What motor is it. The GM Ecotec motor is very fast even in automatic.

 

A/C power loss doesn't only affect the Cougar (although, I haven't really noticed it being a problem in my car). I know in my wife's VW GTI, the car becomes totally gutless with the A/C on...

 

I hate using the A/C just for the fact that I feel like I'm driving a totally different car when it's on. Before my Cougar I had a Cav Z24 and I did notice a little power rob when I used my A/C, but nothing like when I use it in my Cougar.

Edit: Also I forgot to mention that when I use the A/C my engine makes a weird kind of gurgling noise while in lower RPMs.

 

The smaller the engine, the more you will feel the effects of having your AC on. AC roughly requires the same amount of horsepower no matter what size engine you have. I've yet to drive a 4-cyl that you couldn't notice the AC was on. In my Miata it is VERY noticable, in my Z28, the percentage of total power used is so small I can not notice when it is on at all.

All motors are different. The Duratec is slow revving AND it has no low end torque, that was one of my biggest complaints about the car. I personally love the feeling of neck-snapping power when you launch from a stop. Overall the car may not be faster, but for around town driving it's a lot more fun.

 

Yeah, I must say that I am much disappointed in the off-the-line performance of the Cougar. Even my little 4-banger Cav gave great launches and was a fun car for "around town driving".

 

Bah. Just put in a 3L hybrid. I can't even tell anymore when the A/C's on. :biggrin:

OrangeCat:

Where do you get off saying that the Duratec has "no low end torque"? You seen a dyno plot of a g*ddamn Civic? Even the Si! The Duratec has 90% of max torque at 2k RPMs!

 

Originally posted by: DanG
Bah. Just put in a 3L hybrid. I can't even tell anymore when the A/C's on. :biggrin:

OrangeCat:

Where do you get off saying that the Duratec has "no low end torque"? You seen a dyno plot of a g*ddamn Civic? Even the Si! The Duratec has 90% of max torque at 2k RPMs!

I'm not comparing it to just 4-bangers. Compared to my Z28 or GTP, it does NOTHING from a dead stop. When I touch the gas, I was to GO. That was one of the biggest peeves for me when I had my Cougar. Dyno numbers mean nothing. Real world driving is important. If I wanted to pull out in front of traffic, I was always scared in my Cougar because I'd hit the gas to pull out and I had to wait for the RPMs to climb before it would really start to move.

 

Booo... Hisssss... Bad comparison. I thought you would know better!

Let's see: Z28: GM's LS1 5.7L V8. 2 more cylinders, 3.2L more displacement, 310hp, 325ft/lbs torque. Even with the 4L60E... Are you kidding me?

GTP: GM's L67 3.8L S/C engine. Base displacement is 1.3L more, plus don't forget the Eaton M90 supercharger on top of it! 280ft/lbs of torque, 250 of it at 1500RPMs... Are you kidding me? I don't care if you put a V6 Mustang automatic (talk about driveline loss) on the back of it, that thing will rip a$$ off the line.

The CD4E's driveline loss is horrendous- I'll give that. But what I object to is the "dyno numbers mean nothing" comment, especially when comparing to a V8 and a huge, blown V6. The fwhp and fwtq are VERY good for comparison, and for a "measly" 2.5L of displacement, 170/165tq is not bad at all, except that the car weighs 3000lbs.

Put that Z28 against a Z06 and we'll see who's "dead" off the line!

 

Originally posted by: DanG
Booo... Hisssss... Bad comparison. I thought you would know better!

Let's see: Z28: GM's LS1 5.7L V8. 2 more cylinders, 3.2L more displacement, 310hp, 325ft/lbs torque. Even with the 4L60E... Are you kidding me?

GTP: GM's L67 3.8L S/C engine. Base displacement is 1.3L more, plus don't forget the Eaton M90 supercharger on top of it! 280ft/lbs of torque, 250 of it at 1500RPMs... Are you kidding me? I don't care if you put a V6 Mustang automatic (talk about driveline loss) on the back of it, that thing will rip a$$ off the line.

The CD4E's driveline loss is horrendous- I'll give that. But what I object to is the "dyno numbers mean nothing" comment, especially when comparing to a V8 and a huge, blown V6. The fwhp and fwtq are VERY good for comparison, and for a "measly" 2.5L of displacement, 170/165tq is not bad at all, except that the car weighs 3000lbs.

Put that Z28 against a Z06 and we'll see who's "dead" off the line!

OK, let me try to get my point across again.

