GM's Import fighter dyno #'s

[Lash]

I know there was a thread on this car in here somewhere but couldn't find it.
Theres been alot of hersay about how much power the car will actually make....this dyno speaks for itself (page 2). The guy just bought it and threw it on the dyno to get some good stock numbers. Not too bad for a GM 4-banger that *supposedly* only puts out 205h.p. to the crank. Since the bottom end is mostly forged...I wan't to see one on TURBO'd boost.... especially considering how small the m-45 S/C is that's on there stock.

http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/689286/1


Thats all. :)

[SlowStee]

it's just not right on a saturn.......

[Rocket Power]

WHat's up with the I.P. being in the center of the dash. :sgay

[SMS 1]

WHat's up with the I.P. being in the center of the dash. :sgay
Seems to be quite the retro trend these days :rolleyes:

[Prince Valiant]

WHat's up with the I.P. being in the center of the dash. :sgay
world markets...easier for cars produced for RHD and LHD markets.

Article on the Redline from SCC (http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/roadtests/0405scc_redline/ ).

[BAD LS1]

a GM highly underated output again... :rolf

Thats the shiat that thing made 210 and 180 ft lbs at the wheels, the blower pulley is nice and easy to get to also :thumbsup

The pickle outta be in the mid low 14s some where one would could bet.

The new Chevy Cobalt SS will have the same motor and special 5 speed with equal length half shafts etc etc... and at least the Cobalt doesnt look as dorky.

I guess GM likes to wait for the SRT-4 to be deep sixed before letting out something somewhat competitive... :rolleyes:

[Lash]

Yeah...that thing is ugly as hell. It's a shame....

[GTSLOW]

Hmmm is it me or does it kinda look like an accord?

[lotsals1]

car has some weak tq thow imo -thats what you need to put down some good times --its like this -if you come out of the hole and it hooks -the thing will bog "like the imports" with a sc imo the torque should be higher
but maybe a smaller pulley will help er out
they can do better imo
turbo would of been better --you can tweak more on those

[Teufelhunden]

Thats great and all but its FWD. I've built up a FWD drive car, a 86 GLHS...never again. :rolleyes:

[Anakonda69]

it's not the worst car ever but i would rather have a cobalt....i think they could do alot better but ya know...

[lotsals1]

Thats great and all but its FWD. I've built up a FWD drive car, a 86 GLHS...never again. :rolleyes:lmao i had the same pile
blew up the rans 3 times --and the crappy computer in those things was a pain in the ass---like you said never again --torque steer is gahy anyways

[Teufelhunden]

lmao i had the same pile
blew up the rans 3 times --and the crappy computer in those things was a pain in the ass---like you said never again --torque steer is gahy anyways

There was very little torque steer on a GLHS due to the equal length half-shafts...but yeah other turbo dodges had hella torque steer.

[Al]

Out-of-the-box, which is faster? The neon or the satur on the cobalt?

BTW- the center IP is so your passengers can yell at you when you drive too fast (slow).

[SlowStee]

Out-of-the-box, which is faster? The neon or the satur on the cobalt?

BTW- the center IP is so your passengers can yell at you when you drive too fast (slow).
most likely the SRT4......at least with torque it will pwn the others

[GTSLOW]

Also with a turbo it doesnt lag the engine like an s/c does. Supercharged 4cyl = BAD IDEA! :punch:

But I also remeber seeing that video of that srt4 thats drag racing. It seemed like the guy had it at rev limiter dumped the clutch and it stalled :wtf

Both = :sgay

I'd much rather take my 8.2L I-6 turbo diesel :D

[Lash]

^ r u serious?
an m-45 on an engine of that size has NO lag. Trust me. You'll get more lag with a turbo.



I think it'll put down low 14's in stock form....the Cobalt too.

[unforgiven302]

I'd rather have a turbo myself...srt-4 with probably be making this thing it's ***** for a while, until someone grows a pair and drops a turbo on the cobalt.

