dude, use the search function. I know it's not the best but it still helps to get rid of a couple of you questions.
You would use the head that is currently on your Eclipse/Talon/Avenger. The main differance in the 2.4 and 2.0 motors is the block hight. The 2.4L is an inch or so taller to give it a bigger stock (more room for a bigger crank/piston moves up and down farther allowing more volume 2.4L over 2.0L)
Everything else is minor changes but kinda a pain cause no one makes a kit and you need to learn as you go (or ask Skrilla and The1bill).
With that said- now you know that you will have basically a "taller" 2.0L so- What kind of turbo will bolt to this motor you ask? Any turbo kit designed for a 2gnt. The only modification you would need to do is extand the downpipe to reach the rest of the exhaust.
As for stock hp. I'm tired of searching but I'm guessing it was somewhere near 150-160ish hp.
I'm not tryin to be a smart ass or anything. It's just that we get this question asked too many times and people are too lazy to click the "search" button or check out the "things we've seen before" section of the board.
#39261, "RE: 2.4 engine and turbo ????" In response to Reply # 1
I've run some simulations on the Dyno2000 program. You really have to look at the hp & torque curves to see where the benifits are to this swap. The following charts are from the Dyno2000 and are just simulations...but the simulations are running the same parameters - so the actual peak numbers may be different in real life, but the difference in gains should be similar.
This first one is just with a block swap. Everything else is stock. There is a gain of 10 peak HP and 30 peak ft-lbs torque(supposedly the actual difference is 40 ft-lbs in real life). One important difference here is that the whole torqe curve is shifted up from idle to 6500RPM - so you'll have more hp to 6500 RPM by just swapping out the block.
This next one is if I were to swap over to a 2.4L block on my current setup. I have Gude camshafts, a Jeep TB, and ported exhaust manifold - so the curves look a little different then the stock. For this comparison all of these modifications are bolted onto the new block. The torqe curve is higher througout the entire range. I'll get around 5HP peak difference at redline, and about 25 ft-lbs peak torque difference. Again the important distinction here is that the entire torqe curve is higher - which means more horsepower over the entire range.
One other chart for you. This one is to display how well the longer stroke displacement reacts to mods. This one is basically the same setup that I have except with some head work(15% increase in flow), some high compression pistons(12.5:1 CR), and bored to the max(.140 over). These modifications are done on both blocks for this comparison. All of the sudden there's a 15HP peak difference at red line. The torque peak difference also widens to 35 ft-lb. But all along the way - the 2.4L(well now it's a 2.66L with the bore job) just gives more torqe compared to the 2.0L(2.185L w/bore job) with flow and compression mods. Can you imagine 250 ft-lbs out of a little 4 banger. That thing would sound like a monster.
Now as far as turbocharging is concerned, the formula goes something like this. If you force in 14.7 lbs of boost, you'll essentially double your torque. Lets take the middle chart(block swap on my current setup). Throw a stage 2 system at both blocks and run 7.5 psi - the torqe should jump by half of the N/A output. So with my current 2.0L block/setup the torqe should bump up by 85(half of 170) - from 170 to 255 ft-lbs torque. With the 2.4L block on the same setup it would jump by 97.5(half of 195) from 195 to 292 ft-lbs torque. So with a turbo there is a 40 ft-lb torque difference between the 2.0L and 2.4L blocks at 7.5 psi...up from a 25 ft-lb difference N/A.
Bottom line - the 2.4L will give you better gains then the 2.0L N/A. The 2.4L will also give you better gains then the the 2.0L when turbocharging. The truth: There is no replacement for displacement.
ride__________95 Eclipse RS : 5 speed power________Field SFC Hyper-R : Gude cams : Jeep TB : AFX UDP : ram air : test pipe : GST catback suspention___Hurricane F/R lower strut ties : BOMZ F/R upper strut bars : ES inserts sound________Kenwood KDC 5000 : Audiovox 8" sub toob - no sub amp(damnit!) shizzle_______AutoCommand remote start : dual air horns : Caspers o2 simulator(rear) incomming___Bosal header Jeep TB writeup - http://www.dimensia.com:81/jimbo/JeepTBfor2gnt.html
#39262, "RE: 2.4 engine and turbo ????" In response to Reply # 2
very nice jim,
argh im waiitn on my pistons still =( sniffle i want my motor together!
there was calcutaed a while ago 22% increase witha 2.4 the biggest problem with the 2.4 is our stock cams are so small that it doesn't take advantage of the 2.4 at all it hurts it alot if u add big cams the motor wakes up real fast cam can bea huge gain depends on mods 50 or more hp
You can have it cheap, fast or good. Pick any two.
If you want it cheap and fast, it's not going to be good. If you want it cheap and good, it's not going to be fast. If you want it good and fast, it's not going to be cheap.
Bill says that Blackdog is boring them(both the 2.0L and the 2.4L) to .140 over. Doh! I just realized that the third graph up there I was using 160 over - oops. Ahh, it's just for demonstration purposes. Anyway, if you up the stock bore from the stock 3.445 to 3.585 you'll have: 2.0L bored .140 over ~ 2162 cc(not quite a 2.2L) 2.4L bored .140 over ~ 2630 cc(yep, a 2.6L)
ride__________95 Eclipse RS : 5 speed power________Field SFC Hyper-R : Gude cams : Jeep TB : AFX UDP : ram air : test pipe : GST catback suspention___Hurricane F/R lower strut ties : BOMZ F/R upper strut bars : ES inserts sound________Kenwood KDC 5000 : Audiovox 8" sub toob - no sub amp(damnit!) shizzle_______AutoCommand remote start : dual air horns : Caspers o2 simulator(rear) incomming___Bosal header Jeep TB writeup - http://www.dimensia.com:81/jimbo/JeepTBfor2gnt.html
#39266, "RE: 2.4 engine and turbo ????" In response to Reply # 6
i think the actual "limit" is like 180 but 140 is so u have maybe one or two bores left so its nota one shot deal...
but jim is right
u can bore it out 2.4 -2.6 if u used a special head gasket setup with the right pistons and such u might be able to get a little more stroke out of it....
the 2.4 is a non interference design from the factory so the pistons cant hit the valves but the valves can hit them selves and runt the valves into the pistons, so u can get a high compression setup out of a 2.4 above 12.5 most likly but with some big arse drag cams u probably wont have an non interference motor anymore...
You can have it cheap, fast or good. Pick any two.
If you want it cheap and fast, it's not going to be good. If you want it cheap and good, it's not going to be fast. If you want it good and fast, it's not going to be cheap.
Dark0ne95: There is a butthole on that girl that his going to feel the wrath of 23 yeras of worldwide hate. Me: Can I put that in my sig? Dark0ne95: GO right fucking ahead.
#39268, "RE: Just joshin'" In response to Reply # 8
yea u too }>
You can have it cheap, fast or good. Pick any two.
If you want it cheap and fast, it's not going to be good. If you want it cheap and good, it's not going to be fast. If you want it good and fast, it's not going to be cheap.
#39269, "RE: Just joshin'" In response to Reply # 9
Muahahahaha... By the way, that's my first photoshop that I have ever made and posted! -=B-=
Dude, Boeing called. They want their wing back.
Dark0ne95: There is a butthole on that girl that his going to feel the wrath of 23 yeras of worldwide hate. Me: Can I put that in my sig? Dark0ne95: GO right fucking ahead.
Search
Printer-friendly copy
0 Users in Chat
2.4L over 2.0L) 
