Going to the track Sunday
12-06-2008, 08:29 PM
#51
Senior Member
His 60's aren't 2.4 because of traction, a 2.4 60' in an auto 2.2 is pretty much spot-on launch.
Remember, this isn't a stick car where you can rev up and feather the clutch. He can't rev much beyond 2.5k without a stalled tq converter.
Don't you have a 5 speed? Your comparing apples to pears. Yes, it's close, but automatics have a serious disadvantage at 2.2 power levels because of gearing, drivetrain loss, and the launch
Remember, this isn't a stick car where you can rev up and feather the clutch. He can't rev much beyond 2.5k without a stalled tq converter.
Don't you have a 5 speed? Your comparing apples to pears. Yes, it's close, but automatics have a serious disadvantage at 2.2 power levels because of gearing, drivetrain loss, and the launch
Last edited by HackAbuse; 12-06-2008 at 08:29 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
12-06-2008, 08:30 PM
#52
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 07-27-07
Location: Puyallup, WA
Posts: 17,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thats a good 60' time, it could get a lil better, but for not many traction mods your doing good
wrong...get tuned and they can do just fine...mel and i have launched the 2.2 base with a tune and exhaust and my 2.2 with intake, header, dp, tune, exhaust...i obviosuly pull on her, but by about 70 mph she is only behing by a car...with his mods he would be really close to keeping up
His 60's aren't 2.4 because of traction, a 2.4 60' in an auto 2.2 is pretty much spot-on launch.
Remember, this isn't a stick car where you can rev up and feather the clutch. He can't rev much beyond 2.5k without a stalled tq converter.
Don't you have a 5 speed? Your comparing apples to pears. Yes, it's close, but automatics have a serious disadvantage at 2.2 power levels because of gearing, drivetrain loss, and the launch
Remember, this isn't a stick car where you can rev up and feather the clutch. He can't rev much beyond 2.5k without a stalled tq converter.
Don't you have a 5 speed? Your comparing apples to pears. Yes, it's close, but automatics have a serious disadvantage at 2.2 power levels because of gearing, drivetrain loss, and the launch
Last edited by NWAE Cobalt; 12-06-2008 at 08:30 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
12-06-2008, 08:32 PM
#54
Senior Member
I had no traction issues with 225 street tires launching out of the hole with a 90 shot. The automatic soaks up a lot of power, and is able to keep wheelspin completely out of sight. Any lower times will be attributed to top end power on his cobalt.
Increasing his timing along with higher octane, and 7000rpm shift points may drop his ET by .2-.3 seconds, but it won't get much better than that without a power adder
12-06-2008, 08:33 PM
#55
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 07-27-07
Location: Puyallup, WA
Posts: 17,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said, try driving a 2.2 auto at the track, I garantee he has absolutely no traction issues.
I had no traction issues with 225 street tires launching out of the hole with a 90 shot. The automatic soaks up a lot of power, and is able to keep wheelspin completely out of sight. Any lower times will be attributed to top end power on his cobalt.
Increasing his timing along with higher octane, and 7000rpm shift points may drop his ET by .2-.3 seconds, but it won't get much better than that without a power adder
I had no traction issues with 225 street tires launching out of the hole with a 90 shot. The automatic soaks up a lot of power, and is able to keep wheelspin completely out of sight. Any lower times will be attributed to top end power on his cobalt.
Increasing his timing along with higher octane, and 7000rpm shift points may drop his ET by .2-.3 seconds, but it won't get much better than that without a power adder
12-06-2008, 08:35 PM
#56
Senior Member
wrong...get tuned and they can do just fine...mel and i have launched the 2.2 base with a tune and exhaust and my 2.2 with intake, header, dp, tune, exhaust...i obviosuly pull on her, but by about 70 mph she is only behing by a car...with his mods he would be really close to keeping up
At the track, you can launch better than you can on the street, while Mel would have the same launch as on the street. That's the big difference here.
12-06-2008, 08:36 PM
#57
Like I said, try driving a 2.2 auto at the track, I garantee he has absolutely no traction issues.
I had no traction issues with 225 street tires launching out of the hole with a 90 shot. The automatic soaks up a lot of power, and is able to keep wheelspin completely out of sight. Any lower times will be attributed to top end power on his cobalt.