[Cryptic]

this is plain retarded
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/roadtests/0405scc_redline09_z.jpg

[scubastang]

Also with a turbo it doesnt lag the engine like an s/c does. Supercharged 4cyl = BAD IDEA! :punch:

But I also remeber seeing that video of that srt4 thats drag racing. It seemed like the guy had it at rev limiter dumped the clutch and it stalled :wtf

Both = :sgay

I'd much rather take my 8.2L I-6 turbo diesel :D


:wtf please think before you spout off unintelligent misinformation. On a stock ecocrap like that and in factory config, either in stock boost will be optimul, the inefficient roots style blower have much less inital lag as you can see from the torque curve on the dynosheet. A turbo will have a much better overall and higher "under the curve" figures, but will take a few hundred rpm more to kick in. I hate when people focking talk about "lag" when this **** does not even matter really with todays wheels and design. :shades

THe only thing I remotley agree is yes, this and all cars like it are ghey as hell. WWD is ghey, little econo **** boxes with turbos are ghey, and this car is ghey as well. It belongs to a bunch of uniformed highschoolers that need warranties so when they break $hit the dealer can attempt to fix it and they don't have to worry bout it. Not real performance cars


:popcorn

[GTSLOW]

:wtf please think before you spout off unintelligent misinformation. On a stock ecocrap like that and in factory config, either in stock boost will be optimul, the inefficient roots style blower have much less inital lag as you can see from the torque curve on the dynosheet. A turbo will have a much better overall and higher "under the curve" figures, but will take a few hundred rpm more to kick in. I hate when people focking talk about "lag" when this **** does not even matter really with todays wheels and design. :shades

THe only thing I remotley agree is yes, this and all cars like it are ghey as hell. WWD is ghey, little econo **** boxes with turbos are ghey, and this car is ghey as well. It belongs to a bunch of uniformed highschoolers that need warranties so when they break $hit the dealer can attempt to fix it and they don't have to worry bout it. Not real performance cars


:popcorn


Ah yes that does make sense. I didn't know it had a roots blower on it!
:punch::asshole

[SlowStee]

:wtf please think before you spout off unintelligent misinformation. On a stock ecocrap like that and in factory config, either in stock boost will be optimul, the inefficient roots style blower have much less inital lag as you can see from the torque curve on the dynosheet. A turbo will have a much better overall and higher "under the curve" figures, but will take a few hundred rpm more to kick in. I hate when people focking talk about "lag" when this **** does not even matter really with todays wheels and design. :shades

THe only thing I remotley agree is yes, this and all cars like it are ghey as hell. WWD is ghey, little econo **** boxes with turbos are ghey, and this car is ghey as well. It belongs to a bunch of uniformed highschoolers that need warranties so when they break $hit the dealer can attempt to fix it and they don't have to worry bout it. Not real performance cars


:popcorn

hmmm...thats a good way to sum it up

[Cryptic]

Ah yes that does make sense. I didn't know it had a roots blower on it!
:punch::asshole

you cant tell by the picture? its an Eaton m-45
mini version of the one on GTP's

[Flight_740]

you cant tell by the picture? its an Eaton m-45
mini version of the one on GTP's


Yeah baby!! :thumbsup

[Al]

the twin screw is the most efficient method of compressing air to low pressures. The knetic energy of the moving parts within a turbo is higher than a twin screw, despite the two screws weighing more.

Think about this: pick up the compressor housing of a turbo. Notice the small gap that the air has to pass through after the compressor. Think that requires energy? Yes id does and lots of it too. Don't forget about the turbine.

At the same psi, the Kenny Bell s/c for a ford 302 will produce more power than a turbo or centrifugal s/c at the same boost.

Twin screws have also been more reliable.

[GTSLOW]

you cant tell by the picture? its an Eaton m-45
mini version of the one on GTP's

LOL didnt look at the picture. :tomato

[scubastang]

Ah yes that does make sense. I didn't know it had a roots blower on it!
:punch::asshole


its all good...just messin with you. I don't take this internet crap seriously - here to inform and be informed and maybe have a few :alcoholic along the way ya know? :thumbsup

[scubastang]

the twin screw is the most efficient method of compressing air to low pressures. The knetic energy of the moving parts within a turbo is higher than a twin screw, despite the two screws weighing more.

