2.3 stock hp

[Injected]

Oh my post was just giving one reason why I would want a to build my car like this thats all. " Read it out loud" , . The rest I asked if the tie back setup will not max out the turbo. I want our setup for the car so I will just go with the tie back for now. This should be a temp setup right? Can you tell me where my ECU is? Also if my ECU is eprom I wont have to send in my ECU to dsmlike right?

The tie back method will help you keep the turbo spool to a minimum, but since it takes very little for even the 2.0 to spool it, the 2.3 will still be spooling the T25 at a good rate. It will very much help keep you from hitting positive manifold pressure, a.k.a. "boost", but may not completely prevent it. It is the greatest thing you can do sans removing the turbo completely. It is also completely temporary and the waste-gate can be untied later.

The ECU is under the dash, behind the radio and kick panel that is to the right of your gas pedal. 95's are eprom ECUs, but I'm not sure about OBD-II. Call DSMLink and talk to them personally; they will be able to tell you better than anyone.

 

[Dende00]

Thanx a lot Inject im gonna take it out in the in the morning. Earlier I remember you told me about a real cheap laptop that can be used with dsmlink. If u remember can you tell me the name? I want something thats not expensive to work with the d-link. I wanna save some money for other parts. What is OBD II?

 

[staticbrainwash]

OBD-1 and OBD-11 are different ECU "operating systems" so to speak. They hold different information different ways. Including (and most notably) emissions information and fuel maps.

 

[suicidal2af]

Suggesting 980's for someone looking for 400whp? Bit of overkill.

 

[Dende00]

Suggesting 980's for someone looking for 400whp? Bit of overkill.

Thats ok if its more than needed. I might want to make this faster than 400whp. So what ever mods im told to make im quite ok with it. Static which is better of the 2 OBD? I dont know if it really matters but I just want as much information as possible ( I have a car I know nothing about). Also just for general knowledge can you recommend any books I can read for dsm. I nag you guys to much for simple things sometimes. I do have Chilton repair manual (but its repair and maintenance only).

 

[staticbrainwash]

Both OBD's are good. There's more things out for OBD2. But i'm pretty sure 95's are OBD2, which is why 95 eproms can't really be used in 1g turbos. Actually, i'm pretty sure everything switched to OBD2 as a standard in 95.

 

[Injected]

Both OBD's are good. There's more things out for OBD2. But i'm pretty sure 95's are OBD2, which is why 95 eproms can't really be used in 1g turbos. Actually, i'm pretty sure everything switched to OBD2 as a standard in 95.

I think it was 1996, but the Eclipse may have changed in 1995 as did many other automanufacturers.

Suggesting 980's for someone looking for 400whp? Bit of overkill.

You may think so, but what basis do you have for this claim?? If he wants to run 400 ALL WHEEL HORSEPOWER, then he will need to support 500 FLYWHEEL HORSEPOWER. As I said earlier, 500 flywheel hp with a BSFC of .6 (which is accepted as a good estimate for a turbocharged engine) at 80% duty cycle will require injectors of that size. He could go smaller, but why when they are the same price, will have a good safety margin and will support larger power levels should he decide he wants more. If you are just going to critisize, don't bother posting. You didn't even suggest an alternative. Thanks for nothing.

Thanx a lot Inject im gonna take it out in the in the morning. Earlier I remember you told me about a real cheap laptop that can be used with dsmlink. If u remember can you tell me the name? I want something thats not expensive to work with the d-link. I wanna save some money for other parts. What is OBD II?

I don't recall suggesting any laptops specifically, but look at the minimum requirements on the DSMLink site and either go on eBay or to a local electronics store and look into one that fits your budget.

 

[suicidal2af]

You may think so, but what basis do you have for this claim?? If he wants to run 400 ALL WHEEL HORSEPOWER, then he will need to support 500 FLYWHEEL HORSEPOWER. As I said earlier, 500 flywheel hp with a BSFC of .6 (which is accepted as a good estimate for a turbocharged engine) at 80% duty cycle will require injectors of that size. He could go smaller, but why when they are the same price, will have a good safety margin and will support larger power levels should he decide he wants more. If you are just going to critisize, don't bother posting. You didn't even suggest an alternative. Thanks for nothing.

