Does anybody know with motor would be better for a turbo. I bought a wreacked 06 ss/sc and i want to turbo it.

 

Well you bought it already,you should get of hahnracecraft or turbonetics

 

The 2.0 is already made to handle boost.

 

lol get the hahn twin charger or w/.e its called turbo and super i think thats wat it is idk but check it out its not street legal tho

 

I am going to change everything. I am putting a 61mm on it or maybe twins(not sure yet). I am also going all aftermarket computer and ****. just tring to decide what block to use.

 

the 2.4 will be the best motor to use if you are building it up, im pretty sure hahn has had the 2.4 at 300 whp on stock internals, build those internals up and that displacement will be a good thing on top of the turbo.

 

Not emissions exempt yet.

The 2.0 has a shorter stroke, better for revving the **** out of it. The 2.4 will spin the rubo up faster because of the larger stroke. It all depends on if you want to make the car streetable or not and what tires you will use. IF your gonna run big ol meaty tires up front go with the 2.4 but if your gonna run slightly less race redy tires on 18's or somthing then run the 2.0 cause it wont' make as much torque as soon. Allowing you to actually get off the line wiht plenty of revs as not to bog down, yet still be able to build boost as you scream down the track.

Neither motor is a bad motor it's just the 2.0 woudl be a better starting point IMO because if you don't wanna have to trim the fenders to fit larger tires it's a better powerplant for the aformantioned reasons.

 

special: tire spin is going to be an issue either way.

definatly dont twincharge with the m62, you'll be disappointed. if you want a bad ass 100% track car, swap to a 2.4 but keep your tranny, get forged internals, do some headwork, and stick a big ass turbo on that doesnt spool til 4k-5k. then stick a 50-75 shot on it at 2500rpm to help spin that big ass turbo. done right, you'll see 10's til the bottle presure drops.

 

Exactly

 

In this situation displacement isn't everything. Why? Cause the turbocharger is it's replacement. Telling him to keep the 2.4 sounds like the only reason you're telling him to do this is cause of it's displacement.

Think realistically...

Telling someone to put a huge turbo on and then put nitrous on to "help spool" isn't being realistic. I'm sure his first goal isn't to aim for 800 HP or some ridiculous #. I would suggest to him to find a turbocharger that suits that motor more properly, wouldn't go any bigger than a T3/T4 Hybrid. Those turbochargers can support upwards of 400+ HP without a problem and spooling isn't an issue...it's more suitable for smaller displacemented vehicles.

And for those who still want to say "there is no replacement for displacement", look at the GM racing vehicles that are running 900+ on an 2.0 ECOTEC motor...it's just in how you engineer things.

 

That and your PCM is boost friendly.

 

Depends on what you're aiming for power wise...you might not need an standalone. Check out HP Tuners if you're going to go turbo. Gives alot of adjustability.

 

I would stick with the 2.4 personally, IMO if you've ever seen a boosted motor of a larger displacement its numbers are generally higher too. I think that with either the 2.0 or 2.4 your limit to power is around 300whp either way you look at it, so anything above that and you're looking at forged goodies. so why not go with the larger motor? you've both got HP Tuners available, so unless there is some issue with the MAF I don't see how tuning would be a problem or any harder/easier on either ECU.

I like the larger motor in this case, and yes it being larger is the sole reason why.

 

well its done. The 2.0 was sold and a 2.4 will be bought. It will have all aftermarket parts. A 67mm turbo, a 75 shot for spooling, and a F.A.S.T computer. Dear good help me now

 

Goodluck and definatly keep us updated on this. Not alot of people have gone that heavily into the 2.4 motor. Definatly interested to see what comes out of it.

 

I will. I have a freind of mine that builds websites and we are going to do the build up on there. were hoping to see some mid to high 400 whp and my peek power around 500

 

if you have any questions about the 2.4 motor you can always call hahn racecraft as they have been the deepest in this motor so far i believe

 

I need to find me a block and a head. We are going to do some thing to the block to make it stronger. Anybody know any place that sell them. I don't want to get it from the chevy place if I don't have to.

 

check ebay for the engine

 

sorry for the late post, just got back from vacation =]

realistically, we're talking a very small difference in displacement... its really splitting hairs. However i dont think anyone could support a very good arguement for not getting an extra 20ci to help spool the turbo faster.

I personally feel fuel tables, compressor maps are more important areas to argue. therefore, my suggestion is take the extra displacement as a "give me" and move on, right?


I didnt feel it was needed to explain how n2o releases additional exhaust gases.. ie. n2o will get you to your spool faster.

The only difference between my suggestion and yours is that I'm saying match your turbo to your motor+n2o, rather then just motor. kudos to a detailed post, I wasnt about to go into a detailed shopping list.


this can be debated forever, so i'll try to keep it short...For every 900hp 2.0 ecotec, theres 1000x900hp v6/v8s! "there is no replacement for displacement" doesnt mean a 1.8L CANT make XYZ power levels, it means that if you add the same levels of volume and volocity to two different displacements of equal bore/stroke ratio, the higher displacement will beat out the lower everytime. We should send this into mythbusters.

GM racing vehicles use the 2.0L due to marketing, not engineering. They sell cars. Races are how they showcase thier "high-end cobalt SS/SC" to new buyers.

 

Sorry but I would believe that if they started doing this in 2006. They've been having 2.0 Race ECOTEC'd cars since 2002...they were destroked 2.2s, so I think it's more than marketing.

 

.4 L would decrease spool time by 500-700 rpms.