Turbo suggestion for 2.4l build

[Boosted98gsx]

I'll swap to sd once i'm more comfortable with tweaking v3. I ran v2 on a mostly stock car, so I dont feel 100% confident in my ability to make small adjustments to the tune on it yet. With so much of an investment into the setup I want to make sure that I know what i'm doing.

It's far better to START in SD with the new engine. As long as major components stay the same, your VE will not change, and your maps will self adjust based on boost (since SD graphs are 3D VE x RPM x Load tables).

The GM MAF was never meant to be subject to anything over an atmospheric pressure across it, so running it in a system that sees more than 14.7 PSI, is going to cause it to become inaccurate. Hence the "GM Maf" calibration necessary.

If you're going to spend so much on an engine / turbo, I PRAY you're going to have a skilled dyno tuner run it through the maps and dial it in, RIGHT?

 

[bmxfelon420]

It's far better to START in SD with the new engine. As long as major components stay the same, your VE will not change, and your maps will self adjust based on boost (since SD graphs are 3D VE x RPM x Load tables).

The GM MAF was never meant to be subject to anything over an atmospheric pressure across it, so running it in a system that sees more than 14.7 PSI, is going to cause it to become inaccurate. Hence the "GM Maf" calibration necessary.

If you're going to spend so much on an engine / turbo, I PRAY you're going to have a skilled dyno tuner run it through the maps and dial it in, RIGHT?

Yeah, I just meant in terms of any adjustments that may come up along the way. If its that much worth it i'll just use the GM maf for running wastegate pressure on break in and get the sd setup stuff.

 

[Boosted98gsx]

Yeah, I just meant in terms of any adjustments that may come up along the way. If its that much worth it i'll just use the GM maf for running wastegate pressure on break in and get the sd setup stuff.

That's what I am telling you. Once your VE is set up (vs load and rpm), you don't need to set up anything else. Crank up the boost (assuming you have the fuel to compensate), and let er rip.

Even if you blow a coupler, the car will still get home.

 

[bmxfelon420]

That's what I am telling you. Once your VE is set up (vs load and rpm), you don't need to set up anything else. Crank up the boost (assuming you have the fuel to compensate), and let er rip.

Even if you blow a coupler, the car will still get home.

So it does the fuel itself? Like, I just set the global and thats it, once the VE is set?

 

[Boosted98gsx]

So it does the fuel itself? Like, I just set the global and thats it, once the VE is set?

A/F is a FACTOR of volumetric efficiency and RPM. So the ECU can calculate it based on set factors.

 

[Phantom DSM]

So it does the fuel itself? Like, I just set the global and thats it, once the VE is set?

Once you dial in your injectors global and deadtime and setup VE cells, you can setup VE for cruise/Wot to target the desired AFR.
Check this out, center of article http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/articles-tuning-ecu/448002-tuning-ecmlink-v3.html

 

[bmxfelon420]

Also what would you guys think about my decision to use a 1g head? I went with it because I thought the larger intake ports would benefit the 2.4, and also because my 2g head either needs line honed or to just be scrapped altogether. My only other 2g head would need a rebuild.

 

[Boosted98gsx]

Also what would you guys think about my decision to use a 1g head? I went with it because I thought the larger intake ports would benefit the 2.4, and also because my 2g head either needs line honed or to just be scrapped altogether. My only other 2g head would need a rebuild.

I ran a 1g head on my 2.3. Don't think it had any work done. If you have some spare scratch, I would send it off for some MINOR bowl work around the valve guides just to give you a little more breath up top.

 

[broken_eclipse]

I'm running a 7-bolt 2.4 and 1g head with very light porting (sharpened divider, removed casting flash) and the 1g head seems to be flowing very well. I can't comment on a 2g head although I may toss one on soon just to see if there's much of a difference.

 

[tylersevo]

Sorry to jump into your thread Jesse haha, but what are you guys revving these 2.4s too? What the real-world benefit over a 2.3 (besides the obvious .1 of displacement)? Right now I'm planning on a 2.3 but convince me otherwise

 

[bmxfelon420]

Sorry to jump into your thread Jesse haha, but what are you guys revving these 2.4s too? What the real-world benefit over a 2.3 (besides the obvious .1 of displacement)? Right now I'm planning on a 2.3 but convince me otherwise

No problem man, . A 2.4's real weakness, according to my research is a less than ideal rod angle/piston thrust load. Something like that limits your max rpm, so you arent going to be revving to 10k, but its pretty doubtful that you'd be making more power up there anyways. There's also a long rod 2.4 where you use the normal height pistons and the angles are less severe. There's also a destroked 2.3 as well. I'm sure some other people know way more about this than I do.

 

[Boosted98gsx]

No problem man, . A 2.4's real weakness, according to my research is a less than ideal rod angle/piston thrust load. Something like that limits your max rpm, so you arent going to be revving to 10k, but its pretty doubtful that you'd be making more power up there anyways. There's also a long rod 2.4 where you use the normal height pistons and the angles are less severe. There's also a destroked 2.3 as well. I'm sure some other people know way more about this than I do.

