building 500+ whp 98 gsx, suggestions

[dragrush]

Go to the dyno/ 1/4 mile times on here up top and look at the range of power you want to be in and look at their setup

 

[mirkoelek]

I would go for a 2.3 if you are going FP3065 .Just need a crank and eagle has a beautiful forged one for like 800 bucks US!! I would have used the eagle crank if it had been out when I had my 2.4 done its just new on the market. Good piece of mind.

If you stay 2.0 I would go FP3052. And if you think you aren't quite getting the power you want add a nitrous setup.With water/alco injection on the 3052 with a 2.0 you would likely get as much power as the 3065 on just pump and have much quicker spool up and better power band on the street but hey its its personal choice!

I went FP3065 as I had the 2.4.

do you have a dyno sheet, i would like to see it....

or you could tell me how many WHP youve got with that setup

 

[AL92]

Mirk..my car is not running.I am doing all the mods in my sig at same time basically.It should be running and going thru break in over the next couple of weeks. I am working on it daily trying to finish things up.
As for dyno not likely to get one this year but maybe next. I need to find an awd dyno so dont have to swap in things to dyno the car.
Not sure what cities near me have them but betting they are over 500 miles away easy.

 

[mirkoelek]

Mirk..my car is not running.I am doing all the mods in my sig at same time basically.It should be running and going thru break in over the next couple of weeks. I am working on it daily trying to finish things up.
As for dyno not likely to get one this year but maybe next. I need to find an awd dyno so dont have to swap in things to dyno the car.
Not sure what cities near me have them but betting they are over 500 miles away easy.

I kinda like your setup,and i may do the same thing. There is one my friends here running gt35r and 2.4l, damn that thing moves.... I still dont know the main difference between gt35r and fp3065.... i want better turbo...If i go with 2.4l , where should I look for?
Regarding: money, cust service, and quality... i ask too much i know

 

[unlmtdndeavor]

to find out the difference between a gt35r and the 30 series turbos that fp offers, give them a call. they have great customer service and will answer any questions you have. as for the power you want to make...minimum 500awhp, are you speaking of dynojet hp or mustang hp. just because in northern california, all the dsm, evo, subaru shops have mustang awd dynos, and those read an average of 20% lower than others. a local guy with a stock 7bolt, gt35r, aem, cams (but stock head), and meth put down 403awhp on a mustang, which is equivalent to arond 480awhp on a dynojet, so it is possible even with the stock block. just make sure to have a metal hg and arps to hold the boost. i say boost the 7 bolt until it dies, and build a motor on the side!

 

[Slippi84]

to find out the difference between a gt35r and the 30 series turbos that fp offers, give them a call. they have great customer service and will answer any questions you have. as for the power you want to make...minimum 500awhp, are you speaking of dynojet hp or mustang hp. just because in northern california, all the dsm, evo, subaru shops have mustang awd dynos, and those read an average of 20% lower than others. a local guy with a stock 7bolt, gt35r, aem, cams (but stock head), and meth put down 403awhp on a mustang, which is equivalent to arond 480awhp on a dynojet, so it is possible even with the stock block. just make sure to have a metal hg and arps to hold the boost. i say boost the 7 bolt until it dies, and build a motor on the side!

Exactly. That's what I'm doing but I have a 6 bolt of course. I am gonna do every mod and tune the hell out of this thing and get it as far as I can with the stock block and if I get to 500whp or over and I don't blow up I'll leave it there and run it like that till it goes then I'll put the built engine in and spray and make 600

 

[mopardwh]

Exactly. That's what I'm doing but I have a 6 bolt of course. I am gonna do every mod and tune the hell out of this thing and get it as far as I can with the stock block and if I get to 500whp or over and I don't blow up I'll leave it there and run it like that till it goes then I'll put the built engine in and spray and make 600

I'll second that, my thoughts exactly. My 7 bolt has 90k and I plan on pushing it to the max while I build the 6 bolt I just bought from the scrap yard. Before I was dead set on a 2.3 stroker, but more recently I am leaning back towards a 2.0. More comparisons would be nice though, this is a great thread.