Think about this: pick up the compressor housing of a turbo. Notice the small gap that the air has to pass through after the compressor. Think that requires energy? Yes id does and lots of it too. Don't forget about the turbine.

At the same psi, the Kenny Bell s/c for a ford 302 will produce more power than a turbo or centrifugal s/c at the same boost.

Twin screws have also been more reliable.

umm no and no. God this is bad bad bad bad bad bad no offense. First off so considering a majority of the most reliabe vehicles in teh world are turbo powered? Umm Semis that go 300K+,mercereds, crikey even old airplanes were all turbo powered and if thats not reliable then your SOL.I could go on and on with examples ;)

Nothing wrong with a twin screw as they make great torque off the line and down low but think about your statment - its arguing itself with no viable proof. Kinetic energy is what, mass of your object times the velocity of the object, and you are saying a heavier, less aerodynamic, more friction pieces of metal are going to produce more energy and have less parasitic loss with a belt? Yikes

The instant ability to produce power down low is wonderful with it being belt driven which is directly congruient to engine rpm, but again, this is the only advantage (plus who stays at under 3K lol?). Yes a kenn bell is more efficient than the stock eaton yes, but compared to a turdbo? No. Think about this - no matter what as boost increases, so does the resistance in manifold pressure. Exhaust pressure does have an effect, but not to the same extent as the direct drive on the charger.

Anyone in the perfomance industry will not argue that a turbo is not more efficient because it is. It is essentally recycling what would otherwise be wasted energy from the motor to turn a compressor. Does this mean that it takes no horsepower to turn a turbo, no of course not, this is where the backpressure in the exhaust comes in to play.

Look at the this graph of a 03 Cobra with a t76 - so your telling me that at 9psi which is not even in the t76's efficiency range that a Kenn Bell is gonna make 498rwhp bbawwhaa. Most Kenn Bells are PROVEN to at 20-25psi to make around 600rwhp, **** the X2C Turbo'd mustang made 730rwhp at 19psi!! You can't really even compare things at "psi" as efficiencies and so many variables come into play:
http://img55.exs.cx/img55/3049/junk038Small.jpg

"Given equivalent vehicles, the turbo would easily motor away from the centrifugal in an acceleration contest......The turbo offered massive midrange torque production, the only system to exceed 600 lb-ft. Need more convincing? At 4,000 rpm, the turbo was more than 100 lb-ft. stronger than either the Roots or centrifugal." - Battle of the Boost, Hotrod Magazine, August 2003 issue.

[Teufelhunden]

Ah, I love the blower vs turbo debate, not. :sleep :D

I'm really surprised that on any given weekend there will be 4-5 blown Mustangs at Oscar's and no big single setups out there. :confused

[Teufelhunden]

Think about this: pick up the compressor housing of a turbo. Notice the small gap that the air has to pass through after the compressor. Think that requires energy? Yes id does and lots of it too. Don't forget about the turbine.

What size compressor/turbine housing(s) are you referring to? Are you talking from direct experience or passing on info/opinions that you heard/read?

[scubastang]

Ah, I love the blower vs turbo debate, not. :sleep :D

I'm really surprised that on any given weekend there will be 4-5 blown Mustangs at Oscar's and no big single setups out there. :confused

true true, its not really a debate at all ;)

hmm hopefully soon there will be 4-5 blown and 1 big single :burnout

[Al]

umm no and no. God this is bad bad bad bad bad bad no offense. First off so considering a majority of the most reliabe vehicles in teh world are turbo powered? Umm Semis that go 300K+,mercereds, crikey even old airplanes were all turbo powered and if thats not reliable then your SOL.I could go on and on with examples ;)