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/member.php?&do=vehicledetails&userid=7892
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/member.php?&do=vehicledetails&userid=61651
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/member.php?&do=vehicledetails&userid=21172
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/member.php?&do=vehicledetails&userid=1251

And just in case, here's one of the more famous ones making more than your flywheel figure at his wheels, with 880's. One should note that in that dyno, however, he was running Denso 720's and just starting to run out of fuel.

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/member.php?&u=1456

I could keep going, but I won't.

What basis do I have for this claim? Many, many people have gone to and beyond 400whp on much smaller injectors. And run well below 80% IDC.

Pulling imaginary numbers to plug into an equation which is quite often NOT accurate is not a good way to size injectors. It's also a bit archaic to say 80% IDC is the max you want to go to. Modern crotch rockets, using the same design injectors we run, safely run as high as 92% IDC from the factory. However, we'll leave that argument for another day.

Why go smaller when they're the same price? This is his daily driver. Running massive injectors, even with dsmlink, will hurt drivability. Atomization will suffer quite a bit. It takes much longer for a huge injector to open and close, so low throttle conditions will run richer than what you'd like.

And indirectly, I did suggest an alternative. It was implied that he should run smaller injectors.

Aiming for 400whp? 780's or 820's are what I'd recommend.

 

[Dende00]

Suicidal2af about the injector issues, I will just go with the flow like I said before. The more speed and power the better. Injected and Static have been helping me for around 2 weeks now. If u wanted to help so much you could of just helped me from the start. If you wanted to address that issue you should have just pm Injected. It made no sense posting information to flame at someone. I could be wrong but thats the way I look at it. I know everyone on Dsmtuners know more than I do, so if I hear 20 different storys im going to go with the one that I have been following from the start. Car probs are just an adventure, im seriously not that worried if it doesn't go exactly as planned. I will still have a sweet fast ride, that no one in my town has. Project Honda Spanka

 

[staticbrainwash]

Unfortunately, I do agree with suicidal. 980's seem WAY WAY too big for 400awhp. I'd go with 820's, and i think even then you'd have room to push more if you wanted to.

Did you ever get your ECU out Dendee? If you have, also check it to see how the board looks. The caps might need replacing while it's getting socketed.

 

[Dende00]

Unfortunately, I do agree with suicidal. 980's seem WAY WAY too big for 400awhp. I'd go with 820's, and i think even then you'd have room to push more if you wanted to.

Did you ever get your ECU out Dendee? If you have, also check it to see how the board looks. The caps might need replacing while it's getting socketed.

I looked at the stats of cars above or a little below 400whp. I see that most of them were using race gas, only one was using pump gas. I have no clue if gas has anything to do with it, but I am running a 2.3 motor so would I not want bigger than the norm for injectors. Does that make any sense? Well with my ECU its EPROM, I thought my fingers were going to bleed unplugging the wiring harness. What are caps?

 

[staticbrainwash]

Open up the case of the ECU and checp the capacitors.

Actually. . . Check this out.

http://www.tmo.com/howto/ecu1g/caps.htm

That gives you an idea of what they are and where they are.

race gas makes a BIG difference in power. But i still don't think you will need over 820-850's to get the power you want.

 

[Injected]

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/member.php?&do=vehicledetails&userid=7892
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/member.php?&do=vehicledetails&userid=61651
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/member.php?&do=vehicledetails&userid=21172
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/member.php?&do=vehicledetails&userid=1251

And just in case, here's one of the more famous ones making more than your flywheel figure at his wheels, with 880's. One should note that in that dyno, however, he was running Denso 720's and just starting to run out of fuel.

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/member.php?&u=1456

I could keep going, but I won't.

What basis do I have for this claim? Many, many people have gone to and beyond 400whp on much smaller injectors. And run well below 80% IDC.

Pulling imaginary numbers to plug into an equation which is quite often NOT accurate is not a good way to size injectors. It's also a bit archaic to say 80% IDC is the max you want to go to. Modern crotch rockets, using the same design injectors we run, safely run as high as 92% IDC from the factory. However, we'll leave that argument for another day.

Why go smaller when they're the same price? This is his daily driver. Running massive injectors, even with dsmlink, will hurt drivability. Atomization will suffer quite a bit. It takes much longer for a huge injector to open and close, so low throttle conditions will run richer than what you'd like.