Increasing his timing along with higher octane, and 7000rpm shift points may drop his ET by .2-.3 seconds, but it won't get much better than that without a power adder
I had no traction issues with 225 street tires launching out of the hole with a 90 shot. The automatic soaks up a lot of power, and is able to keep wheelspin completely out of sight. Any lower times will be attributed to top end power on his cobalt.
Increasing his timing along with higher octane, and 7000rpm shift points may drop his ET by .2-.3 seconds, but it won't get much better than that without a power adder
12-06-2008, 08:37 PM
#58
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 07-27-07
Location: Puyallup, WA
Posts: 17,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and we do have some spin on the stock cont at times, not alot but some going into second gear
and by saying you can launch better you are helping to prove my point
12-06-2008, 08:39 PM
#59
Senior Member
Tunes make a difference, but on an N/A bolt-on 4-cyl, it's not going to make a half a second difference unless the factory tune is horribly, ungodly restrictive.
No I'm saying that a stick car can launch much better at the track, while an automatic cannot, which will obviously net the stick a better ET than on the street.
Last yellow, let off the brake, hit the nitrous. There is a bark from the tires and I was gone.
Last edited by HackAbuse; 12-06-2008 at 08:39 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
12-06-2008, 08:40 PM
#60
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 03-25-07
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meh, no need to argue guys. I would not be able to call my car a 15 sec car even if I did dip into the 15.99's.
Next time I go to the track, I'll be built and boosted and skipping the 15's completely.
Next time I go to the track, I'll be built and boosted and skipping the 15's completely.
12-06-2008, 08:40 PM
#61
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 07-27-07
Location: Puyallup, WA
Posts: 17,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say otherwise. If it's so easy to obtain mid 15's with an automatic naturally aspirated stock 2.2, why hasn't this been achieved YEARS ago?
Tunes make a difference, but on an N/A bolt-on 4-cyl, it's not going to make a half a second difference unless the factory tune is horribly, ungodly restrictive.
No I'm saying that a stick car can launch much better at the track, while an automatic cannot, which will obviously net the stick a better ET than on the street.
Never had any hop or spin.
Last yellow, let off the brake, hit the nitrous. There is a bark from the tires and I was gone.
Tunes make a difference, but on an N/A bolt-on 4-cyl, it's not going to make a half a second difference unless the factory tune is horribly, ungodly restrictive.
No I'm saying that a stick car can launch much better at the track, while an automatic cannot, which will obviously net the stick a better ET than on the street.
Never had any hop or spin.
Last yellow, let off the brake, hit the nitrous. There is a bark from the tires and I was gone.
believe it or not, autos are not THAT much less able at the track then a 5spd
and my car launches fine on the street...its called knowing how to drive your car
12-06-2008, 08:41 PM
#62
I say otherwise. If it's so easy to obtain mid 15's with an automatic naturally aspirated stock 2.2, why hasn't this been achieved YEARS ago?
Tunes make a difference, but on an N/A bolt-on 4-cyl, it's not going to make a half a second difference unless the factory tune is horribly, ungodly restrictive.
Tunes make a difference, but on an N/A bolt-on 4-cyl, it's not going to make a half a second difference unless the factory tune is horribly, ungodly restrictive.
if a 2.4 (mid - high second 15 car using auto) can hit 14's ( which ist has) from bolts ons.. then a 2.2 can definitely hit 15s with full bolt ons and a tune .. with how restrictive the 2.2 exhaust setup is it can easily take of .5 off your time
12-06-2008, 08:51 PM
#65
Senior Member
I tinkered with my 2.2 for damn near four years, I pulled the engine apart more than once, I swapped it, and I've had several of the same parts from different manufacturers on the car, and I currently hold one of the fastest passes in a stock internal non-f/i 2.2
If my word means nothing after that, even though I have already proven one point, I beleive some of you may have some trust or paranoia issues.
I'm not plotting against you, I'm telling you REALISTIC figures, not filling people with false hope.
I'm happy that you've decided to build your engine and go f/i, have fun with it, and I hope you can blow past the 14's like celicacobalt did in his 2.4 auto.
and you don't think that your low 15 second passes could be attributed to a better tune than one that is somewhat conservative based on lack of input?
Last edited by HackAbuse; 12-06-2008 at 08:51 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
12-06-2008, 08:52 PM
#66
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 07-27-07
Location: Puyallup, WA
Posts: 17,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My timing was still advanced over stock by a few degrees. My differences in time in regard to a stock 2.2 were most likely caused by lack of torque (no cat and a full exhaust) and/or colder plugs.