Nothing wrong with a twin screw as they make great torque off the line and down low but think about your statment - its arguing itself with no viable proof. Kinetic energy is what, mass of your object times the velocity of the object, and you are saying a heavier, less aerodynamic, more friction pieces of metal are going to produce more energy and have less parasitic loss with a belt? Yikes

The instant ability to produce power down low is wonderful with it being belt driven which is directly congruient to engine rpm, but again, this is the only advantage (plus who stays at under 3K lol?). Yes a kenn bell is more efficient than the stock eaton yes, but compared to a turdbo? No. Think about this - no matter what as boost increases, so does the resistance in manifold pressure. Exhaust pressure does have an effect, but not to the same extent as the direct drive on the charger.

Anyone in the perfomance industry will not argue that a turbo is not more efficient because it is. It is essentally recycling what would otherwise be wasted energy from the motor to turn a compressor. Does this mean that it takes no horsepower to turn a turbo, no of course not, this is where the backpressure in the exhaust comes in to play.

Look at the this graph of a 03 Cobra with a t76 - so your telling me that at 9psi which is not even in the t76's efficiency range that a Kenn Bell is gonna make 498rwhp bbawwhaa. Most Kenn Bells are PROVEN to at 20-25psi to make around 600rwhp, **** the X2C Turbo'd mustang made 730rwhp at 19psi!! You can't really even compare things at "psi" as efficiencies and so many variables come into play:
http://img55.exs.cx/img55/3049/junk038Small.jpg

"Given equivalent vehicles, the turbo would easily motor away from the centrifugal in an acceleration contest......The turbo offered massive midrange torque production, the only system to exceed 600 lb-ft. Need more convincing? At 4,000 rpm, the turbo was more than 100 lb-ft. stronger than either the Roots or centrifugal." - Battle of the Boost, Hotrod Magazine, August 2003 issue.

Kinetic energy- the turbo weighs less, but it is spinning SO much faster that the kinetic energy of the lightweight turbo is greater than the kinetic energy of the heavier twin screws.

Turbos are not inefficient due to the shape of the compressor, but more so because of the NUMEROUS sharp changes in air direction, pressure and flow. This happens on both the incoming air and outgoing exhaust.

In reguards to the inefficiencies of the compressor, the compressor wheel forces the air through a narrow slit in the compressor housing at the end of the compressor wheel. The total cross (curved) secion of this slit is very narrow. Simply put, you are forcin a large amount of air through a small opening, and through rapid compression and changes in velocity and temperature, you have inefficiencies. The same goes for the exhaust, but in revers order.

Diesel engines are a different animal. The twin screw is the design most used on vehicles currently (GM, Ford, Diamler, Mini...).

As for the KB vs T76, one had an external intercooler! KB does not offer an intercooler (yet). The only intercooled KBs are found on cars with pre-existing intercoolers (cobra, or eaton on the mini).

At the same RPM and psi, a properly set up engine with a KB will put out more hp than a properly set up engine in a turbo car. Also, a kb car will use less fuel when creating the same output.

Setup is important. If I took my mustang and just did a few boltons, there will be some variations. NA camming works best for NA. A turbo will force air in, and also restrict exhaust flow out in a manner similar to NA, but both incoming and outgoing pressures are increased. With an SC, the intake air is under pressure, but the outgoing exhaust is not as restrictive as the turbo. The engine balance is different.

Cost (a big factor) the vortechs and paxtons (non intercooled) are cheaper when compared to the kb. Turbo's and centrifugal are much cheaper to make than a twin screw. They are smaller and the tollerancing system is different. A TS also requires special machining to manufacture.

Reliability- turbos have more moving parts and pressures to deal with.
Size- a turbo is smaller

Old airplanes used a centrifugal type s/c andturbos. Supercharged P51s, Corsairs, Messerschmitts, and Spitfires spun those engines fast, no need for low-end power. The roots chargers of the day were big and heavy, planes need to be light. Some bombers were turbo, but the majority of the fighers were s/c.

TS s/c's were not seen too far back because of the complexity of their design and the predecessor, the Roots-style, was BIG.