Cav's w/ the 2.2 eco run 15.9-16.1's stock. The only stock 2.4SS i've seen is a guy on here ran a 15.2, and motor trend pulled a 15.6 w/ a sedan SS.

 

I did a 15.4--gotta work on the launches (2dr 5 speed)

To each thier own I guess.....

 

Only ran an 1/8. Not stock though....8.263.

 

In regards to this.

I'm a valet. I drive many cars every day. Anything from Jaguar S Sypes, to BMW 745's, to 1973 Pontiac Le Mans', to 80's Ford Tempos. Having this said, I find Cavaliers to be junky. The seats suck, the gauges are tiny, they just feel cheap. Look at the door panels. They're ALL plastic. Grantid, the Caboalts basically are too, but they are just plain as can be in the Cavaliers. I liked the 97 style Z24's and the LS Sports...but that's all.

*more later*

 

I've beat some cars in my cobalt that I thought I would lose(3000gt, Eclipse turboed, and a couple of others) and my SS is auto.

 

travis what'd you have on it that ran an 8.2 ? i'm interested. My stock auto 97Z ran a 10.4. 8.2 would prolly put it in the 13's if not low 14's.

 

My god--thats terrible! A 10.4! In an LT1??!!!

 

Was the 3KGT a n/a? I drove a few VR4 3KGT twin turbos and those ***** are FAST!! The only thing that scared me more was going sideways in a Corvette. *thumbsup*

Turbo Eclipses have nice mid and high. Like most turbos do. But I wouldn't doubt that off the line you'd certainly take him. I've driven a few GSX's and a few GST's and they seem to suffer alot of turbo lag from the factory blower. Maybe it was just the ones I've driven?

Before I bought this car, I was an avid Honda tuner. A previous 93 Accord EX and a current 91 CRX Si ZC'd is what I've done thus far. I've always loved Hondas engines. Even the no torque 1.5s are solid and are capable of a little power. The CRX is still under construction before it's road ready. Just brakes. No biggie. But with the Accord, I built that thing into a solid performer with very little. That was had an F22A6. If you're not into Hondas, that was the best engine you could get in an Accord before the 2.3's in 94. It had 2.2 liters and a SOHC with 140hp and 142tq stock. That was as much torque as an Integra Type-R. The car was a sleeper. All of the OEM trim and everything was painted black. Very limited in styling. I held up to and beat many cars. That cars low and mid was rediculous. I've always thought the Cavaliers and Sunfires were ok looking cars...but I just didn't like the 2.2 they had. So when they released this 2.4 VVT I loved it. GM can finally make a sold (from what it seems like) 4 cylinder. It acts more like a Honda than a Toyota Tercel.

 

it was a N/A 3kGT which exhaust, and when I raced both the 3kGT, and Eclipse turboed they were both at rolls the GT around 40, and the Eclipse around 50.

 

I had cai, raised throttle, ceramic headers, carbon fiber exhaust, 75 wet shot N2O. Dynoed at 222 whp, 223 torque. I could run a 1/4 without N20, but I'm scared of the limiter with. The 1/4 mile "simulator" on the dyno said 13.645. This was done by running 1000 ft. and it took my speed and weight and simulated a time.

 

This just made your whole point about the cavalier being faster moot.

Put your 75 shot and other stuff on the SS 2.4 and it will smoke your cavalier.

 

Yeah, I don't know if it would go quite that fast, but wihtout NOS, I think I wouldn't be too far behind your car....and I'm bone stock.

 

haha i'm not that bad of a driver. 97 Z24 not Z28 . Take of that 75 shot and your looking at high 9's 1/8th and mid-low 15's. An SS2.4 with a full header back exhaust and intake should be able to hang with an SS/SC if not just a tick slower.

 

The 191.8 crank is minus the N20. With the N20 it's 272.4 crank. The cai, spacer, header, and exhaust costs $825 and that raised me from 140 to 191.8. That's 20.8 more horses for $5175 less, in a lighter car. Add the $500 for the N20 and I have 101.4 more horses than a stock ss 2.4, for $4675 less in a car that still weighs less. I guess to be fair I should add the $1500 for lighter hood and wheels/tires. THAT GIVES ME 101.4 MORE HORSES THAN A STOCK SS 2.4 AND APPROX 450LBS LESS THAN A STOCK SS 2.4 FOR $3175 LESS THAN A STOCK 2.4 SS.

About the modified ss 2.4. If it had stock weight, it would be extremly close. Keep in mind my car weighs 2620 with me in it, compared to a 2875 + driver weighted cobalt. If it did beat me it wouldn't be by much. DEFFINATELY would not "smoke" me.

Also, I raced a stock 2.0 sc using my spray and beat it by 1.2 seconds. Without spray I lost 9.3 to 9.7.

 

Well, I ran a 9.6 with my stock car and a 9.5 with ghetto intake.

and as far as you keep bringing up the stupid money issue. The extra money bought us larger rims, Pirelli tires, pioneer sound system with sub, better suspension, oil cooler, forged rods, oh yeah, A BETTER CAR.

If you have all those mods, too why don't you add them up in your price total.

And beating a cobalt SS S/C by 1.2 seconds on NOS Sorry, there is no way. Since you only run in the 1.8 mile that makes it even more unbelievable. next time, make up a more valid story.

 

Dude cai, spacer, headerback won't add up to 50hp. Spacer does nothing the rest i'd say around 30 maybe. Show us some slips or dyno sheets cause i smell BS all over this

 

My best time without spray is a 9.3. I ran the 9.7 against the 2.0 when I had some lame resistor in my car that made me loose power at the end of the run. After I took that piece out and put the N20 in, I ran an 8.2 and he ran a 9.4. Maybe he doesnt know how to drive stick, but he ran a million times, and always got between 9.2 and 9.7.

 

191.8 crank I have an automatic
https://www.cobaltss.net/gallery/sho...php?i=2574&c=3

 

If you add the money I spent for my Pioneer deck, 6x9's, and 6 1/2, I have 101.4 more horsepower,a car that is 450lbs lighter with a 200lbs driver in the Cobalt, larger rims 18>17, and lower suspension. So for $2225 more, you receive a sub woofer, oil cooler, forged rods, more weight, and over 100 horses less power. The more I discuss this the more happier I become that I bought what I did.

 

hey ******* that dyno says 150hp and 149tq. The fact that you have an auto makes it even slower. Stop coming around here like you have something to prove. We don't give a **** that your glad with buying a cav and dumping money into rather in a Cobalt. Go over the j-body.org and tell them your mods and how much power you think your making. They'll get a good laugh as I have.

 

Everyone knows that there is about a 20% loss of power between the crank and wheel horsepower in an automatic. I'm not proving anything other than "I" am happy I bought a 2.2 cavalier over a 2.4 cobalt. Don't care what other people would like to buy, that's up to them. I dont think I'm a *******, I think the one who doesnt know the difference between crank and wheel horsepower is.

P.S. If I had a 5 speed it would be 166.7 wheel horsepower.

 

Travis but at the end of the day COBALTS LOOK BETTER! So you loose. im sorry!

 

more than agreed

 

Plus the interior is way better!

 

I loose? Who was I against? I just wanted to know some info on the 2.4ss to see if "I" should have bought it instead of the 2.2 Cavalier. And "I" think I made a good choice, thanks for the info about them. Not sure who I was against there, but I guess they really showed me.