Lol... I love how you say EVEN the 2.2 is a sturdy engine. Forget all that 1000hp 2.2 nonsense for a second and look at the big picture here guys... The 2.4 and 2.0 say "SS" on them, so that means they're infinitely better.

Silly me.

 

im sick of idiots here thinking the gm sponsored drag cars that have 2.2's and what not have remotely anything stock about their rotating assembly. cause they dont. the 2.2 is not the strongest motor out of the bunch, it doesn't matter how much you whine about it, it isn't. The 2.4 probably isn't either, in all likelihood the 2.0 is. Now listen for a second and try not to think about how small your dick is because it will just make you type some irrational response. right now, we have seen a 2.4 break 300whp in the sky/solstice group....BUT that has been with turbo setups that seem to be quite efficient. The high hp 2.0's still running the eaton are running a very inefficient blower for the amount of air they are moving, so their temps are pretty high, and the blower is probably taking at LEAST 40-50hp in parasitic loss to be driven. Turbo's rob very little compared to blowers, especially roots blowers. With a much more efficient turbo setup i garuntee a 2.0 could handle 310+fwhp. Quit arguing about which one is stronger, it's fairly likely that the 2.4 and 2.0 can handle VERY close to the same power numbers, and at their limits will run right next to eachother. From what i have seen of the 2.2 it will be a bit weaker in stock form, but you will still be able to push quite a bit of power. doesn't the 2.4 have forged rods like the 2.0? i beleive both have hyperpathetic pistons along with the 2.2, but i know the 2.0 has forged rods, and i thought the 2.4 did too....

 

Lol.

 

wow.

 

i read in an article before that the 2.4 took alot of internal componants from the 2.0

 

All that stuff I said and you are focusing on the word "even"??? I think its well proven the 2.2 isn't as sturdy as the 2.0 and 2.4. Not sure what else to tell you bud. [cliff notes here] What I was saying is that the 2.2 stock shoul dhave no problems running 250 or so whp as long as its tuned well!


I hope this wasn't directed at me?!

 

Guys guys guys, we dont need to argue here...


we ALL know the 2.4L is the best engine, tons better than the 2.2 and the 2.0...simply because we have .2 or .4 more liters than them other guys...

but that link hes got posted doesnt work to the turbo kit, we're in the process of site renovations.

 

no not you. all the idiots that say, "well the gm sponsored drag cars use a 2.2 so it must be best!"

 

this forum is retarded

 

So I guess you fit right in. Why else would you post here?

 

i havent posted in a while. I just comment on how inexperienced and ignorant this forums is

 

if the 2.2 doesn't have anything remotely stock about it in a 1000HP car what makes you think a 2.0 does. the 2.0 is just a re-worked 2.2 so that arguement makes no sense...

the 2.2 is the basis of the Ecotec engine...

there is no better than the other because with a piston/rod swap they turn into the same freaking thing...

 

Haha, Now thats funny.

None of us are experts. We're just a bunch of backyard mechanics trying to make our cars faster. If one guy wants to be unrealistic and say that the 2.2 can handle 1000HP, he's just gonna be more disapointed when he tubro's his car and only gets 220HP, which is a good number. Now the guy who goes in expecting maybe 190-200HP will be pleasantly suprised/happy with 215-220HP. Its all about what you expect and whats realistic. All three are fantastic engines.

 

you are being totally irrational. Read my post. Ok listen up because i cant beleive you didnt figure this out yourself! NO **** THE 2.2 has nothing stock about it, i said that because people are saying, "the 2.2 is the strongest, why do you think the gm drag cars use it?" ok it isnt even remotely stock like i said. Stock for stock the 2.0 has stronger internals period. And you are partly right the 2.0 and 2.2 are close enough to be almost the same engine with a piston, rod swap, but there are numerous other differences....anyway i am talking stock. People here seem to think that the 2.2 can handle those power levels stock. Well they cant. And when you get into the kinda gm does for the 2.2 to handle that kinda power "OMG WITH SOME PISTONS AND RODS, MAYBE A NEW CRANK, AND SOME HEADWORK I COULD PUT DOWN 800WHP SAFELY! I HAVE A CAST IRON BLOCK WHICH IS INHERENTLY STRONGER THAN MOST ALUMINUM BLOCKS, SO STOCK FOR STOCK IT MUST BE THE BETTER ENGINE!" <<<NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

My point is, people here argue, "the 2.2 is best because with 10k in internal work alone gm can put down 1000hp!" wow....that really is important when 99% of us here are never going to do nearly that amount of work. For the uses of most of the people on this site, to the extent 99.9% of you will take it to, the 2.0 is the better motor over the 2.2 BECAUSE of the alterations that make it the 2.0. BUT like i stated before the 2.4 is probably right around as strong as the 2.0 stock for stock, and the 2.2 is strong enough stock for most people to be happy with any kinda modding they can do, but stock for stock, the 2.2 is the weakest motor out of the bunch end of story, nobody get offended but it is true, goodbye

 

I'm happy with my 205hp, which is a little more than I had actually expected. I knew I wouldn't yield 1000hp, but then again I knew that my car put down comparable power to say.... a 2.4L auto before the turbo. If only that extra .2L was worth a damn... :'(

Hello.
That's not what I said... At all.

Listen, he made a bullshit comment and I called him out on it.
Kinda like if someone said to you... "Well, that 5.0 and that 4.6 are pretty good... Hell, even that piece of **** 4.0L V6 they throw in those shitbox base's are decent."

 

yeah so...i want a 2.4l turbo...

 

he didn't even say it like that. he said, "2.0, 2.4 and even the 2.2 are study engines." which is not demeaning at all to the 2.2 and is absolutely true. and him saying the 2.2 is sturdy should be taken as a good thing. I am just 100% ******* sick of people talking about how crazy strong the ecotecs are and using the gm drag cars to back up their claims especially from 2.2 owners. Sorry if i went off on you, but you have to notice it as much as i do it is ******* rediculous. Plus the 4.0 actually has forged rods and there are multiple daily driven 4.0's over 450rwhp on the stock block/tranny and there are two that are expected to hit 10's this season LOL. im just naggin at you now, but you used that lame little backup comment that has been driving me totally insane lately and i just snapped.

 

Who made a "bullshit" comment? What are you talkin about, you think YOU called me out from where? I wasn't hiding? I said [cliff notes here] all the ECOTEC engines are good bases for boost as long as they are tuned well. I have been building cars and engines with and without boost for about 22 years ( I can provide links, dynos and stats)= I know a thing or two about cars.

You need to put this in perspective...in less of course you came looking for a groundless argument (over a car nonetheless) in which case I can certainly entertain that as well.

Your turn!

 

Sounds like another butt-hurt 2.2L owner. GTP wasn't insulting the 2.2L. I think Dustin is the only person here who took that the wrong way.

 

lets get back on topic

 

i second that

 

I'd like to see more about this Alpine Turbo Kit.

 

what else do you need to see?? lol

 

I just had a horrible dream during my nap. I had a dream that a damn turboed white civic embarassed my ass. I think that's my subconcious way of telling myself that i need to turbo my car. o_0

 

hahahaha.
thats funny.
i had a nightmare once that i acutaly drove my own turbo civic