I tinkered with my 2.2 for damn near four years, I pulled the engine apart more than once, I swapped it, and I've had several of the same parts from different manufacturers on the car, and I currently hold one of the fastest passes in a stock internal non-f/i 2.2
If my word means nothing after that, even though I have already proven one point, I beleive some of you may have some trust or paranoia issues.
I'm not plotting against you, I'm telling you REALISTIC figures, not filling people with false hope.
I'm happy that you've decided to build your engine and go f/i, have fun with it, and I hope you can blow past the 14's like celicacobalt did in his 2.4 auto.
and you don't think that your low 15 second passes could be attributed to a better tune than one that is somewhat conservative based on lack of input?
I tinkered with my 2.2 for damn near four years, I pulled the engine apart more than once, I swapped it, and I've had several of the same parts from different manufacturers on the car, and I currently hold one of the fastest passes in a stock internal non-f/i 2.2
If my word means nothing after that, even though I have already proven one point, I beleive some of you may have some trust or paranoia issues.
I'm not plotting against you, I'm telling you REALISTIC figures, not filling people with false hope.
I'm happy that you've decided to build your engine and go f/i, have fun with it, and I hope you can blow past the 14's like celicacobalt did in his 2.4 auto.
and you don't think that your low 15 second passes could be attributed to a better tune than one that is somewhat conservative based on lack of input?
and...all your experiance was either stock or with nos...so niether of those...
and btw, a car with n2o is in the same category of f/i....its a power adder...
My timing was still advanced over stock by a few degrees. My differences in time in regard to a stock 2.2 were most likely caused by lack of torque (no cat and a full exhaust) and/or colder plugs.
I tinkered with my 2.2 for damn near four years, I pulled the engine apart more than once, I swapped it, and I've had several of the same parts from different manufacturers on the car, and I currently hold one of the fastest passes in a stock internal non-f/i 2.2
If my word means nothing after that, even though I have already proven one point, I beleive some of you may have some trust or paranoia issues.
I'm not plotting against you, I'm telling you REALISTIC figures, not filling people with false hope.
I'm happy that you've decided to build your engine and go f/i, have fun with it, and I hope you can blow past the 14's like celicacobalt did in his 2.4 auto.
and you don't think that your low 15 second passes could be attributed to a better tune than one that is somewhat conservative based on lack of input?
I tinkered with my 2.2 for damn near four years, I pulled the engine apart more than once, I swapped it, and I've had several of the same parts from different manufacturers on the car, and I currently hold one of the fastest passes in a stock internal non-f/i 2.2
If my word means nothing after that, even though I have already proven one point, I beleive some of you may have some trust or paranoia issues.
I'm not plotting against you, I'm telling you REALISTIC figures, not filling people with false hope.
I'm happy that you've decided to build your engine and go f/i, have fun with it, and I hope you can blow past the 14's like celicacobalt did in his 2.4 auto.
and you don't think that your low 15 second passes could be attributed to a better tune than one that is somewhat conservative based on lack of input?
Last edited by NWAE Cobalt; 12-06-2008 at 08:52 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
12-06-2008, 08:55 PM
#67
Senior Member
but your numbers show you know nothing about the potential...the tune only came out this year..so all your previos tinkering is for not.
and...all your experiance was either stock or with nos...so niether of those...
and btw, a car with n2o is in the same category of f/i....its a power adder...
say what? it did that low pass due to the great tune....thats what im saying...the auto can do the same thing, great tune and then hell knock off alot of that time
and...all your experiance was either stock or with nos...so niether of those...
and btw, a car with n2o is in the same category of f/i....its a power adder...
say what? it did that low pass due to the great tune....thats what im saying...the auto can do the same thing, great tune and then hell knock off alot of that time
Stock? With the exception of a ported head, I had more mods than the OP.
Your tune is attributed to the proximity to Vince, which the OP doesn't have the opportunity of getting a tune like that.
Last edited by HackAbuse; 12-06-2008 at 08:55 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
12-06-2008, 09:00 PM
#68
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 07-27-07
Location: Puyallup, WA
Posts: 17,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i didnt get some special tune that no one else gets cause im close...the tune i have is of the same quality work as if you did it virtualy
Last edited by NWAE Cobalt; 12-06-2008 at 09:00 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post