guy run pretty close 1/4, when i raced him i wont by .1 of a second...

ps-im tired of this ricer math, consider me out this thread...ill be waiting for the part out thread though
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2008 | 11:47 AM
  #40  
teh_punk's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-21-07
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
From: Palm Springs
his was an auto, not too much room for error. he is also thinner than i am, probably weighs 140. next time they have a test n tune at the track i'll pay the $20 or whatever it is now and run my car a few times. there's only 1 dyno in town i know of and its run by idiots. i refuse to go there.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2008 | 12:07 PM
  #41  
D4u2s0t's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 12-18-05
Posts: 17,838
Likes: 1
From: North Jersey
Originally Posted by teh_punk
his was an auto, not too much room for error. he is also thinner than i am, probably weighs 140. next time they have a test n tune at the track i'll pay the $20 or whatever it is now and run my car a few times. there's only 1 dyno in town i know of and its run by idiots. i refuse to go there.
auto 2.4's run very high 15's to low 16's. so keeping pace with one means you're also around very high 15's to low 16's, most likely. which puts you exactly where the majority of 2.2's are. which also probably puts you around the same hp as majority of 2.2's, probably 12x or 13x max.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2008 | 12:19 PM
  #42  
umrdyldo's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 03-06-06
Posts: 11,663
Likes: 65
From: MO
Well we have cars in the low 15's that are fully bolted, so wouldn't it come to light that many should be on the same Hp level as stock 2.4?


I guess we need more dynos to prove these theories right or wrong
Cause right now I don't think anyone knows
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2008 | 12:45 PM
  #43  
D4u2s0t's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 12-18-05
Posts: 17,838
Likes: 1
From: North Jersey
Originally Posted by umrdyldo
Well we have cars in the low 15's that are fully bolted, so wouldn't it come to light that many should be on the same Hp level as stock 2.4?


I guess we need more dynos to prove these theories right or wrong
Cause right now I don't think anyone knows
you can't compare that way though. What a car "does" run is different than what it "should" run. many ss's run low 15's, but many also run mid to high 15's. just like most bolted 2.2's run mid 15's, but some run low 15's. this is of course with a 5 speed. a fully bolted 2.2 will most likely not break out of the 16's, just like a 2.4 auto will probably not break out of the 16's. if it does, it will be very high 15's.

the low 15 second, fully bolted 2.2's are probably getting low 15's because of a good driver. but low 15's are not the norm. just like there's stock 2.0's that can run very low 14's. but that's not what the majority will run. most drivers with stock 2.0's run mid-high 14's.

there's such a range depending on the driver, that you can't compare one car and one driver vs. another car with another driver. just too many factors to get anything useful out of it. i've seen stock 2.0's run mid 15's. doesn't mean that it has the same power as a 2.4 that runs mid 15's, or a 2.2 that runs mid 15's.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2008 | 12:48 PM
  #44  
teh_punk's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-21-07
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
From: Palm Springs
that 2.4 auto i "raced" runs a 15.3
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2008 | 12:58 PM
  #45  
D4u2s0t's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 12-18-05
Posts: 17,838
Likes: 1
From: North Jersey
Originally Posted by teh_punk
that 2.4 auto i "raced" runs a 15.3
slips or bs. did you actually see the 15.3, or is this what he said? that's extremely fast for an auto 2.4.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2008 | 01:20 PM
  #46  
umrdyldo's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 03-06-06
Posts: 11,663
Likes: 65
From: MO
Originally Posted by D4u2s0t
you can't compare that way though. What a car "does" run is different than what it "should" run. many ss's run low 15's, but many also run mid to high 15's. just like most bolted 2.2's run mid 15's, but some run low 15's. this is of course with a 5 speed. a fully bolted 2.2 will most likely not break out of the 16's, just like a 2.4 auto will probably not break out of the 16's. if it does, it will be very high 15's.

the low 15 second, fully bolted 2.2's are probably getting low 15's because of a good driver. but low 15's are not the norm. just like there's stock 2.0's that can run very low 14's. but that's not what the majority will run. most drivers with stock 2.0's run mid-high 14's.

there's such a range depending on the driver, that you can't compare one car and one driver vs. another car with another driver. just too many factors to get anything useful out of it. i've seen stock 2.0's run mid 15's. doesn't mean that it has the same power as a 2.4 that runs mid 15's, or a 2.2 that runs mid 15's.
Well then I'll tell you my experience. My very first run ever was with a 2.4L Manifold and a drop in and I ran a 15.9 with a 2.5 60'. That's some bad driving on my part, you can't tell me there isn't a lot more room to pick up when fully bolted. Or maybe I should have driven the car without the manifold on first. Cause I have a good suspicion it helped a lot at the track. As for bolted and tuned. This car is loads faster than when I ran a 15.9.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2008 | 01:42 PM
  #47  
teh_punk's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-21-07
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
From: Palm Springs
Originally Posted by D4u2s0t
slips or bs. did you actually see the 15.3, or is this what he said? that's extremely fast for an auto 2.4.
its on video.. he was racing the same civic SI as in my video page. i'll have to find his page again but its the same night one of our local SS/SCs walked an evo. i'll post both.

edit: will have to wait, cant access the page from work. stay tuned.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2008 | 01:47 PM
  #48  
D4u2s0t's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 12-18-05
Posts: 17,838
Likes: 1
From: North Jersey
Originally Posted by umrdyldo
Well then I'll tell you my experience. My very first run ever was with a 2.4L Manifold and a drop in and I ran a 15.9 with a 2.5 60'. That's some bad driving on my part, you can't tell me there isn't a lot more room to pick up when fully bolted. Or maybe I should have driven the car without the manifold on first. Cause I have a good suspicion it helped a lot at the track. As for bolted and tuned. This car is loads faster than when I ran a 15.9.
how much faster? what does it run now?
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2008 | 02:28 PM
  #49  
teh_punk's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-21-07
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
From: Palm Springs
13.? second SS taking an evo to school:
http://s41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...rent=Rey13.flv

15.3 auto ss n/a... note, he is not running the civic in the video i have, but he did on a different run.
http://s41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...t=Richie15.flv
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2008 | 03:05 PM
  #50  
D4u2s0t's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 12-18-05
Posts: 17,838
Likes: 1
From: North Jersey
Originally Posted by teh_punk
13.? second SS taking an evo to school:
http://s41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...rent=Rey13.flv

15.3 auto ss n/a... note, he is not running the civic in the video i have, but he did on a different run.
http://s41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...t=Richie15.flv
i stand corrected. makes more sense now that the vidoe shows the full mod list though. :
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:00 PM.