Question about the 2.0 Engine ???
Question about the 2.0 Engine ???
I've been wondering this for a while; If the supercharger wasn’t on the 2.0 engine. How much HP and TQ would the 2.0 engine have? Does anyone know???
Yea...few things
Im guessing 140whp
Reg civic is 140 crank hp, and 128 crank wtq....
Cobalt 2999(around there) lbs
These are prob a few lbs off..
Civic DX is 2650
Civic LX is 2724
Civic EX is 2850
Civic Si is 2870
Even though the reg Civics are lighter...still a 1.8L ivtec(good on gas but not power) only a SOHC....
The si is the...K20Z...its the Kseries engine...same as the RSX type s... Good hp! but horrible tq...its like 180whp and like 128wtq...they have one pushing 350hp and like 280tq, nice looking also
Im guessing 140whp
Reg civic is 140 crank hp, and 128 crank wtq....
Cobalt 2999(around there) lbs
These are prob a few lbs off..
Civic DX is 2650
Civic LX is 2724
Civic EX is 2850
Civic Si is 2870
Even though the reg Civics are lighter...still a 1.8L ivtec(good on gas but not power) only a SOHC....
The si is the...K20Z...its the Kseries engine...same as the RSX type s... Good hp! but horrible tq...its like 180whp and like 128wtq...they have one pushing 350hp and like 280tq, nice looking also
Originally Posted by Cody_Richardson89
Im not for sure about the chevy 2.0 but the civic Si 2.0 has something like 194hp and 182tq
I think i read that somewhere
I think i read that somewhere
A Chevy 2.0 Ecotec and a Honda 2.0 are completely different engines. And since the 2.0 Ecotec is S/C it is totally useless to compare them soley on diespalcement. I am not sure why you'd bring up the Civic here.
And 182lb-ft? Try 139.
to put it simple...the Si are owned by the SS SC...and there is a video of a SS 2.4L taking a Si....Sis are overpriced a bit...for their "performance". I have an accord right now( FOR SALE!!!!) i love vtec...but i dunno...using the k series...bah...no tq to em...if it was like 170wtq it would rip. doesnt matter how light ur car is...u need tq to go fast quicker :P
Plus the interior of em kinda...weird...sweet ass seats n shiter though!!!
Plus the interior of em kinda...weird...sweet ass seats n shiter though!!!
there was an article from when the redlines were released that said the engine was a 140hp 2.0L with an extra 65hp provided by an eaton roots style blower
it didn't say anything about the torque but at 140hp/6500rpm it would be a whopping 113tq
it didn't say anything about the torque but at 140hp/6500rpm it would be a whopping 113tq
Originally Posted by JoeyCobalt
If it was on TV Honda would "sponsor" it and surprize! surprize! the Si would win, just like in all the magazines. 
we're comparing 17 sport compacts to find the fastest one, after comparing and seeing that even though honda is the next to slowest (slowest was a hyundai accent) we have decided to give it 1st prize. It's not important that this test was about speed, or that the honda was no where near the top. the important thing is that i am getting a free car for declaring honda the winner
its fact...the SS SC gets 0-60 in what? 5.9 seconds...and the Si gets 0-60 in bout 7.5 or a lil more....bout the same weight...I dont know the compression or gear ratios or that stuff off the top of my head...but com on...its dyno fact
SS SC
WHP: 214
WTQ: 195
VS
Si
WHP:175(about)
WTQ:130(about)
Come on...about 40 more wheel horse and over 50 wheel torque...they can't bull **** their way through the hard numbers
SS SC
WHP: 214
WTQ: 195
VS
Si
WHP:175(about)
WTQ:130(about)
Come on...about 40 more wheel horse and over 50 wheel torque...they can't bull **** their way through the hard numbers
Originally Posted by 9JordonFlex9
Come on...about 40 more wheel horse and over 50 wheel torque...they can't bull **** their way through the hard numbers
appearently you never read car & driver's "cheap speed" article, comparing the cobalt ss, srt-4 and rsx-s ( i think the wrx was in it too, but can't recall)
the rsx was the most expensive and the slowest, but they still gave it the win.
Originally Posted by selfinfliction
there was an article from when the redlines were released that said the engine was a 140hp 2.0L with an extra 65hp provided by an eaton roots style blower
it didn't say anything about the torque but at 140hp/6500rpm it would be a whopping 113tq
it didn't say anything about the torque but at 140hp/6500rpm it would be a whopping 113tq
Originally Posted by Cobalt_Supercharged
I think that is what it said on the first episode of Street Tuner Challenge. I just can't find the video to verify.
i think i seen it on a brochure or press release from gmpp
Originally Posted by avro206
A Chevy 2.0 Ecotec and a Honda 2.0 are completely different engines. And since the 2.0 Ecotec is S/C it is totally useless to compare them soley on diespalcement. I am not sure why you'd bring up the Civic here.
And 182lb-ft? Try 139.
And 182lb-ft? Try 139.
ya i knew i put the torque to high, i had the data on a table i found on the internet and was looking at the wrong line. ya i know they are different engines, and i would sure as hell hope a domestic would kill a rice burner lol a base model could prolly take a civic
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
patooyee
Wanted - What to buy - All categories
0
Oct 1, 2015 01:07 PM



