1st Gen Neon 1995 through 1999 Neons

Turbo 2.0L or naturally aspirated 2.4L???

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 01:43 AM
  #11  
JackMehoffer69's Avatar
JackMehoffer69
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Kahzakstan
Default RE: Turbo 2.0L or naturally aspirated 2.4L???

ORIGINAL: mulletman11

95to96 was saying the block for the 2.4 is lighter than the oem engine i believe?

and ur gonna have a hard time getting it down to 1700 lbs my man, evan with everything guttted
ur gonna need that fake lass **** and carbon fier everything
use big cams and shorty headers for low rpm gains
you just proved my point again, be more specific i'm sure he figured out that much. tell him what size cams would be good and what brand carbon fiber and shorty headerwould be good and ect don't just post *****. be specific like i said he figured that much out for himself. you just told him what any member here no matter their mechanical ability could have told him sostop acting smart and get your nose out of the air and come back down to earth, i'm not very smart with cars but i admit i'd be very disapointed with the response you gave.
 
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 01:46 AM
  #12  
JackMehoffer69's Avatar
JackMehoffer69
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Kahzakstan
Default RE: Turbo 2.0L or naturally aspirated 2.4L???

ORIGINAL: mulletman11

^^300 horse?^^

lemme see that dyno sheet..............

you wouldn't know how to read it even if i had it.
 
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 04:41 PM
  #13  
mulletman11's Avatar
mulletman11
All Star
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
From:
Default RE: Turbo 2.0L or naturally aspirated 2.4L???

i dont know how to read a dyno? your saying this cause u know my capabilitys of looking at a line on a paper?
ok, didnt know you knew me that well

and post whoring?
who just posted 3 messages, but didnt actually say anything?

you jack off
 
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 05:01 PM
  #14  
JackMehoffer69's Avatar
JackMehoffer69
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Kahzakstan
Default RE: Turbo 2.0L or naturally aspirated 2.4L???

ORIGINAL: mulletman11

i dont know how to read a dyno your saying this cause u know my capabilitys of looking at a line on a paper?
Exactly.

me giving you my dyno sheet to read would be like me giving my dog the news paper to read and comprehend.

As for the guy who wants to go turbo or na 2.4, I would say turbo the 2.4 and have some fun.
 
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 06:00 PM
  #15  
Captansavaho's Avatar
Captansavaho
Captain
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
From: san jose
Default RE: Turbo 2.0L or naturally aspirated 2.4L???

ORIGINAL: JackMehoffer69

ORIGINAL: mulletman11

i dont know how to read a dyno your saying this cause u know my capabilitys of looking at a line on a paper?
Exactly.

me giving you my dyno sheet to read would be like me giving my dog the news paper to read and comprehend.

As for the guy who wants to go turbo or na 2.4, I would say turbo the 2.4 and have some fun.

thats his dilemma...its one or the other...because of the racing rules and so on...it can be up to a 2.28L motor..unelss its a n/a which can be up to a 3.2...and do you know of a 4 banger thats a 3.2 that will fit in a neon with out major work?

as for the original problem you should stick with the 2.0/2.2 you basically explained it yourself in the beginning...but as far as running a 10.5:1 compression im not to sure on that...i mean i dont see why not but...double check with spud or 95to96...also pending on the turbo you get...i will try and find a list of spool times for different turbos...on a 2.0/2.2...i could have sworn somebody has posted it before
 
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 08:08 PM
  #16  
95to96transplantneon's Avatar
95to96transplantneon
Record Breaker
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,885
Likes: 0
From:
Default RE: Turbo 2.0L or naturally aspirated 2.4L???

why not go 2.4 and throw a lettered 2.0 valve cover on there no one will be the wiser...
 
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 09:03 PM
  #17  
mulletman11's Avatar
mulletman11
All Star
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
From:
Default RE: Turbo 2.0L or naturally aspirated 2.4L???

jack off i was being sacrastic, i didnt know you knew me well enough to judge wether or not i can read a dyno
and seeing as i can, you an idiot
as for a dog reading a news paper, that makes just about as much sense as you with 300 hp

 
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 09:35 PM
  #18  
Ghost Neon 2's Avatar
Ghost Neon 2
Record Breaker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,216
Likes: 0
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Default RE: Turbo 2.0L or naturally aspirated 2.4L???


ORIGINAL: 95to96transplantneon

why not go 2.4 and throw a lettered 2.0 valve cover on there no one will be the wiser...
And BINGO was his name-O
 
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 11:12 PM
  #19  
JackMehoffer69's Avatar
JackMehoffer69
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Kahzakstan
Default RE: Turbo 2.0L or naturally aspirated 2.4L???

ORIGINAL: mulletman11

jack off i was being sacrastic, i didnt know you knew me well enough to judge wether or not i can read a dyno
and seeing as i can, you an idiot
as for a dog reading a news paper, that makes just about as much sense as you with 300 hp

I don't know how i can run 14 psi with a professionally done head .20 over pistons,forged rods, crane #18 cams, 60mm throttle body,srt4 intercooler full race balance on rods pistons fly wheel and clutch ect.. and still not be near 300hp.
 
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 11:21 PM
  #20  
das2123's Avatar
das2123
Legend
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,112
Likes: 1
From: Spring, TX
Default RE: Turbo 2.0L or naturally aspirated 2.4L???

A hahn stage 2 on 8-10psi is 250-275 at the crank...so I can see you around 300HP.

I would like to see some pics of your setup.
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:40 PM.