Wtf

[FutureEcotecOwnerAgain]

i was just reviewing some of my car and driver magazines and i came across one with the 03 sunfire with the ecotec of course and it states its 0 - 60 time is 8.1. now how is that? when our cars are said to do it in 9.5, stock? i know there are some differences between the two like weight and gear ratio, but almost 1.5 seconds faster, i dont know about that. any info would be greatly appreciated.

[Mischief007]

I think the cars are faster than that. I've tested mine before and it reaches 100 km/h quite quickly.

[jackal2000]

i think you might be confusing 0-60 times with 1/8 mile times

[shockz]

Fastest I've got on my ecotec was a 8.9.

Usually its around 9.1-9.3

Stopwatch.

[BLK03GXS]

why are our times slower? because we have a heavyer car... get usto it haha

[Vtolds]

its all about how much it weighs the alero is 3100 pounds the sunfire is probably 2500 or 2600. My Elantra with 138HP and 2600 pounds gets to 60 in 8.4 seconds which is faster than the 2.4 and ecotec and .2 slower than the V6 Alero.

[MikeSS]

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.

[Fast Eddie]

Out of curiousity to the above how does the eco, with the least amount of power stock, get in the middle of those times??

[Alero04]

im gonna test that out on the way home tomorrow(AFTER i get my brakes replaced! ;) )

[b-spot]

Originally posted by Fast Eddie@Apr 20 2005, 11:56 AM
Out of curiousity to the above how does the eco, with the least amount of power stock, get in the middle of those times??
Quoted post


Better power band, plus an aluminum block.

[MikeSS]

Originally posted by b-spot+Apr 20 2005, 02:15 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(b-spot @ Apr 20 2005, 02:15 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Fast Eddie@Apr 20 2005, 11:56 AM
Out of curiousity to the above how does the eco, with the least amount of power stock, get in the middle of those times??
Quoted post


Better power band, plus an aluminum block.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]

Exactly, HP is only a part of what a car will do. The hp numbers were only off by 10HP between 4 cyl. (and the ecotec seems to be under-rated), the light weight block and lightweight internals make it far more inclined to rev and hold HP, plus it was better suited to the Getrag 5-speed manual.

The sunfire that did 8.1 0-60 stated at the start of this thread is the faster sunfire 0-60 car and driver ever tested (that includes all the old GT's with the 2.4L).

The ecotec has been praised as one of if not the best small engine GM has ever made by Motor trend, Car and driver and others

[mike2002]

Originally posted by VTOLDS@Apr 19 2005, 08:34 PM
its all about how much it weighs the alero is 3100 pounds the sunfire is probably 2500 or 2600. My Elantra with 138HP and 2600 pounds gets to 60 in 8.4 seconds which is faster than the 2.4 and ecotec and .2 slower than the V6 Alero.
Quoted post


my bike is faster than your elantra

aren't the 4cyl alero's less than 3000?

i think some of you are confusing the auto's with 5 speeds. 9+ seconds is probably right for a auto ecotec, with the 5 speed around 8

[MikeSS]

My alero was 2888lbs out of the factory with only the power seat as a weight adding option. Now power windows or anything like that.

[FutureEcotecOwnerAgain]

so spending about 2,000 dollars or so for a 5 speed would make up alot of ground? i mean with my intake, header and exhaust i wanna be in the 15's in the 1/4 and under 8 0 to 60

[gxryan]

so spending about 2,000 dollars or so for a 5 speed would make up alot of ground? i mean with my intake, header and exhaust i wanna be in the 15's in the 1/4 and under 8 0 to 60

well when u get an alero brand new it's like 900 bucks cheaper to have the 5 spd.

So to pay 2000 bucks for one kinda seems silly, your best bet would probly be take the mods off your car and trade it off on one with a 5 spd.

[ShortysTRM]

Though I doubt a G-tech is completely accurate, Aprils's old 3.4 Alero ran a 0-60 of 6.71 on a cold day with only a WAI and 7.16 on a hot-ass day with an intake, cat-back, and a messed-up trans. She managed to beat me on 2 occasions, and I hope to God that my 0-60 is faster than 8.5.

[Fast Eddie]

Originally posted by b-spot+Apr 20 2005, 01:15 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(b-spot @ Apr 20 2005, 01:15 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Fast Eddie@Apr 20 2005, 11:56 AM
Out of curiousity to the above how does the eco, with the least amount of power stock, get in the middle of those times??
Quoted post


Better power band, plus an aluminum block.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]


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 powerband :o
eco specs (http://www.ny-jbodies.org/library/engine/ecotec/ecotec.htm) VS.
2.4 specs (http://www.ny-jbodies.org/library/engine/2.4/2.4.htm)

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

[MikeSS]

^ 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.

[MikeSS]

Ecotec times, second page (http://invision.aleromod.com/index.php?showtopic=7287&st=20)

[b-spot]

Originally posted by 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 powerband :o
eco specs (http://www.ny-jbodies.org/library/engine/ecotec/ecotec.htm) VS.
2.4 specs (http://www.ny-jbodies.org/library/engine/2.4/2.4.htm)

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. :lol:

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.

[nex]

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 (http://www.ny-jbodies.org/library/engine/ecotec/ecotec.htm) VS.
2.4 specs (http://www.ny-jbodies.org/library/engine/2.4/2.4.htm)

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. :lol:

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.

[Alero04]

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.

[gxryan]

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

[shockz]

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.

[Alero04]

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