If you want to rev to 10k, build a high compression long rod 2.0l. Much better rod angles for high revs.

 

[stroh]

Sorry to jump into your thread Jesse haha, but what are you guys revving these 2.4s too? What the real-world benefit over a 2.3 (besides the obvious .1 of displacement)? Right now I'm planning on a 2.3 but convince me otherwise

I had Devin at Boostin Performance tune my car. I have a 2.4 G4CS with a 4G63 head. Wiseco pistons and eagle rods. He told me he doesn't like to rev the 2.4's past 7500 rpm.

I have a garrett gt3582r on my 2.4. I run 93 octane. I hit full boost at 27psi at 4800rpm. I run 1150cc injectors at 85% duty cycle. Tuned by Boostin Performance. This setup has given me 473whp. Hope this info helps.

 

[tylersevo]

I had Devin at Boostin Performance tune my car. I have a 2.4 G4CS with a 4G63 head. Wiseco pistons and eagle rods. He told me he doesn't like to rev the 2.4's past 7500 rpm.

I have a garrett gt3582r on my 2.4. I run 93 octane. I hit full boost at 27psi at 4800rpm. I run 1150cc injectors at 85% duty cycle. Tuned by Boostin Performance. This setup has given me 473whp. Hope this info helps.

THAT was the info I was looking for thanks man! Hopefully going this route with some higher comp pistons and e85 would give me a 500whp torque monster!

 

[coupe_nasty]

For a 2.4l street car, I would think a ball bearing Fp Red would be super fun!

 

[LaserRS92]

Turbo Lab converted blown 14b to a billet 20g, td06sl2 turbine, ported 7cm with flapper upgrade, standard appearance j-pipe turbo. If you don't hit 400whp on moderate boost you're doing it wrong. $490.

 

[VETDRMS]

I have documented my 2.4 build pretty well here:

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/dsm-build-journals/389989-my-2-4-build-my-97-talon.html

Regarding piston side loading issues, I have about 14,000 miles on this setup now and all but a couple thousand were on E85 and were mostly out ripping on it. Last time the head was off the cylinders looked perfect, the usual amount of scuff. For normal around town ripping it shifts at 7000rpm but I run it out to ~8200rpm. Honestly, the bolt-on S256 was a fantastic turbo for this combo. Easy to get on the converter, hit hard, stayed pretty strong up-top, but it was just out of juice around 27psi where backpressure was becoming an issue.

I went to the FP Black and relaxed mid-range timing to try to keep a gearset in it longer (if you are staying manual that 2.4 will be pretty good at shredding gears) and to keep the headgasket in it. So far I really like the Black, it's only a little lazier than the S256 and pulls like a freight train up top with no taper even at 30psi to 8200rpm. All in a "bolt-on" setup on E85, where backpressure becomes an issue sooner due to the denser exhaust gas.

465awhp in an auto through a converter that locks up at 5500rpm was pretty impressive from the S256. Unfortnately I am no longer near a dyno so I won't have comparisons with the Black anytime soon. Going to be a long winter waiting for the track to open.

Good luck with your build. If I were to do it over again I would not do a 2.4 as (1) the extra deck height makes everything a little off and (2) they are more prone to headgasket issues.

 

[FirstCarIsA GSX]

I would like to second the hx35 route or even an hx40 for the future when you one inevitably want to go faster. I'm building a 2.3 hx40 setup right now and should be finished in a few weeks so ill let you know how it goes. Also with the money you saved on a turbo by going hx you could get a nice twinscroll setup and have even better spool!

 

[Archer Fabrications]

I have an hx40 in the classifieds!

 

[delta448]

What the real-world benefit over a 2.3 (besides the obvious .1 of displacement)?

The taller deck height block allows more favorable configurations. There's thinner cylinder walls and more difficulty sealing the 4G63 head to the 4G64 block however.

A 2.4's real weakness, according to my research is a less than ideal rod angle/piston thrust load.

A 2.3 and a 2.4 have the same rod angles and piston thrust loads unless you build the 2.4 block with longer rods and shorter pistons, which you can do since the deck is taller. A 2.3 stroker almost has to use standard 150mm rods, since there isn't any more room and you're already using short pistons.

There's also a long rod 2.4 where you use the normal height pistons and the angles are less severe. There's also a destroked 2.3 as well.

A long rod 2.4 is a 156mm rod and a short (like a 2.3 stroker) piston, since the stroke of both is the same, the LR 2.4 has a better rod ratio. Rod ratio isn't the only factor, but a higher ratio does indicate a better potential for higher engine speed and loads the pistons into the cylinder walls less.

The destroker 2.3 requires an aftermarket crankshaft, so much less popular. For the price of that part you get an extra 0.04 or slightly more on the rod ratio over a LR 2.4. Estimating, but the max reliable engine speed is probably increased ~1500rpm over the stroker 2.3, and ~1000rpm over the LR 2.4 all other variables held constant.

If you want to rev to 10k, build a high compression long rod 2.0l. Much better rod angles for high revs.

+1, or a 2.1 destroker...