I took my 1LT with the 2.4L engine and 5-speed tranny to the local speed shop to get it on the dyno. I wanted a baseline hp and torque number to compare future upgrades to.

The guy who runs the shop has many years of experience and has built many race cars, drag cars, and high-powered street cars. He was surprised at the numbers on my car. Rear wheel horsepower peaked at 153.6hp. Torque peaked at 148.9 lb-ft. Using the standard numbers for parasitic drivetrain losses that he usually uses (18% with a manual tranny), this equated to 187hp and 181lb-ft of torque at the flywheel. These numbers are substantially higher than the advertised 172hp and 162lb-ft of torque. A second dyno run produced numbers within 1hp and 1lb-ft of the original run. He attributes the high numbers to a combination of a "good" engine (at the better end of production variations) and low parasitic losses.

The torque peaked at about 4800 RPM. I was somewhat surprised how flat the torque curve was. Horsepower peaked at 6000 RPM, but that was as high as he wanted to go in RPM. The horsepower was still climbing at 6000 RPM.

These numbers were a welcome surprise, as it would have been disappointing to have them go the other way (unexpectedly low numbers).

He has built a few turbo Ecotec engines and he says the Ecotec is a very stout engine that responds well to turbos without major engine mods (with reasonable boost levels).

Now I'm ready to put on the CGS air intake and plan for future mods (forced induction):smile: .

Steve

Has this guy installed any turbos on either the 2.2 or 2.4 Ecotecs yet?

"Rear wheel horsepower peaked at 153.6hp. Torque peaked at 148.9 lb-ft. "

I find this really surprising since the HHR is a front wheel drive vehicle! :lol:
(maybe I should have had them dyno mine at the back end!)

All kidding aside, this agrees completely with what we have found.
Here are some numbers from our last runs in comparison:

Your Stock Vehicle: 153.6hp.---------148.9 lb-ft.Tq
Our modded * HHR: 159.08hp-------167.07
Adding CGS Intake: 167.17hp-------175.09

*(with IMCO T-924 Turbo Muffler and Mobil 1 Synthetic Oil)

As you see, we showed an increase of about 6hp over stock with the Turbo muffler and Mobil 1. Torque however, is substantially stronger with the addition of the T-924 Turbo Muffler - it pulls much stronger.

Once you add the CGS Intake System to your HHR - get ready to hang on!
That little Ecotec opens up and really wants to run. In fact. we have been doing some tweaking with different filters and have now found one that helps it pull even stronger (we may be adding it to our site as an accessory soon.)

All in all, the Ecotec is a little powerhouse waiting to be unleashed. I think over the next 2 years you will start to see more products to take advantage of its horsepower/torque potential.

Welcome to the mod club! :thumb:

He has built a few turbo Ecotec engines and he says the Ecotec is a very stout engine that responds well to turbos without major engine mods (with reasonable boost levels).
My wife's SAAB has the turbocharged 2.0L Ecotec. It is advertised at 175 hp, but it feels significantly faster than the 177 hp of the NA 2.4L.

Our auto 2lt base runs were 149 at 6000 and 141 at 5250 or so I can tell you we picked up a substantial increase from our tune, but due to a recent surgery I haven't be able to back it up, as soon as I can drive I will be putting it up . That car has picked up 3mpg on the DIC for the last 1000 mi of mixed driving .


Thanks
Matt
www.tunetimeperformance.com

Our auto 2lt base runs were 149 at 6000 and 141 at 5250 or so I can tell you we picked up a substantial increase from our tune, but due to a recent surgery I haven't be able to back it up, as soon as I can drive I will be putting it up . That car has picked up 3mpg on the DIC for the last 1000 mi of mixed driving .


Thanks
Matt
www.tunetimeperformance.com (http://www.tunetimeperformance.com)

I hope whatever the nature of the surgery...it was successful and worth the recouperation period. And, I hope you're back to "norm".

If so, can you provide dyno results for the "super tune" on the HHR?

I may be interested, if I can give up the use of my car for whatever period you need the ECU.

My wife's SAAB has the turbocharged 2.0L Ecotec. It is advertised at 175 hp, but it feels significantly faster than the 177 hp of the NA 2.4L.

There are alot of other factors to involve in the equasion. Size of vehicle, weight, and turbo. A turbo will obviously be able to build up speed alot faster than a n/a vehicle. Just like my soltstice. The turbo versions build up twice as fast, but that was before I added my aftermarket equipment!

One quick note here...

The dyno numbers everyone's posting here are raw (uncorrected) numbers. Unless you are using SAE corrected numbers, any comparison is a moot point. Note that the SAE corrections (the capability is built into most modern dynos) take into account for temperature, altitude and humidity, factors that can make considerable difference.

If the shop with the dyno saves your data, they should also have the corrected data. That is good for later tuning. Say you made your base runs on a cold winter day... then made some mods and put it back on the dyno during a hot summer day.... the raw numbers would definitely show a loss, making you think "What have I done? I should see a gain!".

For example, say Deb did a run in Mile High Denver and posted the raw numbers... they'd look sick due to the lower air density at that altitude.

IOW, if everyone posted SAE corrected numbers, you'd be on the same playing field and comparisons would be much more valid.

All 10 of our dyno runs made during the intake comparisons wer done within one hour early in the morning. We swapped parts as fast as possible to ensure runs would be close. Examining the data afterwards, we found the temperature and humidity changes to be negligible. Since all our intakes were tested on the same car (same baseline), they are relative to each other on that vehicle and provide as accurate a test as you can get in the real world.

Hope it helps,

Mike, my point was that different people comparing numbers from all around the country does not make a valid comparison due to the variables.