 

[Slippi84]

Strokers can make boat loads of top-end power but I wouldn't go as far as saying they have a much better powerband for the street.

With the 3065, 10s on full weight is hard/500WHP is not so hard. Alot easier with a 35R. My 35R spoolup = 27psi@4400 RPMs. 2.0L. 40psi@~5200 RPMs

Ok these are real world number and sound a lot more realistic then full boost in a 2.0l stock compression by 4200.

 

[Rick@AP]

Strokers can make boat loads of top-end power but I wouldn't go as far as saying they have a much better powerband for the street.

Credibility meet toilet.

 

[v2ner]

Credibility meet toilet.

Hmmm...because a 2.0L also has a great powerband for the street.

 

[Slippi84]

Credibility meet toilet.

2.3 that spools 400rpms faster = 2.0l that revs 400rpms higher

 

[v2ner]

2.3 that spools 400rpms faster = 2.0l that revs 400rpms higher

 

[Rick@AP]

Hmmm...because a 2.0L also has a great powerband for the street.

Because anyone that says a 2.0l motor has a better powerband than a 2.3l or 2.4l obviously doesn't have a clue.

Anyone that says that strokers make a bunch of power on the top end obviously doesn't have a clue.

The strokers and 2.4l's have a better and broader powerband for street use over ANY other combination PERIOD. They make more power and torque throughout the ENTIRE rpm band than any other combination PERIOD.

And that's word to everyones momma.

 

[v2ner]

Hmmm...because a 2.0L also has a great powerband for the street.

O.K.

 

[Rick@AP]

2.3 that spools 400rpms faster = 2.0l that revs 400rpms higher

This is one of the biggest arguements I have with people until you ask them to show you a turbo that needs that much airflow.

When you compare the outflow of a 2l engine at 8000rpms and a 2.3/2.4 at the same rpm your getting a LOT more outflow from the 2.3/2.4 which tells you that in order to match the 2l engines outflow at a higher rpm you won't need to rev the 2.3/2.4 to anywhere close to the same level.

 

[STECARS]

so 2.0l '2.1l ' 2.3l 2.4l '
We have atleast 4 flavors of motors for us. I read the hole thread and that is the reason for my post . We have alot of peoples opinions on all the these motors and turbos topend lowend power etc.......

I am A/T unlike most of you lowend/midend power is what I crave
Dont really care for good power all across powerband cuase I rarely see above 6k rpms. Right now I'm in between 2.3 and 2.4 but ythen again I am not as knowledged as most of you ?
What do you guys think would be suitable motor for best low/mid power ?

Thanks and
Sorry for bump/jack

 

[Slippi84]

This is one of the biggest arguements I have with people until you ask them to show you a turbo that needs that much airflow.

When you compare the outflow of a 2l engine at 8000rpms and a 2.3/2.4 at the same rpm your getting a LOT more outflow from the 2.3/2.4 which tells you that in order to match the 2l engines outflow at a higher rpm you won't need to rev the 2.3/2.4 to anywhere close to the same level.

You want to talk about something being better for the street go ask Evil Eagle why he doesn't run a stroker anymore. "I broke to many cranks" Yeah that sounds like something I want my street driven car doing

Yeah strokers flow better but the 2.0l have greater rpm thresh holds allowing them to rev higher. So while a stroker can make more power as long as your still pullin you can accomidate that with reving higher than you would if you had a stroker. If you want a easy way of thinkin about it take a honda and a camarro. Honda might rev to 9k+ while the camarro will redline at 6500. That is with totaly diffrent cars too with our cars it has a more direct corrilation of course. In a nut shell if you want to rev high to make power get a 2.0 if you want more torque and low end power and don't want to rev that high get a stroker.


