Steve the Chargers BADD ASSED! Oh and that why I got my 2.4 SS, cause I wanted 4 wheel discs and the upgraded suspension and the trim it has. I also liked the difference in the body as well. The HP I knew I could make up for and having a family the 4 door made better sence for me.

For the record I've NEVER bad mouthed the 2.0 cars, I've driven a few and yes they are very quick little cars and yes I like them. But they don't fit my automotive needs so why should I get one?

 

Replies in bold

My intention isn't to come into this thread and flame. I and am sure Dan thought the same thing, that the claims stated were simply exaggerations. The first time someone breaks a rod on a 2.4 at the 300hp mark, I'll refer them back here.

 

i agree, but also i dunno of anyone that's yet taken one out of a car and brake dynoed it.

blown cars are always less consistant that normal ones, so i think it was a fairly accurate measure.

 

Here are the new SRT-4 and Viper ACR that are coming out soon. Dodge was there too testing their cars out. You can see the dash cluster on the SRT4 that they used for recording.

 

Gm reliability test? *giggles*


ANYWAY my 600+ engine WAS street driven and it was driven for almost 10 years! Running low 11 sec pases almst every weekend on 93 octaine pump gas with stret tires and thru the mufflers. The car put down just a tad over 550 hp at the rear wheels.

 

umm just as an FYI allll of the " internals" ****.. GM established the breaking points on nitrous... not a blowe or turbo.. big difference in stress points and surges..

and i'm still going to say that i trust hahn as well

 

No idea what I was talking about when? Dude your making no sence at all. Have you been drinking tis morning already? Please go back and read my posts again as I think your missing something.

And yes your right some 2.4 owners can be the same way some 2.0 owners can be. But i haven't seen a 2.4 owner go into a 2.0 thread and say his cars better cause it has more displacement. You can't say the same for 2.0 jacking 2.4 threads with "my cars better cause it has more hp" can you?

And as soon as someone breaks a rod with a 300 hp 2.4 you be sure to do juuuuust that. Unfortuetly since their are indeed 2.4's running in excess of 300 hp and that hasn't happened yet I guess its just a waiting game.

YUP! I ranted cause I'm tired of the 2.0 owners with their 2 cents that noone gives 2 ***** about when someone says they traded the 2.2 for a 2.4 and the only reply they give is" why didn't you get a SC car, they're better." Better by WHO's requirements? Not better by mine and clearly not better by the OP how purchased a 2.4 car. If they are sooooo much better then I'm sure GM would have found a way to still be building them and not replacing them with a turboed version.

Shhhhh! Don't say that too loud your liable to be told you don't know what your talking about.

 

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...07/035471.html

""Being a global engine, the Ecotec 2.2-liter had to pass all the dynamometer and vehicle tests traditionally run by the various GM organizations worldwide," said Subhedar.
After careful comparison, the team included the most severe tests in the validation test matrix. For example, the number of hours for the General Engine Durability test on lab dynamometers was increased by 60 percent. In another grueling experiment, the Thermal Cycle test, the engine is run to achieve maximum operating temperature and then flushed with ice-cold coolant, shocking the components into sudden contraction. This procedure was carried out for 1,000 hours.
The test program also included extensive real-world road testing in normal as well as extreme climates. Besides extensive testing at GM’s Desert Proving Ground in Arizona and test trips through Death Valley, the engine was also tested in the sand and dusty environment of the Australian Outback. Cold-weather validation was conducted near the Arctic Circle in Sweden and at GM’s winter proving grounds at Kapuskasing in Ontario, Canada. As a result of this arduous testing, customers benefit from extended engine life, high reliability, and low operating costs."

