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.

myspace.com/coastiecobb

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.

____________________________________________________
four nails four corners four riders and four horses

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.

__________________________________________
~Chris
03 SRT-4

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.

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.

i have an avenger, needs a turbo though.

_________________________________________
I'm the guy that bans you for breaking the rules. I am the troll killer. I am the law here.

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 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.

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.

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.

Matt
1995 Eclipse GS
2.0L, S16g Turbo, 8 Injectors, 26psi

1998 Eclipse GSX
2.3L Stroker, AEM EMS Converted to Speed Density, FP3065 Turbo, 35psi , and so on...

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 drin

______________________________
If a sentence found online has 35% misspellings or greater and includes at least two racially charged expletives, chances are it is a YouTube comment.

'95 Eclipse TurboGS (garage deco)
'95 TSi AWD (restoring a survivor)
'97 Talon ESi-T (poor impulse control)
'99 Eclipse RS-T (daily beater)
'13 Evo X (mostly stock)
'17 Sienna (Middle Aged Dad Mobile)



Factory Service Manuals: http://nawdu.de/files/

prove it big shot

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

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

_______________________________________


95 Talon ESi-T

Originally posted by mike_d

Originally posted by widebodied prove it big shot 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.

Evo 8 - 12.3@113 circa 2009 (~330whp)
Now with BB Xona Rotor HTZ FP Red and ~450whp
2018 MSM Civic SI Ktuner TSP stage 1 w/ Honda hacked headunit.

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 drin 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

Matt
1995 Eclipse GS
2.0L, S16g Turbo, 8 Injectors, 26psi

1998 Eclipse GSX
2.3L Stroker, AEM EMS Converted to Speed Density, FP3065 Turbo, 35psi , and so on...

2gnt: '99 RS-T, killed by a toyota, pending rebuild...
Daily: Volt
Daily #2: '99 EVG ebike- STOLEN by PEDRO

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

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

Matt
1995 Eclipse GS
2.0L, S16g Turbo, 8 Injectors, 26psi

1998 Eclipse GSX
2.3L Stroker, AEM EMS Converted to Speed Density, FP3065 Turbo, 35psi , and so on...

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!

-"Easy Mac"
05 Mazda RX-8 (RR8 #88)
99 Eclipse RS 398whp & 372lb-ft

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.

amiller99rs: seriously, chicks suck sometimes
amiller99rs: like if a girl walked by and said "Hey, nice cock" and just kept going you'd smile all day about that