And indirectly, I did suggest an alternative. It was implied that he should run smaller injectors.

Aiming for 400whp? 780's or 820's are what I'd recommend.

I completely understand that people have been going over 80% safely and make more power regularly with smaller injectors. I also know that DSMLink will allow him to run huge injectors just as if he had smaller ones. In his case, better over than under, and it will allow him to up his boost without worrying about it.

Thank you for coming back with a great post. Now that he was two views on the matter, he can make a decision. He can go with smaller injectors, larger ones, or he can compromise between the 780's and the 980's for something in the middle ground. He does have to tune them and I know DSMLink will have no trouble with any of those sizes.

I looked at the stats of cars above or a little below 400whp. I see that most of them were using race gas, only one was using pump gas. I have no clue if gas has anything to do with it, but I am running a 2.3 motor so would I not want bigger than the norm for injectors. Does that make any sense?

No. At 22psi (93 octane), 7000rpm, you will flow almost 43 lb/min. On a 2.0L you would only be flowing only 35.47lbs. You will need a larger injector at the same boost level to support the additional flow.

 

[Dende00]

Would I use more gas with a larger injector? How do big injectors hold out in racing ( I will be doing a lot of street). How much whp 850cc can support, and also 950cc. Static the ECU looks mint, but I could be wrong. Thanx

 

[suicidal2af]

I completely understand that people have been going over 80% safely and make more power regularly with smaller injectors. I also know that DSMLink will allow him to run huge injectors just as if he had smaller ones. In his case, better over than under, and it will allow him to up his boost without worrying about it.

Thank you for coming back with a great post. Now that he was two views on the matter, he can make a decision. He can go with smaller injectors, larger ones, or he can compromise between the 780's and the 980's for something in the middle ground. He does have to tune them and I know DSMLink will have no trouble with any of those sizes.

No, it won't be just as if he had smaller ones. Fuel atomization will be worse, more dead time will be required, and due to the larger injectors being slower, it will be harder to control and be exact.

No. At 22psi (93 octane), 7000rpm, you will flow almost 43 lb/min. On a 2.0L you would only be flowing only 35.47lbs. You will need a larger injector at the same boost level to support the additional flow.

That's a pretty bold statement. Going by that, any turbo will flow the same on any engine setup with any cams, at any altitude, and any temperature as long as displacement is constant. People have gotten over 43lb/min on a 2.0 with an e16g.

Theory and equation is great for discussion, but in the real world, they rarely match up. Dre's car is a perfect example. On a 2.0 he was flowing ~60lb/min with his 50 trim setup, on pump gas, running denso 720's. He was just then hitting 100% idc, and was well over 600bhp.

I must say, I'm not a fan of the current DSM logic of "Throw the biggest turbo and injectors you can find". If you look at most of the oldschool guys, they ran tiny injectors and moderate sized turbos and made a hell of a lot more power than the newer crop(for the most part). Hell, there are guys putting 400whp down on 20G's running 580's. Granted, people like them and Dre are tuning on the bleeding edge, but if you want extra margin, go one size up.

 

[Injected]

No, it won't be just as if he had smaller ones. Fuel atomization will be worse, more dead time will be required, and due to the larger injectors being slower, it will be harder to control and be exact.

That's a pretty bold statement. Going by that, any turbo will flow the same on any engine setup with any cams, at any altitude, and any temperature as long as displacement is constant. People have gotten over 43lb/min on a 2.0 with an e16g.

Theory and equation is great for discussion, but in the real world, they rarely match up. Dre's car is a perfect example. On a 2.0 he was flowing ~60lb/min with his 50 trim setup, on pump gas, running denso 720's. He was just then hitting 100% idc, and was well over 600bhp.

I must say, I'm not a fan of the current DSM logic of "Throw the biggest turbo and injectors you can find". If you look at most of the oldschool guys, they ran tiny injectors and moderate sized turbos and made a hell of a lot more power than the newer crop(for the most part). Hell, there are guys putting 400whp down on 20G's running 580's. Granted, people like them and Dre are tuning on the bleeding edge, but if you want extra margin, go one size up.