If I wanted to pull across two oncoming lanes of traffic to turn left onto a road, it would be hard in my Cougar. Where I lived when I had my Cougar I did that every day and it was not much fun.

Now lets take a similar, Grand Am with a NA 3.4 V6. If I hit the gas to pull across the road in that, it goes right away. There's no sweating it trying to get across the road quickly. The Grand Am has more useful low end torque than the similar Cougar.

Or, lets go the other route. My Mark VIII. It had a 290 hp 4.6 DOHC V8. From a dead stop, if you floor the pedal, it won't even chirp the tires. Even with all the power and torque, none of it is there from a dead stop. It was almost as bad as my Cougar pulling out across traffic.

The Cougar simply does not make low end torque compared to a similar pushrod motor, nor will it ever. 170/165 is decent if it were in a 2500lb car, but it's not. To me, it just doesn't have the real world, low end torque (or torque to weight ratio if you prefer) that I want.

 

ok...lets not get into an argument here....

i agree that the cougar does not have any low end get up and go power form a stop to get out into traffic... and when the ATX shifts into 2nd it doesnt shift to the right point and again has no power....i hate that...

but lets also not compare it to cars with more power (which is just about every other 6 cylinder car out there..:rofl: ). It is what it is...a heavy low powered good looking car. If would never recommend a cougar to someone looking for power

 

I had my AC on yesterday, going to work. I pulled up at an intersection with an empty a**hole lane, and in the straight lane was a 96 or so Sunfire with a lot of vinyl, and letters in the back window that said "SUCK IT". So I got in the a**hole lane, and beat him to the merge...WITH THE AC ON. I thought the HP loss was major, but apparently not THAT much. In fact, when you floor the gas, the AC cuts out, to deliver the "power" when you need it.

I can barely launch my 1.9L Saturn with the AC on.

And whoever mentioned the 2.2 Ecotec was right. They put down about 140 horses stock, and run really strong. That's the one the GM tuners have cranked up to almost 1000 hp in their Cavalier drag cars. I'm not sure when they started putting those in Cavaliers (as opposed to the crappy ol' 2200 I4), but I'd guess around 2000 or 2001. Anyway, your 03 Cavalier LS has one. The new Saturn ION and 4-cyl VUE have the same motor, and they have been using it in the Saturn L-series since 2000.

 

Bennett:

There is a WOT bypass on the A/C clutch- You floor it (WOT is like 85% or more throttle), and the A/C disengages. Safety feature. Means you can get out of your own way, theoretically.

OrangeCat:

Valid arguments, but there's still an apples/oranges comparison:

3.4L > 2.5L. Pushrod over DOHC. Engines are made for two completely different powerbands. Remember- The Cougar is for 18-24 year old single and married females with 1 or less children. The original 2.5L Duratec motor had around 220hp in the design phase in Europe. I received this information first-hand by the team lead on the Contour SVT throttle body design team, a gentleman I used to work with. Ford marketing got ahold of it, and said "Hmmm, does an 18-24 year old female (ON AVERAGE HERE, FOLKS!) need 220hp? NO! Will that step on Ford's precious V6 Mustang's toes? YES!" So, they killed the cams off, restricted the b!tch out of the intake stream, and throttled the spark/air/fuel curves down to 170. Note, the Jag got the better version (NON-SVT!) of the 2.5L. Fabulous, Ford.

So. Let's look at the Mark VIII now: Luxury car. Great! The car fills a nice niche of (primarily, again) older people that prefer a gentle, "refined" personality in their cars. Again, marketing: "Do they want to squeal their tires off the line? NO!" So, they reprogram the transmission with a lower stall speed, refine the tables to make a nice, smooth, acceleration. After all, we can't have a Lincoln be so crass as to squeal its tires, now can we?

I think we've pretty much gotten off-topic with this one. My point is people are quick to bash the Cougar for its apparent "weaknesses" as a car without taking into account who it was designed for, and that market has a set of desireable characteristics that the pencil-pushers who, of course, are going to make the car make money as much as they can.

There's very little chance someone said "Hmm, let's see what happens when we take the heads of an SVT and slap it on a 3L block and see what happens!" But, then again, these are engineers like me who get off on doing things that designers never intended...

 

the Cav has the 2.2L ecotec engine, and like I said, very low mileage. To this date it has 493 miles. When I got my cougar it already had 25,000 miles on it, and I know brand new cars run much better, but I never had the privilege of driving a brand new cougar, so I really don't know if it had a little more pep in it than it does 55,000 miles later.

Mike