2.4L Performance Tech 16 valve 172 hp EcoTec with 162 lb-ft of torque

Realistic Horsepower numbers

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 31, 2010 | 10:57 AM
  #1  
badassbowtie's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 02-19-2010
Posts: 1,529
From: Buffalo ny
Realistic Horsepower numbers

I am looking for some realistic HP/TQ numbers. anybody have the airaid intake and jet stage 2 chip? if so do you have an idea or dyno numbers? I am guessing i am around 190-200 Horses with both but just looking for proof....
Old Mar 31, 2010 | 11:03 AM
  #2  
solman98's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-17-2006
Posts: 6,053
From: Dallas, GA
Probably closer to 5 HP increase. The intake is meager at best. The Jet PCM only adjusts timing and fuel delivery.

Last edited by solman98; Mar 31, 2010 at 01:40 PM.
Old Mar 31, 2010 | 01:21 PM
  #3  
Snoopy's Avatar
Platinum Member
 
Joined: 05-09-2006
Posts: 6,805
From: "Upland" Mesa, Arizona
Solman is probably correct. BUT, I'll go one better......

Maybe 150-155 WHP. Not morre than 10 total for the TWO add-ons. I believe most STOCK 2.4's dyno around 141-147 WHP (which is the real method of recognizing HP).
Old Apr 1, 2010 | 10:18 PM
  #4  
IgottaWoody's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-13-2008
Posts: 4,708
From: Washington State, where it rains
The 2.2 was 145 or something..the 2.4 was 170 ish something,,,stock
Old Apr 2, 2010 | 02:25 AM
  #5  
sleeper's Avatar
Platinum Member
 
Joined: 01-09-2007
Posts: 16,081
From: SE USA
Originally Posted by IgottaWoody
The 2.2 was 145 or something..the 2.4 was 170 ish something,,,stock
Yes, at the flywheel..
Old Apr 2, 2010 | 01:13 PM
  #6  
Snoopy's Avatar
Platinum Member
 
Joined: 05-09-2006
Posts: 6,805
From: "Upland" Mesa, Arizona
I'm just curious. Why do people NOT understand the difference (which is big) between the two?? Horsepower at the flywheel OR horsepower at the wheels !!
Old Apr 2, 2010 | 01:56 PM
  #7  
SmootHHR's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-21-2010
Posts: 1,700
From: The Middie OHIO
I know that the "industry standard" line of thought for RWD rides is 15% parasitic/driveline loss...is it safe to assume the same for FWD?

All things the same:
172hpx85%=146.2 which would coincide with snoopy's suggestion. If you think about best case scenarios, you MIGHT put down 155 with those add-ons. 10hp* increase puts you up to 182*x85%=154.7

Last edited by SmootHHR; Apr 2, 2010 at 02:00 PM. Reason: corrected my math
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
eaglefreak138
General HHR
4
Feb 21, 2014 04:49 PM
Sporty1200c
General HHR
2
Mar 12, 2010 07:19 AM
Littlemanhhr
2.4L Performance Tech
23
Oct 1, 2009 11:37 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 AM.