Thats just one test

Ya you had 600hp spread over 8 cylinders...meaning each piston only had to withstand enough combustion force for 75 hp a cylinder...the hahn one...assuming 400 crank has to withstand 100hp worth of force...thats a 33.3% increase in force...thats just force differences...we havent even gone into actual mechanical/metalurgical differences. Depending on the actual blend used the hypereuctic state provides different properties...i imagine you used aftermarket hypereutectics...those are ALOT different then factory hypereutectics

 

That somehow just made me think of them forcing him to sit down and watch videos of stress tests like in Conspiracy Theory when patrick stewart taped open Mel Gibson's eyes. LOL! This thread is SO off topic.......but that's what Threads are for.......after all *sings*

 

This quote of yours makes it glaringly obvious you had no idea: As for pistons I BELIEVE the 2.4 uses hyperutectic pistons. At least thats what I think I read.

I challenge you to find any fuel injected GM that doesn't come with production hypereutectic pistons.

I'm not trying to insult you like you are desperately trying to do to me, I'm just stating that you simply threw a few words around about engine internals.

 

Even the famed LS9 is coming with those hypereutectic pistons.

 

I said it that way BECAUSE this is the internet and you ALWAYS have SOMEONE who comes back with an "AH HA your wrong" statement much as you just did. I said BELIEVE because I couldn't 100% remember. Not because I had no idea what I was talking about.

And if your NOT trying to insult me why is "it glaringly obvious you had no idea" cause your trying to be my buddy? No your being ignorant so your getting it right back, like your medicine?

 

Add the words "four cylinder" to my quote.

 

Not many people replace brakes right away. In fact I have never even owned one car long enough to need to replace brakes *knocks on wood*

 

Because it was the truth. I know, you know it, and anyone experienced in engine building can tell.

I don't see what drinking anything has to do with this thread or forum. I've kept this technical in nature and would expect anyone who quotes me to do the same. I guess thats too much to ask.

 

What that cause I couldn't remember 100% and suddenly I have no idea what I'm talking about? WOW superiority complex much?

Dude I said it that way cause I couldn't 100% remember what I read about the pistons from like 6 or 8 months ago! Sorry cars aren't my whole life anymore. I have ALOT more then engine facts to try to remember on a daily basis.

And if you HAD been keeping it technical you wouldn't have thrown in your diggs would you?

 

Dude!

Relax. No one is throwing diggs here.

Its a friendly discussion on the different aspects of each car.

 

People posting stuff without knowing for sure (and having proof) is what has turned this forum into junk...That is why we get pissed...We only post what we know to be true and can back up.

Everyone is always like well I heard or I saw, etc but when you ask for a credible source...they cant provide one...or they give u a technical explanation that is completely wrong and is in violation of some basic law of physics.

 

Ok maybe it is me. I have the flu and I feel like total ****, but it sure seemed like you were attacking me. If I'm worng then I whole heartedly appologize for all my ranting and raving. Like I said I have the flu, I feel like ****, my wifes being a bitch, I'm missing work and bills are pileing up, I have a tad bit on me and if I'm taking it out on you then I do appologize.

But telling me I have no idea what I'm what I'm talking about sure seemed like an attack.
Again if I'm wrong then I am sorry.

I agree 110% with that statement! Again thats why I said I believe, cause I honestly couldn't remember 100%. Like I said I have the flu, I'm sick, I feel like ****, ease up on a brother will ya?

 

No problem, my day is actually going peachy for once which is why I was up for discussion.

I think I read your original posts in the wrong light but regardless I don't resort to attacks or insults on internet forums unless defending myself.

I actually was hoping to start some sort of debate on the LE5 rod data that GM has conflicting information published online.

 

i own an LE5, who wants to inspect my rod?

 

Ok then we both took each others posts wrong. Lets leave it at that and move on, I don't come here to fight either.

Truce?

As for GM info we ALL know GM doesn't have a freekin clue as to what the hell is going on half the time. Just look at most of the cars its built in the past 20 or so years if you need proof of that!

 

LSJ rods are longer than LE5 rods.

O Snaps.

 

that's just crazy. lol. how the hell have you never had to replace brakes? do you baby all your cars or just get lucky?

 

it's not that uncommon really. esp on cars that had drums at one point.