How much HP could I expect?
#101
11-17-2007, 07:56 PM
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location:
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#102
11-17-2007, 08:10 PM
Champion
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockton, CA
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How much HP could I expect?
ORIGINAL: Kalevra
how much WHP do R/Ts make? and I'm going off what i've read.
the guy also asked about the head. he asked if the 2.0 and the 2.4 were the same engine essentially. that's where the head comes in
I brought up the F/I power numbers to prove that without boost or nos that it's damn near impossible with 2.0L engines to reach 200 WHP.
and I never said it was impossible to change over the rods and pistons.. so where did you get that? the DOHC is, in my opinion superior to a SOHC. and though you can make the same HP with less boost with the 2.0 has to do with the 2.0L higher compression ratio as well, then boosting on top of that.
sorry about the confusion. I dont really consider a V6 a true mustang, it's the 'econo-stang' to me, smaller engine, more MPG, less of a price, less power. if you want to beat a mustang then you want to beat a V8.
ORIGINAL: 03neonRT
Why are you even brining up the CRANK powr numbers? We're all talking about WHP and like I said, an R/T still makes more then 122WHP STOCK. How is that a radical build by any stretch?
Why are you even brining up the CRANK powr numbers? We're all talking about WHP and like I said, an R/T still makes more then 122WHP STOCK. How is that a radical build by any stretch?
Ok smart ***. I already said they were different blocks, but still very similar. And I never said anything about the heads being the same, so why would you even bring them up when we're talking about the cylinder block, not the cylinder head?
Your finally right about something, it is extremely difficult to get 200WHP N/A out of the 2.0L engine. But why are you brining up the SRT-4's forced induction power numbers when your compaing N/A power? Like Graphite has stated over and over, and proven over and over. You can make the same power on the 2.0 with the same turbo as the SRT-4, with less boost. Yet, you still go on the band wagon that the 2.4 is a superior engine ine very respect "because it was built for a turbo". Too bad the only major thing that makes the 2.4 block stand out over the 2.0 block stock are the damn conencting rods and lower CR pistons. Wow, it would be impossible to add forged rods and low compression pistons to a 2.0 
.
.
and I never said it was impossible to change over the rods and pistons.. so where did you get that? the DOHC is, in my opinion superior to a SOHC. and though you can make the same HP with less boost with the 2.0 has to do with the 2.0L higher compression ratio as well, then boosting on top of that.
I dont even know what your talking about when you say "compete wiyjh a 1.6L-2.0L"...
As for the Mustang, why is it impossible to beat a Mustang? Aside from the new V6 Stangs which run low 15's, all previous V6 Mustangs are easilly beat. Beating a V8 N/A? Good luck, but not entirely impossible. Though, I dont consider it shameful that a 4.6L Eight Cylinder engine produces more power and is faster then a 2.0L Four Cylinder engine natually aspirated. Do you?
As for the Mustang, why is it impossible to beat a Mustang? Aside from the new V6 Stangs which run low 15's, all previous V6 Mustangs are easilly beat. Beating a V8 N/A? Good luck, but not entirely impossible. Though, I dont consider it shameful that a 4.6L Eight Cylinder engine produces more power and is faster then a 2.0L Four Cylinder engine natually aspirated. Do you?