Again, I agree about the atomization, but definitely disagree about this being theory and there is nothing bold about my statement. 43 lb/min may be possible on a E316G turbo. But the same turbo cannot supply the 2.3 with the same level of boost, but can supply the same amount of air. The same turbo (a 43 lb/min turbo) on a 2.3 will not yield the same amount of boost (say 25 psi in this case), but more like 20 psi due to the fact that the normal aspiration flow of the engine draws in more air leaving less in the intake manifold to back up. To run the same amount of boost on the 2.3, a turbo would need to flow more like 52 lb/min. A turbo must flow more air to support the same level of boost on a larger engine, PERIOD. A turbo creates boost by outflowing the engines normal aspiration, thus cramming air down it's throat. The backing-up of the air in the manifold is boost. A larger engine will pull more air and it will take the turbo more to flow enough to back up in the manifold.

Take your example (I assume you are talking about dre99gsx). You say 600bhp, which should equate to less than 500 whp (503.52 by his dyno). That was not corrected to standard according to his own dyno sheet (look in the top right corner). The reason that you don't think that theory and fact ever align is that the facts you are looking at go unquestioned and are actually skewed. Dyno's lie, and anyone who doesn't know that should read SCC's article where they test the variation between different types and brands of dynomometers. What level of boost was he running? Look at the variation of the previous pull. Something was definitely going on and since he hasn't been active since over a year ago, PMing him probably won't get you an answer either. Search through his posts. The T3/T4 50 trim is no small turbo either. 580's are too small for the 2.3 at the same boost level, and any reasonable to large amount of boost. If Dende thinks he can tune 720's to meet his needs, then I say go for it. If he then gets to the point where he wants to outflow them, he can sell them to someone with a 2.0 and upgrade. He won't be getting the turbo for a while and won't have to worry about it. In that regards 720's may even be good for an inexperienced tuner like Dende due to the very properties that you and I mention. If he learns the correlation that exists between fuel, IDC and flow, he will be able to tune his car for whatever his needs are and will be able to determine what size injector he needs down the road.

The difference you see, Suicidal, in the horsepower achieved by someone like dre, and newer setups is non-existent or again, skewed. Anyone serious about making power will tune and tweak until everything is just the way they want it. Tuning is a very important aspect to making huge power on our cars and you and I both know that. If you run an injector on the edge like in the examples you give, you will run into longevity issues. I'm totally okay with going to 95% IDC, which by my calculations gives the okay to run
820's, but if he should decide he wants more, it will be time to upgrade. That, again is a while off and he may decide to opt for something that will give him good atomization properties, etc. It's up to him.

Good discussion, I hope Dende is paying attention. He can learn alot about flow and boost basics from our discussion. For now, I would like to know where he is on the car.

 

[staticbrainwash]

Yes, i would also like to know how everything is going.

Give us a list Dendee of everything you've bought thus far. And what you plan to purchase next.

 

[Dende00]

Well like I said my paycheck was garbage, due to auto debits. I just ordered the Joe p. MBC from Static link. I took my ECU out on sunday. My next 2 purchase are going to be DSMlink and SBR Clutch kit from Injected link. Next check is going to be sweet, I will order these 2 parts on the 23 or 24 of July. I also need a cheap lappy for DSMlink, if I manage to be able to spare cash I will get the Injectors as well. For the end of next month I plan on paying the rest for my motor off. I have been paying attention to the discussion about the injectors, im still a lil lost when it comes to all the lbs per min (turbo). I still dont know to go with 950cc injectors or 820cc.

 

[Injected]

Well like I said my paycheck was garbage, due to auto debits. I just ordered the Joe p. MBC from Static link. I took my ECU out on sunday. My next 2 purchase are going to be DSMlink and SBR Clutch kit from Injected link. Next check is going to be sweet, I will order these 2 parts on the 23 or 24 of July. I also need a cheap lappy for DSMlink, if I manage to be able to spare cash I will get the Injectors as well. For the end of next month I plan on paying the rest for my motor off. I have been paying attention to the discussion about the injectors, im still a lil lost when it comes to all the lbs per min (turbo). I still dont know to go with 950cc injectors or 820cc.

Do you have a boost gauge yet? It would be rather difficult to know how much boost you are seein without one.

 

[staticbrainwash]

Second that ^^!