By the way no one ever said 2.0l's had a better power band then strokers and to technical your power band will be more dependent on your turbo setup then your engine.

 

[v2ner]

You want to talk about something being better for the street go ask Evil Eagle why he doesn't run a stroker anymore. "I broke to many cranks" Yeah that sounds like something I want my street driven car doing

Yeah strokers flow better but the 2.0l have greater rpm thresh holds allowing them to rev higher. So while a stroker can make more power as long as your still pullin you can accomidate that with reving higher than you would if you had a stroker. If you want a easy way of thinkin about it take a honda and a camarro. Honda might rev to 9k+ while the camarro will redline at 6500. That is with totaly diffrent cars too with our cars it has a more direct corrilation of course. In a nut shell if you want to rev high to make power get a 2.0 if you want more torque and low end power and don't want to rev that high get a stroker.


By the way no one ever said 2.0l's had a better power band then strokers and to technical your power band will be more dependent on your turbo setup then your engine.

I just gave up on that other guy....he'll learn once he's actually there.

 

[Slippi84]

I just gave up on that other guy....he'll learn once he's actually there.

I know but when I post and I hope others do this too I think about all the people tat will read what I write not just the person i'm debating with. I don't want some new guy to come along and think oh stroker bigger better rev to where 2.0ls rev to and then wonder why he ends up like evil eagle(of course mninus the 10.6 timeslips and 690whp )

 

[AL92]

Hmm.not sure why evil goes thru stroker cranks..maybe they were turned ,maybe they were flawed ,maybe he was revving them to the moon,etc.etc.
I know at least four guys with 2.4 strokers besides me running them for many thousand miles no problems at all.
I do think a conservative redline is a good thing..likely 7500 maybe 8000 max. Also eagle now makes very affordable forged stroker cranks.Would have got one for sure but my engine was all assembled.Still will get one if the engine is out of the car for rebuild assuming the block and stuff is reusable if the crank wrecks other stuff.

I would hardly call evil eagles car a street car .It may be street car in the loosest sense but that car goes the track repeatedly and runs fast and hard! Also being tracked means it will be run on race gas or pushed on the edge of things like timing,fuel etc and that can also wipe things out even forged parts sometimes.

Two main reasons I went 2.4 are the faster spool up on the big turbos and the off boost torque. The 2.0 is a gutless wonder off boost.I hate driving a 2.0 off boost especially a low compression 1g with 7 whatever to 1. 2g 2.0 are slightly better off boost since they have more compression.But only so much torque and hp an 2.0 can give you. Keep in mind my other cars are v8s.

Now with that all said I hope my crank don't break on my new 2.4 .It was super low mileage 20,000 miles the donor car was hit in the rear and the crank was so nice it only needed polishing.I will keep redline at 7500 most likely. And the car will not see the track more than once or twice but will see 20 psi frequently off the track with occasional 30psi instances.

I would definitely install a forged eagle now that they are out and affordable if did a 2.4 or 2.3 again. And I also think Evil Eagle is THE MAN!! And would love to turn anything like his times with my FP3065 setup.

And hey at the worst I still have a nice 6 bolt 2.0 shortblock in my garage just in case the 2.4 don't work out!!

 

[STECARS]

Why 2.4L ?
Whats diffrence between 2.3 and 2.4L

 

[AL92]

You make a 2.3 from a 2.0 block. You use a 2.4 crank or now an eagle forged crank,you use basic 2.0 rods and special storker pistons.You need to do some machine work to the block to make things work.

A 2.4 you can buy like my hyundai sonata mits 2.4 in 89 to 91 sonatas. Its a 6 bolt 2.4.It was single overhead non turbo but the block is virtually identical to the 2.0 in our dsm.You use the 2.4 block,2.4 crank and you are not supposed to turn them just polish them or throw them away. Supposedly turning them takes off factory hardening.

You use 2.0 turbo heads. You can get 2.4 7 bolt and 2.4 6 bolts.