In mentioning Deb in Denver, there figures would show about a 20% HP loss due to altitude alone. The real world numbers for temp correction would yield roughly 1% gain or loss per 10 deg. (F) change in temperature (SAE standard is 77% F), and that applies to intake temp, not ambient, for accuracy on any engine according to the formulas of SAE J1349, which is what most dynos use.

You're comparisons on your car in that time frame are OK, except for the fact that the "real world" does not include driving around with your hood up. Your test got busted by some intelligent people because there was no real world conditions in that test to reflect the actual effect of intake air temp under normal driving conditions. I have considerable hard data what that effect is and will post that in the near future.

Your test got busted by some intelligent people because there was no real world conditions in that test to reflect the actual effect of intake air temp under normal driving conditions.

Nice try to defame me Joe - but I'm afraid your attempt backfired! :lol: During our test, both the Airaid and OEM airbox received fresh cool outside air (by having the duct hose directly fed by the 48" cooling fan) - while the CGS did not! Since the CGS filter resides far down in the engine bay, and can only receive "cool" outside air while the vehicle is actually driving down the road - all it received was "hot" engine bay air.

Still, the CGS outperformed both the stock and AiRaid intakes by a WIDE margin. :thumb:

As far as dyno'ing with the hood up - you're stupid if you don't. The HHR got up to 229-degrees after some runs, and since there is not "real world" cooling air entering the grille, you need a fan and the hood up to get the airflow required to cool an engine.

Here are a few links to some dyno videos for you (notice the hoods are up):

05 Mustang GT at Walker DynoTune (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7953865515428860611&q=dyno&hl=en)

07 Acura RDX at DynoLab in Murrieta, GA. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=748670384152350833&q=dyno&hl=en)

06 C6 Z06 Corvette (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5971056538869331696&q=dyno&hl=en)

I could point you to hundreds of others to substantiate my claim.

Give it a rest...

Everybody take a breather..don't want this turning into another war

i installed some really fancy streamlined sun visors with with highspeed paint. bet i picked up 30-40 hp!

Using the word "defame" is getting a little out of hand, Mike!

It's about time this forum got some scientifically accurate info to make their decisions by.

Like I stated earlier, "I have considerable hard data what that effect is and will post that in the near future." That includes some in depth testing with thermocouples, results calculated with SAE formulas and confirmed by dyno testing.

I still haven't done anything regarding an intake and am looking at this with an open and educated mind before making any decision as time allows.

Nothing personal.... just stating that in comparing intakes, that test was flawed and did not represent real world driving conditions, as air temp entering the engine has a significant effect on power output.

.... just stating that in comparing intakes, that test was flawed and did not represent real world driving conditions, as air temp entering the engine has a significant effect on power output.

Here are some pics from our dyno tests Joe. Take a good look:

http://www.socalhhr.citymax.com/i/CGS%20Dyno%20Test/Stock_DynoSm.jpg

See the round intake hose propped up on the rediator support? Now tell me you're going to get any more "real world" than that on a dyno? It's getting fresh air! *NOTE: Repeating myself> The CGS received NO benefit from this as it's filter was buried far down in the engine bay - drawing only hot air.

http://www.socalhhr.citymax.com/i/CGS%20Dyno%20Test/CGS_DynoSm.jpg

It only makes sense that under actual driving conditions the CGS will make slightly more power than tested, as it would then receive cooler air from the fenderwell access hole.

You don't need a dyno to see the difference. If you simply buy both intakes like we did, put them on your car and do some timed tests, you too will see that the CGS makes substantially more power than the AiRaid system. The engine runs better and pulls much harder.

Have fun! :thumb:

The way I see it, if you want to prove your point, then prove it. One has shown his method. One has not. A picture speaks a thousand words and allows others to come up with their own conclusion.

The way I see it, if you want to prove your point, then prove it. One has shown his method. One has not. A picture speaks a thousand words and allows others to come up with their own conclusion.

Maybe there are contractual stipulations that have to be satisfied before said data can be presented. ;) You can't just release a company's info without their permission. :roll:

Maybe there are contractual stipulations that have to be satisfied before said data can be presented. ;) You can't just release a companies info without their permission. :roll:

True, but if I put it on a dyno, I can submit my results. :smile:

True, but if I put it on a dyno, I can submit my results. :smile:

Yup. I was just trying to point out that sometimes it is not that simple. Maybe Joe's data is from a situation like I described above. I know I would be pissed as a company owner is somebody disclosed my data before given permission, just to prove a point none the less. :smile:

Lets not forget the topic of this thread... it's members fastsuv Steve experience... titled :"Just got my 1LT on the Dyno this morning ".

Well I by no means am I any kind of expert on the matter of dyno testing and such but I have been messin with cars for 20 yrs and met and talked to many experts on such things as air intake and temp. it is a fact that the cooler the air is going into the engine the better it will perform Hence (cold air intake systems) with the oem air intake sittin right on top of the engine heating the air going into the engine and filter right there to slow the air (which will heat it more) the cgs system with the filter mounted low and away from the engine itself (not to mention a better type of filter) and a coated (heat sheild type) tube suppling the air to the engine from the filter not slowing it at entry point would most deffinetly have to improve performance and HP. That is why scoops were invented back in the day by drag racers to supply the coolest possible air directly to the engine for increased performance. So in theory Mikes test should be as stated maybe not to the exact pin pointed number but the same concept of many many other designers and engineers over the past 50 yrs state thats the way it is!!?? just my 2 cents

besides dynos are machines and can malfunction etc.. If you wanna impress me take an hhr to a 1/4 mile track run it as hard as possible with both intake set ups and get the time slips (cant get any more real world than that!!) LOL

This was stated on another forum and may not be my 100% opinion but here it is... "Dynos are for tuning. If you want to know what gains you get from bolt ons run it at a track!"

And on that note before this gets too way too out of line, locked, as this topic has been debated before.