Quote:
Originally posted by Jakey+Jan 26 2004, 11:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jakey @ Jan 26 2004, 11:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by . guest .@Jan 26 2004, 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jakey@Jan 26 2004, 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MustGoFaster@Jan 26 2004, 10:08 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-. guest .
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
@Jan 26 2004, 07:40 PM
Advice: Stick with the 4g63.
|
I was just wondering if there is any specific logic to this? I don't care for the 2.4 '64 thing much my self but I almost feel like I am missing out on something. I know most of the benefits and down sides but more insight is always welcome.
|
Well, I'm going to toss out my $0.02 as how I interpreted .guest.'s comment. I believe he is saying that if DJGHOST has not done enough research on the 4G64 to know whether it is possible to do the 4G64/63 swap, he should probably be straying away from it.
|
Hey, at least someone understands my bitchy asshole responses. 
|
Hey I'm only 75% newbie, then maybe when I finally purchase my own DSM, I'll be down to 50% newbie
[/b][/quote]
Ah, i'm just in a cranky mood. 2.4's are nice but only a few will have nicely running ones imho. The others who attempt it will never finish it or will probably not even get them started. There's the advantage of using bigger turbos and having a nice powerband with big power capable turbos. It's more of a just nice to have imo.