I just went turbo and am looking for rebuild. What is the best block to use i know that fty has the 2.2 but is there any other places that sells better blocks. I'm trying to hit low 12's and push 25psi hopefully. And time really isn't an issue. Is fty the best place to go?

fty has proven their blocks are very good also howell.

If you can find a better block than the one from FTY let us know. I am doubting its existance. Seriously FTY builds the best 420a's out there. If your running high boost just let them know, they will give you a little more clearance for piston expantion.

What is the best to get the 2.2? Or should i get their 2.4 and have custom mounts and stuff

search! argh! FTY...call them! they are everywhere in the archives and have vendor status on the 2gnt main page!

www.2gnt.com/nuke/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=65. Pick up teh phone yo

if ya dont like them...try www.2gnt.com/nuke/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=46.

Originally posted by Uberingram
argh!

LOL! :p

the *best*block is the 2.4 the 2.2 would be second inline and the 3rd a 2.0

if you can tune a 2.0 will do it but a 2.2 or 2.4 will make things a whole lot easier..

len made 500hp ona 2.0 but the average joe wont.

Originally posted by MotoFool
the *best*block is the 2.4 the 2.2 would be second inline and the 3rd a 2.0 if you can tune a 2.0 will do it but a 2.2 or 2.4 will make things a whole lot easier.. len made 500hp ona 2.0 but the average joe wont.

how does the 2.2 and 2.4 make it easier to tune? jw

thanks

Originally posted by ryan_siefring23
how does the 2.2 and 2.4 make it easier to tune? jw thanks

It doesn't. MotoFool likes to think he knows what he is talking about, but for the most part he's just feeding people bullshit to try to get them to purchase his sub-par parts.

Originally posted by admin2

Originally posted by ryan_siefring23 how does the 2.2 and 2.4 make it easier to tune? jw thanks

It doesn't. MotoFool likes to think he knows what he is talking about, but for the most part he's just feeding people bullshit to try to get them to purchase his sub-par parts.

harsh

the 2.2 is way better than 2.4 imo too


_________
96 talon esi-t
san clemente, ca

DarkOne> Screw you guys, i'm going home.
chrysler kid> and fyi i have never HAD to shave.
DR1665> I'm sure your Talon and my Talon are all there needs to be, since we're the only two Talons that really matter around here

"drugs have taught an entire generation of american kids the metric system. "

with a 2.2 or 2.4 you can make power easier then with a 2.0 tuning wouldn't be much different but there is no replacment for displacement.

Couple of options

get the new 2.4 out of a PT or SRT4 - parts are cheap

get a 2.2 from Howell or FTY

get a 2.0 from Howell


my friend did the 2.0 with all the goodies

i would not get a 2.4 from a srt4 it has a different crank trigger ignition and is not compatible with the 420a electronics.

Originally posted by MotoFool
with a 2.2 or 2.4 you can make power easier then with a 2.0 tuning wouldn't be much different but there is no replacment for displacement.

You're mistakin. It doesn't matter with a boosted car whether you are a 2.0 or a 2.4. The amount of potential for power lies with the turbo. The turbo can only flow so much air. If you are flowing the same volume of air with a 2.0 that you are with a 2.4, assuming tuning is identical, you will make the same power.

The only difference is that you will get more low end torque with the 2.4 and it will spool the turbo faster. However, the the shorter r/s ratio of the 2.0 will allow a higher redline, and consiquently, higher HP up top. with FTY's 2.2, you also get a custom billet crankshaft that is capable of even higher revs than the stock 2.0 crank. This gives you the ability to spool the turbo quicker, gives you some more torque down low, and allows you to make some mad HP at high rpm.

In my opinion, the 2.2 from FTY is the way to go. Some people will throw phrases like, "there's no replacement for displacement" when trying to convince you what motor to buy, but that's bullshit. Having more displacement isn't always going to help you out. With all the added torque of the 2.4 running serious boost, I'm going to guess that you will have major problems with traction staying fwd. I would rather have more usable power over a broader rpm range at the track than a lot of torque early on, and less ability for great top end HP. It's all a trade-off.

Originally posted by Matt_95tgs

Originally posted by MotoFool with a 2.2 or 2.4 you can make power easier then with a 2.0 tuning wouldn't be much different but there is no replacment for displacement.

