im looking at buying a built motor, but unsure on which to get

the car will see alot of highway miles, plus the drag strip.

my turbo kit going on the motor is a ets hta86 kit

also debating on doing the car on e85 or pump 93 and c16 for the track

would like to see the car make 750hp on either e85 or c16 and about 550hp on pump


which motor would be a better all around?

 

if you'll be spending a lot of time at the drag strip then I would say 2.0 since you can rev it out higher. If you want a fun street car with more low end torque then I would choose the 2.4

 

I have 2.4 with the same 86 turbo and make 720@ 23 psi , spool is crazy cant wate to go tobthe track for 1/4 mile times

 

In the same predicament. Fml. Prob be doing a 6466 myself and while I'd love to run 9s I know either motor is capable the gearing not so much deep into the 9s with the LR 2.4 compared to the LR 2.0

 

720whp at 23psi of boost on a hta86? What dyno were you on? That thing must read rediculously high

Id go 2.4 if its mainly a street car

 

i agree with him.. 23psi.. lmao def not possible...

 

i was doing some searching on here and the shop that has the 2.4LR, their account has been disabled on here and saw a few threads where they have f'd people over

 

English Racing does lots of 2.4LR motors. Check them out

 

If you go with a 2.4 its cheaper and easier to source cores. I would also run it on E-85 if that is available to you.

 

2.4LR call it done.

 

I am building 2.4LR with 6466. Cant wait to put it all together.

 

What kind of track numbers you shooting for? Feel free to PM I don't want to clutter OP's thread. I don't want to get to 9.99 and not have enough gear with the LR 2.4 to go further

 

Whats wrong wit 720 @ 23 psi . My 2.4 is not your every day duild . Its 12.5.1 compression on 156 aluminum rods on a very light crank , ond my turbo housing is ported also with a lot of head work , if some on can pm me on how to put pics up un this dam site i will b more than willing ro show some proff . The car made 586.8 hp. 446.6 qt which is @ a 25 % losss .

 

so it made 586 whp? thats more realistic.. honestly i havent seen anyone quote crank hp as their #'s in a long time..

 

+1
First time in about 5 years that I saw
someone quote crank numbers