CVT Turbo Update
Sep 28, 2011, 03:57 PM
#122
Newbie
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Miami
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oct 2, 2011, 11:39 PM
#123
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: nj
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
running low psi on a cvt like for example 5 psi will give you a maximum of 50 hp to the flywheel, which is crap considering the fact that the only turbo option for 5 psi right now is rrm. its way cheaper to get an RA turbo, im talking like 5 times cheaper lol. no disrespect to cvt owner but i think imo that u guys should stick to Na , u can get a almoust 200 whp NA with a 4b11 , a lil more with 4b12. the problem with the trany is because of the sudden stress on that belt , NA power will not give u that sudden stress . also lets not forget this:
-SO FAR THE FIRST THING TO BRAKE ON CVTS ARE THE BELTS, how do you know its not the weakest part, i mean u dont want to trow $1000 on a missil proff belt just to find out that now u need top reinforce other parts
-SO FAR THE FIRST THING TO BRAKE ON CVTS ARE THE BELTS, how do you know its not the weakest part, i mean u dont want to trow $1000 on a missil proff belt just to find out that now u need top reinforce other parts
Oct 3, 2011, 09:20 AM
#124
Newbie
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: KCMO
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure the motor is strong enough to handle that power.
I did the math, buying a RA isn't cheaper than adding turbo to GTS, either short term or long term financially.
I trust the R/D RRM has put in confirms it's the belt.
I did the math, buying a RA isn't cheaper than adding turbo to GTS, either short term or long term financially.
I trust the R/D RRM has put in confirms it's the belt.
Oct 4, 2011, 08:39 AM
#125
I would love to get 200 on an na setup, but belgaram did a full na build for his 2.4 cvt and was able to get in the range of 190 (without evo cams, cam sensor kept breaking). realistically i can see the 2.0 cvt in the 170 180 range. if the cam problem can be fixed then the cvt may be able to reach the 190 200ish range for the 2.0 and over 200 for the 2.4
Oct 4, 2011, 11:04 AM
#127
Oct 4, 2011, 01:05 PM
#128
Oct 4, 2011, 01:53 PM
#129
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: nj
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the fact that belgaram couldnt do it it doesnt mean thats its not doable, and really theres nobody else trying. Im deff getting my 272 on my 4b12 on winter so ill let u know how it works out. No disrespecr to belgaram, actually thumbs up for trying
Oct 5, 2011, 01:09 PM
#130
Newbie
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Miami
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly if our setup in our base lancer wont ever be able to achieve atleast 280 whp and more torque. I am just going to save my money and drop an ls1 small block v8 in it, or an RB26 engine. Alot of people wouldn't do that, I would because I got this car for 8,000 thousand dollars which was a steal. But im going to give it time to see if something comes out for our solution to making our car faster.
