Notices
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain Everything from engine management to the best clutch and flywheel.

Turbo selection for a 2.4

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 09:28 AM
  #31  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Noisy on the knock sensor or noisy some other way?

The kit that Greg sells and the one I did were identical other than I put mine together and used aluminum rods.
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 09:31 AM
  #32  
EvoVIIIFL's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
From: God waiting room
Originally Posted by JohnBradley
Noisy on the knock sensor or noisy some other way?

The kit that Greg sells and the one I did were identical other than I put mine together and used aluminum rods.
knock noisy
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 09:39 AM
  #33  
Earthen's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
Originally Posted by JohnBradley
8500 is the limit on a 2.4, remember thats the same limit on the 2.3 and its the same R/s. Longer rods help in the long run, but even then if you think you can live at 8500 in either it wont happen. Occasional racing and shifting high is fine, in fact I am starting to think that going higher is even safe.

Also on pumpgas it does make torque more like the full power graph, playing with the boost controller I got some of that back. 20psi comes at 4400 or so despite fuel or boost level.
Based on what he said, "shifting at 8500" seems to me as the norm for his driving. I agree with you that occasional is fine, but why take things to the max when the risk factor is high.

The info I have seen for a 2.4 is saying 8k is max. Do you have documentation for 2.4 rev limits?
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 09:41 AM
  #34  
toxic-evo's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
From: iowa
so 2 ppl have now suggested a 1.06 a/r, i thought a lower a/r would decrease spool time and take off a bit of top end power? help someone
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 09:50 AM
  #35  
toxic-evo's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
From: iowa
Originally Posted by Earthen
Based on what he said, "shifting at 8500" seems to me as the norm for his driving. I agree with you that occasional is fine, but why take things to the max when the risk factor is high.

The info I have seen for a 2.4 is saying 8k is max. Do you have documentation for 2.4 rev limits?
sorry for the confusion, for daily driving i shouldnt need to ever go over 4k.
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 09:57 AM
  #36  
EvoVIIIFL's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
From: God waiting room
Originally Posted by toxic-evo
so 2 ppl have now suggested a 1.06 a/r, i thought a lower a/r would decrease spool time and take off a bit of top end power? help someone
Their thinking higher HP goal wise..

If you want a smaller AR size it will spool stupid fast but you'll suffer on top end..its what you want and what your goals for the car are... honestly if I had a 2.4 block.. I'd autox the **** out of it.. drag racing and street car assault it wouldn't be exactly cut out for...
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 10:03 AM
  #37  
toxic-evo's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
From: iowa
Originally Posted by EvoVIIIFL
Their thinking higher HP goal wise..

If you want a smaller AR size it will spool stupid fast but you'll suffer on top end..its what you want and what your goals for the car are... honestly if I had a 2.4 block.. I'd autox the **** out of it.. drag racing and street car assault it wouldn't be exactly cut out for...
what would be a good a/r then? shouldnt i be looking for a lower power band if i shift while racing at 8500?
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 10:19 AM
  #38  
CBRD's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (60)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,363
Likes: 8
From: york, pa 17402
Originally Posted by dyezak
Since it's a street machine, with 2150cc injectors I'm going to assume you are shooting for 700hp+? If that is correct the CBRD 33r will be out of it's league, a 35r of any flavor should be able to get you there (on e85), but will be pushed hard. 6765 should work and not be over taxed, and the new 37r from FP would be a good fit and won't be pushed too hard.

the 33R on our TA car has made 527whp on straight pump gas alone. That is on our mustang dyno at 27psi.

the billet 35RB holds the pump gas record at 587whp on our dyno over other built motor cars on bigger turbos etc.

just FYI

cb
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 11:52 AM
  #39  
RockmanX's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (78)
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 4
From: Louisiana
8k is fine with me on my 2.4 i really dont see any point in going higher just more risk
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 12:05 PM
  #40  
mt057's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,529
Likes: 12
From: DFW
Originally Posted by toxic-evo
so 2 ppl have now suggested a 1.06 a/r, i thought a lower a/r would decrease spool time and take off a bit of top end power? help someone
I believe that they are refering to a t4 TS 1.06a/r housing. The twin scroll housings need to be larger to flow the same as their open scroll counter parts.
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 12:27 PM
  #41  
EvoVIIIFL's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
From: God waiting room
Originally Posted by CBRD
the 33R on our TA car has made 527whp on straight pump gas alone. That is on our mustang dyno at 27psi.

the billet 35RB holds the pump gas record at 587whp on our dyno over other built motor cars on bigger turbos etc.

just FYI

cb
I'd listen to this guy... I learned a few things back from him along time ago before I even did my build.. very knowlegeable and downright all around good guy
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 12:53 PM
  #42  
shuttlegoose's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
From: philadelphia
I agree with rock. If you have a 2.4 that's not a long rod you might as well just be happy with revving to 8000 and have the motor last a long time. No need to be greedy. If you can't stick with the 2.0. And you don't need 700hp in a street car lol.
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 12:57 PM
  #43  
EvoVIIIFL's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
From: God waiting room
Originally Posted by shuttlegoose
I agree with rock. If you have a 2.4 that's not a long rod you might as well just be happy with revving to 8000 and have the motor last a long time. No need to be greedy. If you can't stick with the 2.0. And you don't need 700hp in a street car lol.
I agreed with everything you said up till And you don't need 700hp in a street car lol thats blasphamy!
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 01:15 PM
  #44  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
657/525 is about the useable limit before traction becomes complicated. That being said 720 is alot more fun.
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 01:35 PM
  #45  
03whitegsr's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 17
From: Utah
Hum, a guy I use to work with has a door slammer running 7s revving to 10k with push rods and a 4.75" stroke with like a 1.4:1 R/S ratio.

I don't get how 8500 is the max on a 4" stroke, 1.5 R/S ratio overhead cam motor? I could see that being where the head choked it, but not piston speed.
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:09 PM.