1st Gen Neon 1995 through 1999 Neons

so what would be .. 2.4 to 2.0

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 04-22-2008 | 12:23 PM
boxerjl2's Avatar
boxerjl2
Thread Starter
|
Record Breaker
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,619
Likes: 0
From: Sand Springs Oklahoma
Default so what would be .. 2.4 to 2.0

ok so if you put the 2.0 dohc cams in the 2.4 its makes it peform better,, what happens if you put the 2.4 dohc cams into the 2.0
 
  #2  
Old 04-22-2008 | 02:37 PM
neonracer1010's Avatar
neonracer1010
All Star
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
From: Janesville, Wisconsin
Default RE: so what would be .. 2.4 to 2.0

i think there the same cams because they are the same heads
 
  #3  
Old 04-22-2008 | 06:02 PM
fsu182's Avatar
fsu182
Captain
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
From: PA
Default RE: so what would be .. 2.4 to 2.0

na. the 2.4 cams are designed for low end torque. 2.0's for higher rpm power. this is because the stratus/caravan etc weigh more, and take more torque to move from a dead stop. neons are lighter, and therefor dont need as much low end torque for how chrysler wanted them to move.

2.4 cams will probably roast your tires even more, but lack in high end power. im pretty sure you can use a 2.4 intake cam and a 2.0 exhaust cam to get a little of both.
 
  #4  
Old 04-22-2008 | 06:06 PM
boxerjl2's Avatar
boxerjl2
Thread Starter
|
Record Breaker
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,619
Likes: 0
From: Sand Springs Oklahoma
Default RE: so what would be .. 2.4 to 2.0

so your saying if i stuck with the 2.4 cams i could of had more torque.. well anyway i like how my car is the way it is but it would of been interesting to drive with the normal 2.4 cams then swap the 2.0 cams in and see the differance..
 
  #5  
Old 04-22-2008 | 06:50 PM
fsu182's Avatar
fsu182
Captain
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
From: PA
Default RE: so what would be .. 2.4 to 2.0

not more torque - just peak torque at a different place in the powerband. most likely it'd just let you spin your tires longer - not neccesarily make the car faster unless you made other mods - but you wouldnt have as much power in your upper rpms as you do with the 2.0 cams.

n like you said - ur already able to burn the tires pretty good.
 
  #6  
Old 04-22-2008 | 07:14 PM
95to96transplantneon's Avatar
95to96transplantneon
Record Breaker
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,885
Likes: 0
From:
Default RE: so what would be .. 2.4 to 2.0

you wouldent have been able to go over 5500 rpm josh... the 2.4 would have fallen on its face around 5500rpm... you wouldent have the **** eating grin you do now...
 
  #7  
Old 04-22-2008 | 07:49 PM
fsu182's Avatar
fsu182
Captain
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
From: PA
Default RE: so what would be .. 2.4 to 2.0

to add - if jeremy helped you - im sure you have best setup with the parts you had.
 
  #8  
Old 04-23-2008 | 03:58 AM
boxerjl2's Avatar
boxerjl2
Thread Starter
|
Record Breaker
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,619
Likes: 0
From: Sand Springs Oklahoma
Default RE: so what would be .. 2.4 to 2.0

yeah its pretty sweet.. i just wished he had the chance to drive it to see his grin[8D]
 




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:27 AM.