You're mistakin. It doesn't matter with a boosted car whether you are a 2.0 or a 2.4. The amount of potential for power lies with the turbo. The turbo can only flow so much air. If you are flowing the same volume of air with a 2.0 that you are with a 2.4, assuming tuning is identical, you will make the same power.

this isnt true, a 2.4 has 22% more displacement. u take a perfectly tuned setup, tuned by the same tuner. everything is the same but block take for instance. one is dynoing a 2.4 and the other is a 2.0. say if the 2.0 lays down 320 whp at 16psi's. i gurantee on the 2.4 will make make atleast 15-22% more than that. according to my caculation, a bear minimum of 51.2 hp more than the 2.0, which makes sense. so once again, theres no replacment fo displacment. not to mention, that nasty torque cuvrve a 2.4 lays out compared to the 2.0, and thats what our heavy ass cas need.

matt, you need to come out the lynchburg and help with my install, i got free room and board and all the beer u can dring:thumbsup


DWAYNE H
1996 eclipse
under construction widebody eclipse, targa top, 19inch rollers, big brakes, 10 point custom cage, frank 2.4 hrc s20g turbo, custom marble paint job

2000 Yamaha R-1, 165rwhp 117 ftlbs tq

Originally posted by widebodied
this isnt true, a 2.4 has 22% more displacement. u take a perfectly tuned setup, tuned by the same tuner. everything is the same but block take for instance. one is dynoing a 2.4 and the other is a 2.0. say if the 2.0 lays down 320 whp at 16psi's. i gurantee on the 2.4 will make make atleast 15-22% more than that. according to my caculation, a bear minimum of 51.2 hp more than the 2.0, which makes sense. so once again, theres no replacment fo displacment. not to mention, that nasty torque cuvrve a 2.4 lays out compared to the 2.0, and thats what our heavy ass cas need. matt, you need to come out the lynchburg and help with my install, i got free room and board and all the beer u can dring:thumbsup

I have proof you are wrong but cannot play this trump card out of respect for someone else. Too bad. I like being right.

prove it big shot :rolleyes

DWAYNE H
1996 eclipse
under construction widebody eclipse, targa top, 19inch rollers, big brakes, 10 point custom cage, frank 2.4 hrc s20g turbo, custom marble paint job

2000 Yamaha R-1, 165rwhp 117 ftlbs tq

Originally posted by widebodied
prove it big shot :rolleyes

DWAYNE H 1996 eclipse under construction widebody eclipse, targa top, 19inch rollers, big brakes, 10 point custom cage, frank 2.4 hrc s20g turbo, custom marble paint job 2000 Yamaha R-1, 165rwhp 117 ftlbs tq

Dems fightin words.

Originally posted by mike_d

Originally posted by widebodied prove it big shot :rolleyes DWAYNE H 1996 eclipse under construction widebody eclipse, targa top, 19inch rollers, big brakes, 10 point custom cage, frank 2.4 hrc s20g turbo, custom marble paint job 2000 Yamaha R-1, 165rwhp 117 ftlbs tq

Dems fightin words.

Ha Ha, I let out a medium sized laugh.

Originally posted by widebodied

Originally posted by Matt_95tgs

Originally posted by MotoFool with a 2.2 or 2.4 you can make power easier then with a 2.0 tuning wouldn't be much different but there is no replacment for displacement.

You're mistakin. It doesn't matter with a boosted car whether you are a 2.0 or a 2.4. The amount of potential for power lies with the turbo. The turbo can only flow so much air. If you are flowing the same volume of air with a 2.0 that you are with a 2.4, assuming tuning is identical, you will make the same power.

this isnt true, a 2.4 has 22% more displacement. u take a perfectly tuned setup, tuned by the same tuner. everything is the same but block take for instance. one is dynoing a 2.4 and the other is a 2.0. say if the 2.0 lays down 320 whp at 16psi's. i gurantee on the 2.4 will make make atleast 15-22% more than that. according to my caculation, a bear minimum of 51.2 hp more than the 2.0, which makes sense. so once again, theres no replacment fo displacment. not to mention, that nasty torque cuvrve a 2.4 lays out compared to the 2.0, and thats what our heavy ass cas need. matt, you need to come out the lynchburg and help with my install, i got free room and board and all the beer u can dring:thumbsup DWAYNE H 1996 eclipse under construction widebody eclipse, targa top, 19inch rollers, big brakes, 10 point custom cage, frank 2.4 hrc s20g turbo, custom marble paint job 2000 Yamaha R-1, 165rwhp 117 ftlbs tq

I guarentee you I'm not wrong. The torque/hp curve will be very different in shape, but peak power comes from the amount of air/fuel in each cylinder. The turbo is the limiting factor of how much air can potentially flow to through the motor, not the displacement.

Now if you were to run only 5 psi on a 2.0, then run 5 psi on a 2.4, then of course the 2.4 will make more power because the turbo will be flowing more in order to keep up with the increased displacement. BUT, a turbo can only flow so much. Once that max flow point is reached, it doesnt matter if you have a 1.8 liter or a 6.0 liter, you will make the same power.