 

[Dende00]

Yeah the Joe. P MBC comes with a boost gauge, and mount. I should get it sometime this week I think. I ordered it last week. I had a question about ECU from another company Wolf Engine Management. I cant really afford it if I have other options like DSMlink, but does anyone know the greater (if there is) benefit of Wolf.

 

[suicidal2af]

Again, I agree about the atomization, but definitely disagree about this being theory and there is nothing bold about my statement. 43 lb/min may be possible on a E316G turbo. But the same turbo cannot supply the 2.3 with the same level of boost, but can supply the same amount of air. The same turbo (a 43 lb/min turbo) on a 2.3 will not yield the same amount of boost (say 25 psi in this case), but more like 20 psi due to the fact that the normal aspiration flow of the engine draws in more air leaving less in the intake manifold to back up. To run the same amount of boost on the 2.3, a turbo would need to flow more like 52 lb/min. A turbo must flow more air to support the same level of boost on a larger engine, PERIOD. A turbo creates boost by outflowing the engines normal aspiration, thus cramming air down it's throat. The backing-up of the air in the manifold is boost. A larger engine will pull more air and it will take the turbo more to flow enough to back up in the manifold.

However, with the exception of the Honda crowd, nobody builds a car with amount of boost being their primary concern. The airflow, thereby power, is our ultimate goal. 400whp on a 2.3 will take just as much fuel as 400whp on a 2.0. Boost in this scenario is irrelevant.

Take your example (I assume you are talking about dre99gsx). You say 600bhp, which should equate to less than 500 whp (503.52 by his dyno). That was not corrected to standard according to his own dyno sheet (look in the top right corner). The reason that you don't think that theory and fact ever align is that the facts you are looking at go unquestioned and are actually skewed. Dyno's lie, and anyone who doesn't know that should read SCC's article where they test the variation between different types and brands of dynomometers. What level of boost was he running? Look at the variation of the previous pull. Something was definitely going on and since he hasn't been active since over a year ago, PMing him probably won't get you an answer either. Search through his posts. The T3/T4 50 trim is no small turbo either.

Yes, it isn't SAE corrected. Pretty easy to explain, actually. If you plug the temperature of that day(80F) and the average weather values for the month of April, when the dyno was performed, into the SAE correction formula, you come up with an SAE Correction value of .997 -- so his SAE corrected power is 501.95hp and 440.33ft-lbs. At that point, plugging everything in to SAE correct is pretty much useless.

You can argue that dynos lie, are inaccurate, etc etc, however it is one of our only gauges to measure power output, so we really kind of have to go by what they say.

And as far as the variations between the runs, the whole point of the dyno session was to tune the car on his new setup. So it would probably be a safe assumption that what changed was his tune. Level of boost and size of turbo are irrelevant. The whole point is that he safely pushed 500+whp on a turbo that, at that point, is far out of its efficiency range, on 720's.

580's are too small for the 2.3 at the same boost level, and any reasonable to large amount of boost. If Dende thinks he can tune 720's to meet his needs, then I say go for it. If he then gets to the point where he wants to outflow them, he can sell them to someone with a 2.0 and upgrade. He won't be getting the turbo for a while and won't have to worry about it. In that regards 720's may even be good for an inexperienced tuner like Dende due to the very properties that you and I mention. If he learns the correlation that exists between fuel, IDC and flow, he will be able to tune his car for whatever his needs are and will be able to determine what size injector he needs down the road.

Again, we don't tune for boost, we tune for airflow -- and 580's will go just as far airflow-wise whether it's a 2.0 or a 2.3. The rest of that paragraph I agree with.

The difference you see, Suicidal, in the horsepower achieved by someone like dre, and newer setups is non-existent or again, skewed. Anyone serious about making power will tune and tweak until everything is just the way they want it. Tuning is a very important aspect to making huge power on our cars and you and I both know that. If you run an injector on the edge like in the examples you give, you will run into longevity issues. I'm totally okay with going to 95% IDC, which by my calculations gives the okay to run
820's, but if he should decide he wants more, it will be time to upgrade. That, again is a while off and he may decide to opt for something that will give him good atomization properties, etc. It's up to him.

The horsepower might be the same, but the newer logic does it using FAR more fuel than necessary. The DSM logic now seems to be "throw the biggest x you can find or afford", where x is any performance part. Massive injectors, even with dsmlink, are going to be harder to tune and result in worse drivability. If you're building a racecar, then yes, throw the biggest you could ever need. But if it's a max-effort street car, you should use what's going to cover your needs and give you a little bit of a safety buffer.

