2.4 SS Motor "THE REAL DEAL"
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
Originally Posted by Jasper
Hey there buddy. If your car is indestructible I would love to see you get there. If thats on about 16 psi, then you would have to put about 24ish to equal us. Our compression isso high it makes a bigger difference. Put that much boost on your car and we will see how "indestructible" your car really is buddy.
I'm faster now..I trap 109 to ur at best 94?..I run 21ish psi all day on 94 octane...last dyno was 270...im aiming for 290 this weekend
b.
I'll always be faster...I'm building a twincharger this winter for my lsj...350whp...no lag
c.
I'm building a turbo kit for your 2.4 so bow down lol
but seriously there is nothing to be upset about...only 2.4 owner who can talk **** is that one in HCI that makes 1000hp. Once we get some turbos on these 2.4s and 2.0s well see who is really faster and who is stronger internally...the 2.0 has higher quality materials in its bottom end so I was implying if urs can take 400whp ours should take a lot.
New Member
Joined: 06-05-06
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Valencia
I hate to burst your bubble, but I dont give a **** about FI. If I loved it so much I wouldn't have sold my supra that ran 11's. All Im saying is that our compression is a lot higher, so go on with 20psi 30psi, I dont give a ****. What im saying is there is no REplacement-for DIcplacement. We will have you beat if we have that same FI, same psi, same everyting. And just for the record.....What is your torque range without vvt? yah.......
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
If u didnt care about FI why are u getting all huffy about this and telling me how ud beat me if u were turbocharged running the same psi as me..
it looks like this (first is semi tuned intense stage 4...second is stage 3 with 2.7)
compared to your 2.4 w/ intake same day same dyno
notice the extra 110FTLB of tq for the 2.0?
pwn3d
it looks like this (first is semi tuned intense stage 4...second is stage 3 with 2.7)
compared to your 2.4 w/ intake same day same dyno
notice the extra 110FTLB of tq for the 2.0?
pwn3d
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
Originally Posted by PpAzZ1101
Haha... owned by Dan... again.
On a side note, this thread embodies everything I can't stand about this site anymore.
On a side note, this thread embodies everything I can't stand about this site anymore.
str8 e thuggin fo life fo sho
put seriously proect grimace will show them...and cheap too...
IDK why hes jumping on my case...I'm helping design/tune the 2.4 turbo kit
Senior Member
Joined: 02-21-06
Posts: 3,454
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Oh no I'm not talking about you. You had the right to defend yourself against him.
What I mean about this site is the following:
A) 2.4L owners that think their car will be teh fast when they slap a turbo on it (yet most of them seem to know jack about cars)
B) 2.0L owners that put down the 2.4 as if it's that bad of a motor. Yes, the internals (aside from the rods) are weaker than the 2.0's. They weren't designed from the factory for boost (obviously since they're running 10.4:1 compression). This also applies to 2.4 owners that say the motor can handle 343WHP on stock internals. Yes, it's been done. No, it won't last as long as a stock motor. But then again, it also proves the motor is no joke.
Bad06SS said it best (in more words than necessary)... the 2.4 is not faster from the factory, nor meant to be (duh... you get what you pay for). The 2.0 is easier to modify. But money will make you as fast as you can afford.
My take is this... read the thread. But unless you are contributing useful information, shut up.
What I mean about this site is the following:
A) 2.4L owners that think their car will be teh fast when they slap a turbo on it (yet most of them seem to know jack about cars)
B) 2.0L owners that put down the 2.4 as if it's that bad of a motor. Yes, the internals (aside from the rods) are weaker than the 2.0's. They weren't designed from the factory for boost (obviously since they're running 10.4:1 compression). This also applies to 2.4 owners that say the motor can handle 343WHP on stock internals. Yes, it's been done. No, it won't last as long as a stock motor. But then again, it also proves the motor is no joke.
Bad06SS said it best (in more words than necessary)... the 2.4 is not faster from the factory, nor meant to be (duh... you get what you pay for). The 2.0 is easier to modify. But money will make you as fast as you can afford.
My take is this... read the thread. But unless you are contributing useful information, shut up.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: 02-28-06
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
From: Greensburg (PA)
Thanks everyone for making this thread a complete terd.
Cliff notes then I am outta here...
1. I certainly don't say my car wil be faster in a straight line than a 2.0..I started this thread to point out that 2.4 will NOT explode if you show them boost (contrary to alot of earlier posts by uninformed and doubters ..gotta build internals blah blah...you know who you are)
2. This was posted in the 2.4 forum with NO CROSS posts to the 2.0 forum inviting people with 2.0s to once again come in here and kick sand around.
3. I never said 2.4s should aim for 400 whp. I task ANYONE to try and drive any 400 FRONTwhp on the street. Call me from the ER.