 

[STECARS]

You make a 2.3 from a 2.0 block. You use a 2.4 crank or now an eagle forged crank,you use basic 2.0 rods and special storker pistons.You need to do some machine work to the block to make things work.

A 2.4 you can buy like my hyundai sonata mits 2.4 in 89 to 91 sonatas. Its a 6 bolt 2.4.It was single overhead non turbo but the block is virtually identical to the 2.0 in our dsm.You use the 2.4 block,2.4 crank and you are not supposed to turn them just polish them or throw them away. Supposedly turning them takes off factory hardening.

You use 2.0 turbo heads. You can get 2.4 7 bolt and 2.4 6 bolts.

That helps me but oher than physical characteristics what are the power differences etc....... Whayts the advantage of one over the other ? whats cheaper easier to build.?

 

[AL92]

A 2.0 is easier as you likley already have one.The 2.0 cranks are plenty strong even stock and you just need to buy forged pistons, rods,good bolts and stuff and thats about it.
2.3 you need the 2.3 crank and pistons and more machining to clearance things.
2.4 you need to buy the block and then a forged crank or use the 2.4 crank and main caps.You throw the rest of the 2.4 away.
So would say a 2.4 is most expensive.
As stated the bigger the engine the more torque off boost.. significantl more off boost and a bit more hop off boost too. I personally dont enjoy the 2.0 off boost and on a big turbo the lag is annoying sometimes if you are going up thru the gears or don't feel like banging downshifts. A fast spooling turbo like the evo 16 is a nice turbo on a 2.0 as it comes on at lower rpm.
If you are racing mostly then who cares if you rev the engine up high and shift high thats no big deal on the track.
The people I know with mostly 2.4 really like them. Thats why I went with one. I have seen a few posts of crank breakage but companies like magnus etc are still selling lots of 2.3 and 2.4 and they are not all breaking cranks.

And like said.now there is eagle forged crank brand new for like 800 bucks US!!! cheap in the big picture.

So the 2.3 and 2.4 make more torque and hp than a 2.0. The 2.0 have a higher theoretical rpm limit although again many people push their 2.3 and 2.4 high up there too sometimes with maybe bad crank results.

Take a poll..most guys love their 2.3 and 2.4 to death. I have had and still have both.
I had a 92 talon awd 2.0 stock engine with 50 trim. It was pretty laggy and not that fun off boost.Once on boost it was great no problems.
I have a 2.0 now my fwd turbo.Its ok off boost but gets annoying being so gutless off boost even with a fast spooling 14b.Its still a tiny 2.0 litre engine. A lawnmower as I like to call it..compared to my big 400 pontiacs and v8 fourth gen firebirds and camaros.
The more litres the more torque ,hp and potential hp.A turbo v8 can put out easily way way more torque and hp than any 4 cylinder 2.0 aside from maybe a full on exotic race car that would totally unstreetable running on nitromethane or something crazy.
My twin turbo 99 trans am can easily do over 1000 engine hp and closer to 2000 with the right turbos and support mods!!! Not saying could hook it up just saying its been done back in the 80s gale banks was doing over 2000 hp big block chevies with twin turbos on them.Read some old car mags.

So you want more torque and hp you want a bigger engine. You want to rev it like a dirt bike.or street bike..ok the 2.0 is fun too!! Its all good! How deep are you pockets!!

 

[snox135]

You will make a little bit more power with the 2.4 compared to the 2.3 just from the extra displacement. I think the 2.3 is a little easier to build, theres not a huge difference between the two. The 2.4 you need to plug some of the passages on the deck of the block and make sure you are using all the right timing parts. The 2.3 you may need to clearance the block for the rods. I've heard some have had to do them all and others didn't have to do any of them.

I went with the 2.4 because I didn't want the downtime of rebuilding the motor in the car and I found a low mileage 2.4 for cheap. But the 2.0 went up in a big ball of smoke anyway, so it's been sitting unitl I get the money for the rebuild.