Good discussion, I hope Dende is paying attention. He can learn alot about flow and boost basics from our discussion. For now, I would like to know where he is on the car.

Definitely.

 

[Dende00]

Thanx for the information. I see I really have a lot to learn about these cars. Just a thought I noticed when ever you see fastest DSM its always a 1g they show. I know they are 6 bolt, but are they over all stronger, and cheaper to build. Dont get me wrong I like my 2g.

 

[Injected]

However, with the exception of the Honda crowd, nobody builds a car with amount of boost being their primary concern. The airflow, thereby power, is our ultimate goal. 400whp on a 2.3 will take just as much fuel as 400whp on a 2.0. Boost in this scenario is irrelevant.

Absolutely not, boost is the most relevant as when it is held constant it is what you tune around for a given engine size and compression ratio. An intelligent way to build a car is based on application, then the fuel type. If you are building a street car you want to optimize the turbo to be efficient at the boost level supported by the local pump balanced with a compression ratio that will allow fair amounts of boost. For example, 93 octane has been used in applications of 20+ psi on the street regularly. Thus you want to optimize your turbo by choosing one that will be in it's most efficient area of operation on your engine will be at that boost level and operate across that efficiency level as best it can. Thus a 2.3 will flow more at the same boost level that the 2.0 and will require more fuel at the same level of boost. I actually think that we both understand this, but are not coming across well to one another what our actual point is. I also understand that 400hp is equivalent flow on both applications and less boost on the larger engine (see my previous post about unequal boost).

Yes, it isn't SAE corrected. Pretty easy to explain, actually. If you plug the temperature of that day(80F) and the average weather values for the month of April, when the dyno was performed, into the SAE correction formula, you come up with an SAE Correction value of .997 -- so his SAE corrected power is 501.95hp and 440.33ft-lbs. At that point, plugging everything in to SAE correct is pretty much useless.

You can argue that dynos lie, are inaccurate, etc etc, however it is one of our only gauges to measure power output, so we really kind of have to go by what they say.

And as far as the variations between the runs, the whole point of the dyno session was to tune the car on his new setup. So it would probably be a safe assumption that what changed was his tune. Level of boost and size of turbo are irrelevant. The whole point is that he safely pushed 500+whp on a turbo that, at that point, is far out of its efficiency range, on 720's.

Again, we don't tune for boost, we tune for airflow -- and 580's will go just as far airflow-wise whether it's a 2.0 or a 2.3. The rest of that paragraph I agree with.

The horsepower might be the same, but the newer logic does it using FAR more fuel than necessary. The DSM logic now seems to be "throw the biggest x you can find or afford", where x is any performance part. Massive injectors, even with dsmlink, are going to be harder to tune and result in worse drivability. If you're building a racecar, then yes, throw the biggest you could ever need. But if it's a max-effort street car, you should use what's going to cover your needs and give you a little bit of a safety buffer.

Definitely.

I won't argue the dyno point further since I agree that it is the (far) lesser of two evils when it comes to power measurement. Boost and airflow are correlated through engine size. You tune for boost in the selection of your setup.

I will never suggest 580's for a 500 whp setup. It may have been done by tuning to the very edge, but what is the point if he can have the safety margin of larger injectors? I would rather have the safety margin as the injectors so long as it didn't disrupt lower levels of operation like city driving. From my personal experience, even large injectors get good atomization and the turbulence of the head flow and inside the cylinder will aid in this.

I'll budge to say that he could possibly use something in the mid 700's to lower 800's in order to achieve his goals as it has been done many times over, but any lower and he is running out of a safety margin that someone of his level needs.

 

[Injected]

Thanx for the information. I see I really have a lot to learn about these cars. Just a thought I noticed when ever you see fastest DSM its always a 1g they show. I know they are 6 bolt, but are they over all stronger, and cheaper to build. Dont get me wrong I like my 2g.

1G's came with the 6 bolt bottom end and some with a 4 bolt rear (which is stronger). 1G's are also lighter (which is a pretty big deal), and cheaper to race. Suspension guru's will tell you the 2G has a better suspension design that the 1G's and Evos, though.