Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

LMAO. They should turn that into some type of slogan. I can only take 3Si.org in small doses, but the board is so huge it only comes in mega-size doses.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Tis is a lot of interesting information! I almost want to start over with a stock dsm, and make a built tranny and engine my first mods. you could maybe tool around in that car while you collect everything for you large turbo.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

I'm new to the 4g series. Don't know too much about internals (leave it to the machine shop). How would you stroke a 4g64 into a 2.7L? Is there a kit out there?

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

No

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Care to explain?

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Ah yes, Mark at PowderBlast Co., right?

I'm surprised that nobody has brought 2.1s into this thread.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Mark Crook :) Sold me a good shitty motor though... but nonetheless, it was redone.

2.1, schmoo one. No one's got a tranny to shift it or wants to pay for one; meh.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Cher is definately right, the 2.1 can rev and most DSM trannys couldnt shift at that high of RPM, unless they had a dogbox.

Is that when your bought that built 2.4 off the MN dsm list? I remember it for sale, and some asian kid bought it...

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

No point to rev a dsm that high. The transmission don't keep up, and they stop making power at high horsepower.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Not necessarily true. You know with the right headwork and turbo/setup, it will make power to redline. Examples: Brent and Shep.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Huh? Then u maxed something out. Upgrade the restriction, rinse and repeat. Just like any car. There will always be bottle necks.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Please explain.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

The trannys will shift at high RPMs even stock. They just have to be in perfect working order and you have to be a good driver. Shep was shifting his setup at 10k plus on the same tranny he sells to his customers. Actually his tranny was underbuilt compared to some with an example being JETS tranny, its built up more than Shep old one. Now that he runs a dogbox its a mute point. But it can be done. The reason you see people shredding shit about 8500 is because the tranny isn't in perfect working order when they are doing it and or they don't know how to shift properly and they end up breaking shift forks.

As far as the power comment. That should be self explanitory. Jet covered that one.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

For a drag car, I'm convinced the 2.1L is the way to go. Marco doesn't seem to think so after testing a few though. For a street/strip car like mine, the 2.4 can't be beat. If I ever get the time and money, I do have another DSM engine idea, but that's another thread altogether. :cool:

I wish Dart would make some thick-walled blocks like they do for Honduhs, than the possibilities would be endless.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

It's easier to get the tranny to shift at high RPMs then to get it to handle the torque of the 2.4l though.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

By "stop making horsepower" they begin to bottleneck compared to other heads (aka honda's for example). I ment high rpm, not high horsepower. Latenight typo, I'd go edit it, but since I was quoted by 3 people it wasn't worth it. The 2.1 is a great idea for a motor. I love all the theorists in here.
Cher-
Brent=not a dsm transmission
Shep=Not a "dsm" transmission. We know his dsm based transmissions are hardcore, but now he is on a dogbox. I am sure he switched that up because he was bored.
I know they make power up top. The power isn't hard, but making it work as a CAR, not a motor, is the fun part. I think we all know how that works ;).

Justin- I agree everything has bottlenecks, but if I were going to go through the trouble of a smaller displacement motor to make up for it in rev's, I would have to go to 9500rpm + and I would want a serious power band up there. The headwork/turbowork/transmission required is beyond the budget of 99.99% of the dsmer's. IMHO its just not worth it to do it "right". Unless you have some no holds bar setup, it isn't worth wasting the cash.

Jakey- See post for Justin.
Steve-Just hardblock it if you are really worried about it. Remember, it is a drag car :).
Craig- I understand about shep's trannies. They are great units and work awesome. The only problem with going the 2.1 vs the 2.4 is the costs involved. It is just not cost effective, in my honest opinion, to go the 2.1 route.

Shane-I totally agree. Laggy turbo's own for that problem.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

I had nothing to say about Shep and Brent having DSM trannies or not. Shep did not have a dogbox in previous years. It was a built DSM tranny.

I was clearly responding to it not making power up top... yes it can and they are perfect examples. But you already agreed to others saying so.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

i would go 2.4 for sure

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

TTT! -2.4 all the way-

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Damn. I feel smarter already! I love this board :). When I get the money for a new engine, I'd probably go with the 2.4L. Sounds a lot easier and I hate getting into complications. Just dont know what to do after that point, heh heh. Just curious....what's the average cost of just the 2.4L engine itself. Gotta plan early...

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Start with this and keep adding..........

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Brand...47382288QQrdZ1

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Jackson Autoshit, there's a good business....

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

New Mitsu crank. I suppose calling it a Hyundai crank would scare away most of the would-be builders.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

What are you considering "high horsepower"? Just because you want a powerband like that doesn't mean others do. You are just a theorist too, Swanny.

I agree that you have to make the engine work in the car. I know of someone else looking at making big HP in a car that is notorious for killing drivetrains. Pot, meet kettle.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

The price would too. Since you can get a 2.3L stroker kit w/ crank for $1300.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

I meant rpm, not horsepower. The dsm's just seem to "drop off" around 8k compared to other cars that have powerbands that keep climbing. For the record, I consider big power 700+hp.


I am a theorist, that is true. Everyone in this industry is. In defense of being a kettle... I am however making a go of my "drivetrain killing monster" to disprove theories. Everything in the world will shit out drivetrain when you try to double or triple the factory setup. Weak drivetrain? I have transfer case issues, and those are currently being resolved (or so we hope). The prototype transfercase come back this summer.
I was just saying, that I wouldn't do that setup. After weighing all the pro's and con's, it isn't worth it IMHO. Just my professional opinion on this subject, take it or leave it. But maybe I've never researched it??
:confused: ;) :)

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Not doing a high RPM makes much more sense than the HP comment. I was just wondering where you were coming from.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Kinda off topic, but I ran into this guy today in the parking lot at my school. He drove a 2G GS Spyder and I asked him about it. He said he was going to throw a turbo on it eventually. I told him it would be a waste on a GS and he said "No. they come with 2.4's." Hmm...I could've sworn that GS's dont come with 2.4 litre engines, right? But he believes that they do...kinda weird, eh?

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

GS Spyder has a 2.4L.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

The moon man!
Naw, I was just out of it when I posted. I totally ment high rpm.

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Yeah GS spyders have 2.4's in them.

-Colin

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Oh. I did not know that. Cool. I guess that kid did know what he was talking about afterall..heh heh. I should get him to sign up on this forum. :)

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

I like my 2.4l, over 20,000 miles and still going.

Jim

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

Not the 6 bolt ones you want though...

Re: 2.3L vs 2.4L
 

The 2g 4g64s also suffer the possibility of walking!?