2.2 said 8.4 seconds 0 to 60 ss 2.4 said 6.4 o to 60 is it reall 2 seconds faster

 

don"t think so they are closer than that.

 

thats what i was thining can anybodyn confirm this

 

I can't see there being that much of a difference in a 0-60 time. A good 2.2 driver should be able to hit 7.5-8.0 and 15.8-16.2 in the 1/4.

 

I would also love to see who got the 2.4 to 60 in 6.4 seconds, considering the Sky/Solstice have less weight and better traction, and still can't break 7 seconds.

 

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Sp...balt&trimid=-1

at the bottom 7.42 vs 7.87 so we already knew the s would beat te 2.2 but here are the facts

 

those specs seem off for the 5 speed since some people have gotten 15.8-15.7 stock from the 2.4 w/ the auto.

 

they seem about accurate to me

 

roccityroller says he ran 15.6 in his ls, but there is still no time slip

 

avro ran a 15.4 w/ 5 speed

 

What did he run in the 1/8th? I wanna see this

 

the 2.4 has 4 wheel disc and only brakes a little better than the 2.2?

 

The only time my 4 wheel disc kicks in (Which I can tell from the grinding of the rust off the rotors, I think they are called) is when I realllly press the brakes. But at that point they should stop me faster then a 2.2 Am I wrong here?

 

MSN doesn't do any testing themselves and there are multiple sources that provide them with the information. Unless you tested the 2.2 and 2.4 together at the same time, the numbers are meaningless in comparison to each other.

 

all i know is that he ran a 15.4 at 90mph corrected. and a 2.5 60ft. MikeSS has pulled off a 15.2 with his 5 speed. The auto should be right about 15.7-15.8 stock.. and silverstreak has gotten a 9.9 in the 1/8th with the auto.

 

MSN is crap. Here what they say aobut the 1/4 mile


2.2L 16.1@88

2.4L 15.92

Two tenths? but 4 mph higher? Yeah right. And I have some beach front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you

The difference is more like 0.5. Then theres the superior and handling and braking abilities.

An auto 2.2L VS auto 2.4L might be an even greater difference.


My best ever run was 16.2--thats non corrected BTW.

I was assuming a 0.8 sec correction factor. (15.4) BUT I never knew the temp, humidity, barometric pressure. It might have been lower......maybe

Now when I race this year I call home and get my wife to print off current conditons when I race.

Two weeks ago the correction factor was 1.0 second! (4700 ft)

I calculated the density altitude yesterday mornign at 615 and it was 3900 ft. That would make a 0.2 lower ET.

Living at high altitude sucks. I plan a trip to Mission BC this fall. They are at sea-level. My goal is a 14.9 with mods.

And I am still awaiting a Calgary owner to bring their 2.2L to the track. That will be a good indicator of how much slower it is when the same elevation is used (assumingthey can drive)

 

Um yea, the 2.4 isn't doing 0-60 in 6.4 seconds... That is what an SS/SC does

 

yes there is, i posted it in the thread that i said i ran it, it's on the second page. so ok thanks please read before you post sillyness.

and that's not corrected btw