My experience installing zzp stage 3 turbo kit.
06-20-2013, 01:26 PM
#52
Member
Join Date: 07-23-10
Location: NS
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-20-2013, 01:41 PM
#54
Member
Join Date: 07-23-10
Location: NS
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-20-2013, 11:46 PM
#56
Member
Join Date: 07-23-10
Location: NS
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bought my 2006 in 2010 for $6000 Canadian @ 50k miles. Definitely have spent more than that on parts for it :PI don't mind though, yes I know it's a big waste of cash. But I love the hobby
06-20-2013, 11:58 PM
#57
Senior Member
thats a good price. mine was 10k with 63k miles. i think it was that much because at the time,gas was almost $5 a gallon and good gas mileage cars were in demand.
it's $1.42 / litre. Or $5.37 /gallon for 91
06-21-2013, 04:00 AM
#61
Member
Join Date: 07-23-10
Location: NS
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty much need to be an idiot to be car person here, rofl!
And thanks for posting tonight, made my shift at work a bit eassier ha ha!
06-21-2013, 02:39 PM
#66
Member
Join Date: 07-23-10
Location: NS
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
205 crank from forced air is pretty laughable when compared to 171 NA :P
its forum sig, dont look to deep into it :P just an LE5 owner who LOL's @ the flack we get for being badged SS/1SS
when my VIN labels the car as an SS, its an SS
06-21-2013, 02:54 PM
#67
Senior Member
The 2.4 ss was 2006-2007. Not 2005. And the lsj was underrated from the factory and the LE5 was not. The lsj can dyno 220whp stock, where the LE5 dyno around 145-155whp stock. That's a big difference.
I don't think I've ever seen mark( exsoccer) hate on the 2.4 ss
I don't think I've ever seen mark( exsoccer) hate on the 2.4 ss
06-21-2013, 03:12 PM
#68
never said it wasn't an ss. because in 06-07 they were labeled as such. but then in 08 they realized it wasn't and named it a sport. anywho. sc's don't make 205 crank. they made about 215-230ish whp. so what's "pretty laughable" is that even still after 6 years after they stopped making the cars, people still believe that 205 was a crank number. meanwhile the 2.4's struggled to hit 170 without a decent amount of bolt ons. not the 30whp gap you're claiming. it's more like 65-70whp difference.
06-22-2013, 03:00 AM
#71
Member
Join Date: 07-23-10
Location: NS
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be candid, I didn't know LSJ were underrated. Thanks for the education on that. I was claiming 30 crank difference, not wheel.
Please don't exaggerate my stupidity with a lie .
I never said you individually, were bashing SS topic, I used words like "they" and "some people" not words like "you" or "excosoccer"
Of course a supercharged engine needs less money to make 240+ it already has a part which dramatically improves its 2.0L poor NA power,a supercharger! The $:WHP is logically flawed, considering a 2.4 is cheaper to begin with. Kinda surprised a fella with your history with motors c130 would make such a stupid/silly argument.
Basic engine physics on volumetric efficiency, market price points, and manufacturing costs
Comparing ecotecs on peak horsepower is shitty, considering how they aren't designed /engineered for it
You are right, it is false info. I don't know much about LSJ, I never knew it was under-rated/under-marketed. But please don't post false information yourself. It's one thing to be false about an engine number, but don't post false information about things I never said, that's defamation, not misinformation. I never said 30 WHP, and if you read what I wrote I never targeted you specifically.
Learn to read, and I'll learn to research GM's marketing blunders better
Please don't exaggerate my stupidity with a lie .
I never said you individually, were bashing SS topic, I used words like "they" and "some people" not words like "you" or "excosoccer"
Of course a supercharged engine needs less money to make 240+ it already has a part which dramatically improves its 2.0L poor NA power,a supercharger! The $:WHP is logically flawed, considering a 2.4 is cheaper to begin with. Kinda surprised a fella with your history with motors c130 would make such a stupid/silly argument.
Basic engine physics on volumetric efficiency, market price points, and manufacturing costs
Comparing ecotecs on peak horsepower is shitty, considering how they aren't designed /engineered for it
You are right, it is false info. I don't know much about LSJ, I never knew it was under-rated/under-marketed. But please don't post false information yourself. It's one thing to be false about an engine number, but don't post false information about things I never said, that's defamation, not misinformation. I never said 30 WHP, and if you read what I wrote I never targeted you specifically.
Learn to read, and I'll learn to research GM's marketing blunders better
Last edited by Ceeker; 06-22-2013 at 03:21 AM.
06-22-2013, 02:30 PM
#75
Senior Member