Help me with some ricer math

[_-Night-Shade-_]

Where the hell are you guys getting your numbers from? I just gave the manufacturer specs, look them up yourself if you want. I'm sorry but I just don't trust the credibility of your "friends at the track", if they're getting higher numbers then it's not stock and they just feeding bulls--- to your gullible a--.

[MX3-4U2NV]

Where the hell are you guys getting your numbers from? I just gave the manufacturer specs, look them up yourself if you want. I'm sorry but I just don't trust the credibility of your "friends at the track", if they're getting higher numbers then it's not stock and they just feeding bulls--- to your gullible a--.

Yes, you are 100% correct, those ARE the manufacturers specs. I am not debating that, because that IS what they told the world when the car came out. What I can assure you is, that they in fact have about 26 MORE whp than the estimated crank hp that GM put out. So if GM said 205hp (crank) but their actually putting out 230whp on a dynojet dyno, with their 12% drivetrain loss, that make them about 257hp crank (257 - 12% loss gives us the 230whp).

Tell you what, when we do a dyno day this year, I will have a few friends with cobalts come out, who I know are stock. We'll have them get on the dyno, STOCK, and you will see for yourself, that they make roughly 230whp, stock. I even have the Cobalt brochure from the dealership here, yes it does say 205hp, as does 100's of other sites.

It was GM trying to market the car to more ppl. If they advertised it as 257hp from the start, they would less likely attract Mom's. But by saying it's just 205, they can attract a broader market.

There was even some speculation that it was originially a typo, and that all the brochures, GM sites, etc, were supposed to say 250, not 205.

[_-Night-Shade-_]

I'm sure if it was a typo it would have been addressed. And it seems odd that they would lie about it, I'm pretty sure you can't do that. Or again someone would have done something about it.

[RS_OBD'oh_2]

I have a fairly large list of dealer rated HP VS actual HP. It is very common for a dealer or over rate or under rate a cars power out put. There are many reasons for this.. but none of those matter or have any impact on what this topic is about. If you so care, I can post up some of that list.

FYI the ms 3 with the mzr is under rated while the RX 8 has something like 20 hp less then mazda claims.

[fieromx3]

i am just glad correct info is getting around... you see it all over forums and youtube of people giving misinfo... it is very annoying and frustrating especially when you actually meet someone in person who is full of misinfo and is to ignorant to learn the correct info.

hopefully alot of things are cleared up from mine and other peoples rampages lol

[Nd4SpdSe]

Well, everyone is right except for FieroMx3/Autozam. The 205hp/200tq that the S/C SS is the official rating for the crank hp. Me and Night-Shade aren't wrong, we're just not aware of the true wheel hp rating since we're not Cobalt enthousiasts. Even 205whp is incorrect and apparently underrating it's power.

MX3-4U2NV I believe would be spot on. It's quite common for manufacturers to underrate cars since they do want to sell as many of them as possible, and they are aware of the gouging that insurance companies like to do on performance cars. It's significantly affects those in the under 25 bracket where insurance premiums can easilly skyrocket. Especially since the SS was targetted towards the younger crowd.

I remember back in the day that S/C SS's were posting not very happy 14-15s 1/4 mile times

[fieromx3]

thats ok... im not going to get into anything anymore... people can beleive what they want to beleive at least we have posted common sense facts and have had proof to back it up.. if no one beleives us thats ok to people are entitled to there personal opinion. but if in any case i am wrong and someone can come up with hardcore proof i will even admit in my own mistakes.. but year after year its been proven balts have 205 or higher at the wheels

[Nd4SpdSe]

You did not post facts: Your said that that the 205hp rating was at the wheels and that's not even true. We said it was 205hp at the crank, and that is "truthful" since it's official information, but in the end, it isn't the true power. It's not our fault we didn't know GM lied. You were saying that the 205hp was the official rating at the wheels, which isn't true. Yes, they make even more than that at the wheels. I now know what you meant, but it's putting the information behind the wrong pretences is what made it false.

[MX3-4U2NV]

I'm sure if it was a typo it would have been addressed. And it seems odd that they would lie about it, I'm pretty sure you can't do that. Or again someone would have done something about it.

It really doesn't matter what we or anyone else thinks. The fact of the matter is, that on paper, GM said 205hp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Cobalt#Engines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) but having been there for almost 75 Cobalt dyno runs, I have witnessed MULTIPLE stock Balts run at 230ish wheel horsepower on a Dynojet dyno. And correct me if I am wrong, if it were a Mustang dyno, it should/would read more?

Anywho, if it suits everyone, I can change the question to a 230whp, 2900lb car vs a 205 crank hp, 2500lb car?

I also have two ppl scanning and sending me their dyno readouts so I can post here to see.

[fieromx3]

if im not mistaken and im not positive so dont take my word 100% for it lol i think mustang dynos read less then what it actually is?

i dont think the dyno graphs are necessary... it wont make anything better or worse. it won make people happier or madder or anything. and changing the subject wont matter as i dont think anyone will post anymore useful info.

mx34u2nv sorry if i crapped on your thread in anyway. arguing like that is plain dumb and childish. ill admit i just got laid off a job so until i get another one i have nothin else better to do. but i will try to post truthful facts. sorry if i pissed anyone off!

[Nd4SpdSe]

Actually it's 198 crank hp for a ZE

Just a note. I've raced against a 165 crank hp that did 14.6 in the quarter. Back in the day, there was a very experienced racer named "Aaronthehic". He could do 13.7 on a stock ZE. Eventually he stripped the car, did a plexi hatch and nitrous, than blew the motor from the nitrous.

[_-Night-Shade-_]

I knew it I knew experience played a role in this somewhere ;D

[fieromx3]

Actually it's 198 crank hp for a ZE

Just a note. I've raced against a 165 crank hp that did 14.6 in the quarter. Back in the day, there was a very experienced racer named "Aaronthehic". He could do 13.7 on a stock ZE. Eventually he stripped the car, did a plexi hatch and nitrous, than blew the motor from the nitrous.

is this guy named aaron? wondering from the name... or brandon tedder? either way both (assuming aaron was experienced lol) were very experienced with ZE

[Nd4SpdSe]

Ya, not Brandon. That's right, he was very good with a ZE too. 14.213 apparently on street tires in an Mx-6 and into the 13's on slicks for what I remember.