Also, the added torque won't do anything to make up for the weight of the car. You'll have enough problems with traction with a 2.0 or a 2.2 as it is. There is such a thing as too much torque ;)

As for coming out to Lynchburg, I just passed though there yesterday on business. I'm sure we can arrange some weekend to meet up and work on it though.

Originally posted by Matt_95tgs

Originally posted by MotoFool with a 2.2 or 2.4 you can make power easier then with a 2.0 tuning wouldn't be much different but there is no replacment for displacement.

You're mistakin. It doesn't matter with a boosted car whether you are a 2.0 or a 2.4. The amount of potential for power lies with the turbo. The turbo can only flow so much air. If you are flowing the same volume of air with a 2.0 that you are with a 2.4, assuming tuning is identical, you will make the same power. The only difference is that you will get more low end torque with the 2.4 and it will spool the turbo faster. However, the the shorter r/s ratio of the 2.0 will allow a higher redline, and consiquently, higher HP up top. with FTY's 2.2, you also get a custom billet crankshaft that is capable of even higher revs than the stock 2.0 crank. This gives you the ability to spool the turbo quicker, gives you some more torque down low, and allows you to make some mad HP at high rpm. In my opinion, the 2.2 from FTY is the way to go. Some people will throw phrases like, "there's no replacement for displacement" when trying to convince you what motor to buy, but that's bullshit. Having more displacement isn't always going to help you out. With all the added torque of the 2.4 running serious boost, I'm going to guess that you will have major problems with traction staying fwd. I would rather have more usable power over a broader rpm range at the track than a lot of torque early on, and less ability for great top end HP. It's all a trade-off.

the amount of power and torque depends on BOTH the displacement and the turbo's ouput, sheesh. x lbs of boost on y cc of displacement is going to give you z hp/torque. change x OR y and you will change the power output. if you have the same amount of boost on the large engine and small displacement one, the larger displacement engine is going to make more power. be specific, are you saying that both the 2.4 L and 2.0L will use the same turbo in your example? why restrict yourself - a larger displacement engine can sustain a larger turbo.

it seems like all you guys are cranky today or something. chill out people :+

Hmm. I guess we wont know until the next shootout. :shrug

Originally posted by Initial DSM
Hmm. I guess we wont know until the next shootout. :shrug

naw, youll know after i unstrap this beast off the dyno

DWAYNE H
1996 eclipse
under construction widebody eclipse, targa top, 19inch rollers, big brakes, 10 point custom cage, frank 2.4 hrc s20g turbo, custom marble paint job

2000 Yamaha R-1, 165rwhp 117 ftlbs tq

Alright so which do you think would be better the fty 2.2 or their 2.4.

lol

1996 Eclipse RS / 5-Speed / Aerogear Body / Coated in Magnetic Red Metallic rev.2 / T3 Turbo Intercooled @ 8 psi / More at http://home.insightbb.com/~mgalyan/
Mark Galyan - Indianapolis, Indiana

Originally posted by ez
the amount of power and torque depends on BOTH the displacement and the turbo's ouput, sheesh. x lbs of boost on y cc of displacement is going to give you z hp/torque. change x OR y and you will change the power output. if you have the same amount of boost on the large engine and small displacement one, the larger displacement engine is going to make more power. be specific, are you saying that both the 2.4 L and 2.0L will use the same turbo in your example? why restrict yourself - a larger displacement engine can sustain a larger turbo. it seems like all you guys are cranky today or something. chill out people :+

Here is the problem with this statement. A turbo is not maxed out with the amount of boost it can run, but rather the amount of air flow it can produce. What I am saying is that assuming that each engine is operating at the maximum amount of FLOW (not boost) from identical turbos, equally tuned, they WILL make the same power, period. Your equation, "x lbs of boost on y cc of displacement gives you z hp/torque" is completely not reliable. Instead you should use x amount of air flow with y amount of fuel produces z BTU's of usable energy.

Honestly, I'm not being cranky, just clearing things up. Misinformation is the devil!! :P

You guys are so wrong and don't know it (except for Dino and Matt, they're right). It's kinda funny. The only reason to get larger displacement in a turbo FWD car is so that you can spool a larger turbo. Power isn't made by displacement it's made by the amount of air and fuel that can be combusted. When you talk about forced induction, displacement goes out of the equation in terms of peak power. The extra displacement will change the torque and power curve but peak numbers will be the same. You WON'T see at 22% increase in peak power. I promise you!

Agreed with the above. In shorter words...

More displacement means you can support a bigger turbo, which then means you can flow more air, which will get you more power.