4. I will be building the 2.4 for the street and track days using adjustable boost from the TXS DTEC BC.
5. Goal is 250-275 whp which will be dead nuts reliable.
6. If you think anything will catch me on a road course....line up I am waiting....GTP is outta this thread......
Cliff notes then I am outta here...
1. I certainly don't say my car wil be faster in a straight line than a 2.0..I started this thread to point out that 2.4 will NOT explode if you show them boost (contrary to alot of earlier posts by uninformed and doubters ..gotta build internals blah blah...you know who you are)
2. This was posted in the 2.4 forum with NO CROSS posts to the 2.0 forum inviting people with 2.0s to once again come in here and kick sand around.
3. I never said 2.4s should aim for 400 whp. I task ANYONE to try and drive any 400 FRONTwhp on the street. Call me from the ER.
4. I will be building the 2.4 for the street and track days using adjustable boost from the TXS DTEC BC.
5. Goal is 250-275 whp which will be dead nuts reliable.
6. If you think anything will catch me on a road course....line up I am waiting....GTP is outta this thread......
Originally Posted by Jasper
And just for the record.....What is your torque range without vvt? yah.......
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
Originally Posted by Bad06SS
Do a search for modded 2.0 dyno sheets. Our torque is instant, and it's very flat across the board. You just made yourself look very stupid.
I took care of him with my dyno sheets on page 3 lol
Senior Member
Joined: 12-21-05
Posts: 5,156
Likes: 0
From: Edison, NJ
How bout' we all be fair with eachother and say, if ANY of us wanted to be fast for a decent price....we WOULDN'T be driving cobalts. Now stop acting like these cars are god's gift to car enthusiasts, because they are not.
By the way.....my ***** is bigger than all of yours......lol j/k
By the way.....my ***** is bigger than all of yours......lol j/k
Senior Member
Joined: 05-21-06
Posts: 5,577
Likes: 3
From: Gainesville, FL
Originally Posted by Cobalt443
it's alright, weird. one day hot as b*lls next day a bit chilly
that's what i always liked about the mid atlantic. down here it's hot and muggy everyy day. i hate it.
Senior Member
Joined: 03-07-06
Posts: 7,224
Likes: 1
From: west virginia
Originally Posted by Bad06SS
You obviously haven't read very many of my posts, much less actually READ the one I just posted. I don't like twincharging, never said I did. But atleast we have the option, and we'll have kit's out for us. You're completely right, a single turbo will make more power-that's OLD news! And with a more boost friendly motor, and less compression, we can safely run more boost than a 2.4. YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE POINT. I've said it before, I'll say it again. The one that wants to spend the most money will have the faster car. If you've got the money, it doesn't matter if you have a 2.4 or 2.0. Just to clarify, if a person with a 2.0 has more money than the person with a 2.4, the 2.0 would win and vice versa. When you're comparing a modded car to a modded car, it's run what ya brung. When you're comparing a stock car to a stock car, the 2.4 doesn't stand a chance. The 2.0 was designed to be the superior motor, and it is. My main point in even speaking up is because all of you 2.4 guys are starting to act all high and mighty, saying that the 2.4 is better, and that when you turbo it, you're going to be the fastest cars on earth. Have you guys even reached the 14's? Get over the fact that you're 2.4 wasn't designed to be as good or hold as much power from the factory as the 2.0. To clarify another point one more time, both engines are capable of making great power, if someone wanted to make either the 2.0,2.2,or the 2.4 run 11's, it can be done. It's all about who wants to spend more money. However, if someone just wants to do some bolt-ons and run 12's safely, so far the 2.0 is the only one who's doing it with ease.
I don't like twincharging, never said I did. But atleast we have the option, and we'll have kit's out for us. You're completely right, a single turbo will make more power-that's OLD news! And with a more boost friendly motor, and less compression, we can safely run more boost than a 2.4. YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE POINT. I've said it before, I'll say it again. The one that wants to spend the most money will have the faster car. If you've got the money, it doesn't matter if you have a 2.4 or 2.0. Just to clarify, if a person with a 2.0 has more money than the person with a 2.4, the 2.0 would win and vice versa. When you're comparing a modded car to a modded car, it's run what ya brung. When you're comparing a stock car to a stock car, the 2.4 doesn't stand a chance. The 2.0 was designed to be the superior motor, and it is. My main point in even speaking up is because all of you 2.4 guys are starting to act all high and mighty, saying that the 2.4 is better, and that when you turbo it, you're going to be the fastest cars on earth. Have you guys even reached the 14's? Get over the fact that you're 2.4 wasn't designed to be as good or hold as much power from the factory as the 2.0. To clarify another point one more time, both engines are capable of making great power, if someone wanted to make either the 2.0,2.2,or the 2.4 run 11's, it can be done. It's all about who wants to spend more money. However, if someone just wants to do some bolt-ons and run 12's safely, so far the 2.0 is the only one who's doing it with ease.
