Wtf

Originally posted by b-spot+Apr 21 2005, 04:33 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(b-spot @ Apr 21 2005, 04:33 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Fast Eddie@Apr 21 2005, 12:01 AM

BS the eco has the same power curve as the 2.4 with a lower peak maybe I'm wrong, these show the 2.4 having a better powerbandÂ;-) :o
eco specs VS.
2.4 specs

both hit max HP at ~5k, the 2.4 makes 155 ft/lbs of TQ as low as 2400RPM, the eco doesn't make more than 125 until over 3k. The 2.4 has more of both TQ and HP across the spectrum, so rpm for rpm the 2.4 makes more power.

The alum. block is total BS since the 2.4 block only weights in at about 110 lbs so there is not a noticable amount of weight to save here.

Sorry I don't base my opinions on motor trend, car and driver, or any other fruity azz mag. I base them on numbers and experience, so please point me to the numbers (from a reliable source) that support the eco beating the 2.4 to 60MPH.

thanks,
eddie

Quoted post

Well since mike SS did a great job of tearing you a new one I don't need to do much else but laugh at teh fact you compared the wheel dyno to the fly wheel dyno.

The great part is that in the low rev range the wheel dyno with the automatic transmission is making almost as much power as the 2.4 at the crank.

It cracks me up how people need to defend their old technology engines on here. Just give the 2.2 credit where credit is due. I don't even own one anymore so its not like i'm being biased. 2.2 vs 3.4 is a good comparison, each have their pro's and cons. 2.2 vs 2.4 just makes you look like a fool by trying to defend the 2.4 as this thread has proven.

Quoted post

[/b][/quote]


BAN BSPOT!!!

:P

[Fast Eddie]

Originally posted by MikeSS@Apr 21 2005, 08:24 AM
^ Yeah, great argument, racing on paper is always the most accurate way to figure out which car is faster :rolleyes: .

First off that is a dyno at the wheels of an automatic Cavalier with an ecotec against a dyno at the flywheel of the 2.4L click the first link and you'll see a flywheel dyno of the ecotec.

Have you ever even been to the track? I doubt it. Do a search on this site and see what times people with ecotec 5-speeds have run compared to people with 5-speed 2.4L.

HP, Tq don't mean much when it takes an engine a long time to rev up because of high friction and heavy parts.

Car and Driver and Motor Trend frilly magazines???? :wtf: That is the worse argument I ever heard. These are the biggest magazines with the most state of the art and accurate measurring equipment. They are more reliable then the manufactures themselves.

Quoted post

I've been owned. guess I need to quit postin when I get home from the bar. :new_all_coholic: I now see how an engine rated at 140 HP beats one rated at 155 in the same chasis, lighter internals, makes sense now.

i sense some sarcasm...tsk tsk

[MikeSS]

Originally posted by Fast Eddie@Apr 21 2005, 01:51 PM
I've been owned. guess I need to quit postin when I get home from the bar. :new_all_coholic: I now see how an engine rated at 140 HP beats one rated at 155 in the same chasis, lighter internals, makes sense now.

Quoted post

Your engine only ever made and was rated at 150HP, but good to know you know your engine.

Yeah looking at the power bands of both engines it's hard to imagin one is faster then the other, but sure

the lighter internals i guess can make some of that

[BLK03GXS]

Not to mention the Vtezx

Originally posted by MikeSS@Apr 20 2005, 01:52 PM
9.5??? where did you get that from?

A V6 Alero in car and driver did 0-60 in 7.9 and 8.1 the two times they tested it. A 2.4L 5-speed alero did 0-60 in 8.5 seconds when car and driver tested it. A 2.2L ECOTEC was never tested, but jusdging by the facts if you run all three cars stock through the 1/4 mile the 2.2L ecotec seems to be right in the middle I would figure a 0-60 time closer to 8.3-8.4 seconds.

This makes sense because it is said a car loses about .1 second in the quarter mile for every 100lbs of weight. An alero with the ecotec is about 300lbs heavier on average.

My alero ran 15.21 with just a CAI and Catback, no way the differnece was made up by those mods alone.

Quoted post

Ecotec doing 8.3 seconds... maybe in a manual.

In an auto forget it. Atleast 9 seconds. Trust me. I've got the eco automatic.

It's pretty slow and looses to just about anything out there.

[FantomForceCustoms02]

Originally posted by shockz@Apr 21 2005, 08:51 PM

Ecotec doing 8.3 seconds... maybe in a manual.

In an auto forget it. Atleast 9 seconds. Trust me. I've got the eco automatic.

It's pretty slow and looses to just about anything out there.

Quoted post

It doesn't lose to just about everything. It can hold its own against other 4-cylinders. I've raced and beat eclipses, non v-tec civics, neons, cavys, and other N/A 4-bangers. Even a 6cyl. firebird once. Probably just luck, but its still a win.

[Oldsman]

sorry but if the lightweight internals was helping the motor to produce more hp it would show in the dyno slips because it would loss less power to the wheels. if it rev quicker that doesn't mean that it is being faster just means more balanced.

now to compare 2.4 5spd to the 2.2 5spd in an alero well yes your eco was quicker compared to the fastest stock 2.4 man on here. but mph was the same actually i believe (damn i forget his name but 3.4 knows him) ran a 89 mph. which would be correct. 10 more hp = around 1 mph. pure explaination is gearing and weight period. it seems a alero with eco and man has a better power to weight ratio. i think the gearing is a little different too, can't remember.

but because someone like the cast iron block older motor and questions on how it can be slower with more hp and a little more torque does not give anyone the right to crap on them for their thinking when it is a logitcal reasoning.

[MikeSS]

I hear what your saying Oldsman and maybe we went a little too far, but we were responding to a logical question with logical answers until post #17 when we were called on B.S. twice.

i have the eco auto too and it aint that slow...ive beaten plenty of cars