why changing from 2.3 to 2.0?
this is correct. besides dont take it from me. You have ridden in my 2.4 give some brief impressions because you were on the fence about building a 2.4 or a 21.
Also yes you can buy a block and crank from mike@awd for 500 shipped. then just buy your internals of choice and take it to machine shop get them to clean deck assemble balance etc bam save tons of money boss
. Every once in awhile you will see a actual built 2.4 for sale. SBR sales them for a good price as well last time i looked 3200 for there best model.
Also yes you can buy a block and crank from mike@awd for 500 shipped. then just buy your internals of choice and take it to machine shop get them to clean deck assemble balance etc bam save tons of money boss
. Every once in awhile you will see a actual built 2.4 for sale. SBR sales them for a good price as well last time i looked 3200 for there best model.
BAM again this dude is cooking with crisco. That good **** offset good cost i sold just my shorty complete minus oil pan for 1300 just to put it out there
hint hint hint i found my block in the sales aid new. had some correctable issues but overall still made out less then 3k or check out SBR blocks for sale English Racing and Map has great prices as well
There's a thread on it...
The idea was to build a LR 2.4 w/ quality parts, & be able to push the engine to 9000 rpms w/ high HP set ups. I used the same philosophy but for a more responsive FP Black set up, & it was pricey.
The idea was to build a LR 2.4 w/ quality parts, & be able to push the engine to 9000 rpms w/ high HP set ups. I used the same philosophy but for a more responsive FP Black set up, & it was pricey.
Last edited by 38six; Dec 10, 2010 at 04:46 AM.
When I did my research the lightest off the shelf rotating assembly was Winberg crank shaft (3000.00) & Crower ti rods (2500.00). I was actually going to try this combo in a 2.3L, but then I got excellent deals for a LR 2.4. 
I dont really understand the need to rev to 9k RPMs other than having a really slow spooling turbo and needing more revs to increase the power band. When it comes down to it a fast car has a large power band and gear to compliment it's torque range. The only reason to rev high is with a slow spooling turbo where you need the upper revs to increase that power range.
My point is, if you can spool a turbo ~20% faster then you need ~20% less revs for that setup. So their isnt a need to rev a 2.4 like a 2.0. You aren't really gaining anything from it.
I'm sure we can argue the merits of each all day long, but what it comes down to is torque accelerates your car. Being able to hold a gear a few MPH more is nice for a few reasons but not nearly as necessary as getting a street car moving to the power band.
It is funny that most people that argue a 2.0 havent used a 2.3 or 2.4. Far to much bench racing with inappropriate bench marks (RPM limit).
My point is, if you can spool a turbo ~20% faster then you need ~20% less revs for that setup. So their isnt a need to rev a 2.4 like a 2.0. You aren't really gaining anything from it.
I'm sure we can argue the merits of each all day long, but what it comes down to is torque accelerates your car. Being able to hold a gear a few MPH more is nice for a few reasons but not nearly as necessary as getting a street car moving to the power band.
It is funny that most people that argue a 2.0 havent used a 2.3 or 2.4. Far to much bench racing with inappropriate bench marks (RPM limit).
Evolving Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
From: ocean
I dont really understand the need to rev to 9k RPMs other than having a really slow spooling turbo and needing more revs to increase the power band. When it comes down to it a fast car has a large power band and gear to compliment it's torque range. The only reason to rev high is with a slow spooling turbo where you need the upper revs to increase that power range.
My point is, if you can spool a turbo ~20% faster then you need ~20% less revs for that setup. So their isnt a need to rev a 2.4 like a 2.0. You aren't really gaining anything from it.
I'm sure we can argue the merits of each all day long, but what it comes down to is torque accelerates your car. Being able to hold a gear a few MPH more is nice for a few reasons but not nearly as necessary as getting a street car moving to the power band.
It is funny that most people that argue a 2.0 havent used a 2.3 or 2.4. Far to much bench racing with inappropriate bench marks (RPM limit).
My point is, if you can spool a turbo ~20% faster then you need ~20% less revs for that setup. So their isnt a need to rev a 2.4 like a 2.0. You aren't really gaining anything from it.
I'm sure we can argue the merits of each all day long, but what it comes down to is torque accelerates your car. Being able to hold a gear a few MPH more is nice for a few reasons but not nearly as necessary as getting a street car moving to the power band.
It is funny that most people that argue a 2.0 havent used a 2.3 or 2.4. Far to much bench racing with inappropriate bench marks (RPM limit).
im trying to push 800whp, but i was kind of worried about my torque being low with that amount of power
. so my choises r:1. stick to the 2.1, rev high- high whp but low torque (current motor)
2. buil a 2.4 sb, low revs- high whp, high torque but slow spooiling from the turbo wont allow the car to show its true power
(old plans for my 2.4)3.built a 2.4 lb, high revs- high whp, high torque, no problem from the spooling of the turbo since i could rev to the moon
and ready to kick some ***(new plans)witch 1 looks better so i could stick to it
as for the drive train: i have the shep ultimate ratio tranny, a quaife in the tc, alumminum drive shaft from AWD, dss stage 5 rear axles, and dss stage 3 front axles, so im not reaaly worried about that.
