2.4L LE5 Performance Tech 16 valve 171 hp EcoTec with 163 lb-ft of torque

celicacobalt dyno's

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 25, 2006 | 05:48 PM
  #1  
celicacobalt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-26-05
Posts: 6,375
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
celicacobalt dyno's

https://www.cobaltss.net/gallery/sho...=3&userid=1920

Reply
Old Mar 25, 2006 | 05:49 PM
  #2  
celicacobalt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-26-05
Posts: 6,375
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
there are 3 of them there the 1st is the first run on a loaded mustang dyno, the 2nd is another loaded run on a mustang dyno and the third is an unloaded dyno on a mustang dyno. enjoy.
Reply
Old Mar 25, 2006 | 06:23 PM
  #3  
Brandon97Z's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 04-13-04
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
From: Indiana
What were the numbers they are kinda hard to see.
Reply
Old Mar 25, 2006 | 06:24 PM
  #4  
snowbred's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 02-10-05
Posts: 814
Likes: 0
From: Hackensack, NJ
why such a difference between 1st and second runs
Reply
Old Mar 25, 2006 | 06:25 PM
  #5  
snowbred's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 02-10-05
Posts: 814
Likes: 0
From: Hackensack, NJ
first run is pretty good for an auto, 2nd and 3rd runs are a little low if im reading them right, numbers are hard to see
Reply
Old Mar 25, 2006 | 07:42 PM
  #6  
Brandon97Z's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 04-13-04
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
From: Indiana
I think the higher number was the unloaded dyno run
Reply
Old Mar 25, 2006 | 09:12 PM
  #7  
avro206's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
what does loaded and unloaded mean?

I want get mine done on a dynojet.

Can you tell us the numbers--I can barely see the graphs.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 01:12 AM
  #8  
WSFrazier's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-17-05
Posts: 5,844
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
The first two pulls were mustang dyno numbers, On the third pull were dyno jet numbers, thats why the one set is higher.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 12:21 PM
  #9  
Mercury's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 06-28-05
Posts: 4,194
Likes: 0
From: Wilmington, DE
I can't really make out the numbers on those sheets. What gears were these done in?
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 08:50 PM
  #10  
celicacobalt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-26-05
Posts: 6,375
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Originally Posted by Brandon97Z
What were the numbers they are kinda hard to see.
1st run = 142whp / 126 wtq
2nd run = 144whp / 125 wtq

3rd run = 172 djhp / 147 djtq (dynojet)

i think the dynojet rates the whp but the rollers have no load on them like resistance like the normal mustang dyno does, i guess the mustang dyno adds resistance to simulate real raod conditions
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 08:51 PM
  #11  
celicacobalt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-26-05
Posts: 6,375
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Originally Posted by snowbred
why such a difference between 1st and second runs
1st and 2nd differance is due to the engine warming up and the fan being added to simulate the wind
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 08:52 PM
  #12  
celicacobalt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-26-05
Posts: 6,375
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Originally Posted by Mercury
I can't really make out the numbers on those sheets. What gears were these done in?
these were all done in "L" gear from 35 to 65 mph
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 08:53 PM
  #13  
mycavisux97's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-03-05
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
From: canandaigua, New York
i can;t read the numbers, can u re post it bigger?
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 08:55 PM
  #14  
celicacobalt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-26-05
Posts: 6,375
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Originally Posted by mycavisux97
i can;t read the numbers, can u re post it bigger?
1st run = 142whp / 126 wtq
2nd run = 144whp / 125 wtq

3rd run = 172 djhp / 147 djtq (dynojet)
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 08:57 PM
  #15  
mycavisux97's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-03-05
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
From: canandaigua, New York
nice numbers.. 2.4 right?
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 09:05 PM
  #16  
celicacobalt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-26-05
Posts: 6,375
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
yeah auto 2.4
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 09:10 PM
  #17  
mycavisux97's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-03-05
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
From: canandaigua, New York
nice
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 09:52 PM
  #18  
IonNinja's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-29-05
Posts: 7,915
Likes: 0
From: AZ
so the mustang dynos seem pretty realistic...that would add up to about 180ish crank hp
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 10:26 PM
  #19  
JohnyNFullEffect's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 11-11-05
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
From: Detroit, MI
So when GM says the 2.4L has 171hp, which is it saying, the wheel hp or the flywheel hp? Which of these numbers above, ~143 hp ~172 hp does the car actually make on the road??

Why do we realy care about the flywheel hp? What we want to know is what it actually puts out while driving... on the road. So which is it??
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 10:31 PM
  #20  
snowbred's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 02-10-05
Posts: 814
Likes: 0
From: Hackensack, NJ
on the road the car i think will be making 144whp / 125 wtq as celicacobalt said based on the loaded dyno

Those numbers seem pretty good for the mods he has and being an auto
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 11:13 PM
  #21  
avro206's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
good for the auto. The 5 speed should pck up a few hp and tq
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 11:14 PM
  #22  
WSFrazier's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-17-05
Posts: 5,844
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Originally Posted by avro206
good for the auto. The 5 speed should pck up a few hp and tq
Yeah, the man who dyno'd us said the 5 speed gained about 10 over auto.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 11:35 PM
  #23  
CivicKiller98's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 03-07-06
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, Canada

pretty damn good, congrats.
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2006 | 12:25 AM
  #24  
IonNinja's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-29-05
Posts: 7,915
Likes: 0
From: AZ
Originally Posted by JohnyNFullEffect
So when GM says the 2.4L has 171hp, which is it saying, the wheel hp or the flywheel hp? Which of these numbers above, ~143 hp ~172 hp does the car actually make on the road??

Why do we realy care about the flywheel hp? What we want to know is what it actually puts out while driving... on the road. So which is it??

all factory hp ratings are listed at the crank due to the different drivetrain losses associated with fwd, awd, rwd, auto, manual, etc.

in essence, no you really shouldn't be concerned with flywheel hp...there would be no point since its not being put down to the ground.
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2006 | 08:53 AM
  #25  
YoAdrian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 02-23-06
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
Nice numbers man!
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:54 AM.