Why 2.0 instead of 2.4?
Sooo, if GM were to spend some money upgrading the 2.4l rods and pistons and spend the same amount of money into the 2.4 as they did for the 2.0, the 2.4ls would actually be better correct?
The 2.4L engine could have been upgraded, sure. Heck, the LSJ and LNF are more similiar to both SRT-4 motors than people would believe, and well, since the new SRT-4 motor is extremely similiar to the new Evo motor, well, there are more similiarities than differences.
lol wow this thread is terrible.
LSJ is a destroked version, 86mm bore x 86mm stroke. better for high rpm usage as in drag racing since they rev over 10krpm. you can't really do that with a long stroke motor without creating damaging crankshaft harmonics and all other types of bad crap.
There's more, but I really don't feel like going through it, though a built up 2.4 litre bottom end with an LSJ head probably would make some rediculous power with a turbo setup, too bad the one guy with that setup sold the car, or is
LSJ is a destroked version, 86mm bore x 86mm stroke. better for high rpm usage as in drag racing since they rev over 10krpm. you can't really do that with a long stroke motor without creating damaging crankshaft harmonics and all other types of bad crap.
There's more, but I really don't feel like going through it, though a built up 2.4 litre bottom end with an LSJ head probably would make some rediculous power with a turbo setup, too bad the one guy with that setup sold the car, or is
Just out of curiosity, since I'm still new to the racing world, why did chevy decide to use the 2.0 litre and supercharge that, instead of super charging the 2.4? The 2.4 is what, 171hp stock?? and The SS/SC is 206 hp stock?? We're only 30'ish hp behind. And isnt like the turbo'ed or SC 2.4's faster than the 2.0's? I dunno, I might be wrong, but if anyone can make this clear for me, it would be appreciated! Thanks guys.
To restate things in a different way:
The LSJ was two liters with a short stroke because GM was still unsure on its exact durability and didn't want a lot of warranty claims.
The LS9 is 638 horses for the same reason.
The LSJ was two liters with a short stroke because GM was still unsure on its exact durability and didn't want a lot of warranty claims.
The LS9 is 638 horses for the same reason.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Jesse
Problems/Service/Maintenance
2
Sep 28, 2015 12:51 PM



