On another post i just read about how a 2.4 is predicted to run about 15.7. So how is this roccity is running 15.6 with his 2.2? This would mean that both cars are comperable in performance....Now i want strictly facts on this post matching up the best of both...

2.2 5 speed base vs 2.4l 5 speed

I have driven both the ss/sc and base balt so i think we should clear this up

 

Ive ran a 16.001 in my 2.2 stick and could have done much better.. missed third. It also depends on how high you are above the sea.

 

but i want to know is the performance really as close as would be indicated

 

you'r looking at it wrong... you're looking at the best time we have recorded for a base, vs mediocre-bad times for the ss...

it's the same for the 2.4 and 2.0

a really good driver with a 2.4 can probably do just about as good as a really shitty driver with a 2.0

 

yea maybe your right...has anyone even seen the slip for the 2.2 going 15.6?

 

You have to understand that track times depend on alot...not as much as power but more so on driving skill, tires, suspension, weight, air temperature, humidity, elevation etc.

Someone who might live in Colorado who lives in a higher elevation might run a 16.2 and someone who lives in NY runs mid 15s on the same exact car in stock form. You can't compare one car to another car.

Also, bad launches will cause a decrease in track times. You can have a supposidley 14 second car but only run 16s if you can't drive or launch correctly.

Basically, too many variables.

 

I agree. In this case it is more the driver and it is the car.

 

ok so perfectly driven 2.2 stick vs perfectly driven 2.4 stick in new york

 

if both were driven with equal skill levels, probably about a half second difference...

 

You're still missing part of my statement...

It's not just driving skills. It could be 98 degrees out and they run 15.9 or it could be 75 degrees out and run 15.5.

Basically, no one can give you a defenite answer.

 

same temp too then lol

 

Take it for what its worth, but this should sort of help distinguish the difference between the two.

http://www.rpmoutlet.com/dyno.htm

Basically, you plug in the weight of the vehicle, plus the power it puts TO THE GROUND.

I havent seen many 2.4 dynos, but I know a few 2.2s actually dyno very close to their rated hp.

Either way, it can still come down to how well the car is driven.

 

You're stilllll missing the point. No one can tell you whether or not one car will be faster than the other. It's circumstantial....not factual info you're looking for.

 

that's not true in this situation though... he said the same driver, same track, same temperature, same everything.. the only thing that's different is the car...

 

Ok but if someone answers his question and then in reality it doesn't happen that way, what does it help then?

I'm sorry if I sound like a pain but I like to keep more realistic rather than "hypothetical".

If you want a hypothetical answer: The 2.4 has more power than the 2.2, it should be faster in the 1/4 mile

Realistic Answer: The 2.4 answer has more power, it should be faster in the 1/4 mile BUT there are too many variables to say what will happen.

If an SRT-4 can run 16s, a 2.2 can run a better 1/4 mile than a 2.4.

People need to realize that just because someone has a better 1/4 mile doesn't mean they are faster. Why? Cause it's circumsantial.

 

My gosh people; let's ask it like this.

What are the best known 1/4 times for the 2.2L and 2.4L. Thrw everything else out the freakin' window and tell us what the best known times are for each. What could they be capable of??

 

I love you NJHK...you always have the answer...but you still can't have my bud light...I agree, too many variables to actually tell...each car will also drive differently, I am pretty sure it is easier to launch a 2.2 or 2.4 than a 2.0, strictly due to power differences, and all 3 engines have different power bands, even with the same driver making 2 passes down the same track in a matter of minutes in the 2 different cars, he may be better suited to one or the other's power band or clutch or whatever! Anything requiring human interaction cannot come out exactly the same twice, well it can but the % factor is VERY low...or your just a pro and mad props to you for putting in that kind of practice time...

 

I love you too lol

And I agree

 

well my best time for my 2.2 is a 15.8 and i think i can still get a better launch that was with a weapon r intake btw im not sire the elivation of the track i run at or any other stats for the day but on a good day i dont see why a 2.2 couldnt run a 15.6 albiet in perfect condiotions

 

Yeah man, there were like 8 of us there. Why is this so hard to believe? Everybody flamed the hell out of him when he ran the time, even though he posted the slip. He's got a good car and he's a good driver. In, michigan we are at a good altitude and race conditions were favorable. I would understand if he said he ran a 14 but I honestly don't understand why this is so hard to believe.

 

like it was said above that 15.7 is for an auto 2.4 and still slow for it. The 2.2's 15.6 is a manual and a very good time for it. On the average you will see the 2.4's being about .5 faster.

 

what is the best time for the 2.4 recorded so far?

 

ok... so what is wrong with my statement then... the 2.4 should be about a half second quicker in the 1/4 over the 2.2 with the same conditions, and same level of skill driver... we're not talking about a "fluke", like someone didn't shift gears properly, or spun off the line too much, we're talking about ideal conditions... what other factors are there? we already specified that the conditions are the same

 

Me and another guy ran a 9.6 he finished with a 14.8 or 14.9 i believe and mine was only the 1/8th mile. I'm sure there's faster out there but haven't seen any other times.

 

ill put it this way, at the track the other day i put in a faster time than another cobalt ss s/c that was there so its all driving skill