Turbo kit blow out. *CLEARANCE*

[RPIpower]

People will want to hang me for this but I still see the redline as the "little brother" in the kappa family. I didn't buy my 2.4 because the redline was not available or for price. I got it because of the 2.4L vs. the 2.0L. Little brother needs over 1 bar of boost to get 260hp while the older needs 7-8lbs to make 275hp.

[jpk]

To quote a great and flatulent man, "There's no replacement for displacement." I could see that the 2.4 would be my project car because it had so much potential. I got the auto tranny because that was what was in the only Sky that I could get my hands on at the time.

[jarcher]

Yes, but the 2.0 is a very sturdy engine. To make the 2.4 handle boost it probably needs some upgrades. We might be able to increase boost or ariflow in a 2.0L and get more power without engine mods, given it's extra cooling capacity and stronger components over the 2.4.

[RPIpower]

Originally Posted by jarcher

Yes, but the 2.0 is a very sturdy engine. To make the 2.4 handle boost it probably needs some upgrades. We might be able to increase boost or ariflow in a 2.0L and get more power without engine mods, given it's extra cooling capacity and stronger components over the 2.4.

Not really sure who told you that. I put down 251whp with 7.5psi of boost on a stock 2.4L. So, at half the boost, the 2.4L makes more power than the 2.0. Low end response is also better on the 2.4L. They are two different engines so its really pointless to compare the two. The 2.0 is a good engine, I just prefer the 2.4 as a starting point when looking to make gobs of power.

[jarcher]

Originally Posted by RPIpower

Not really sure who told you that. I put down 251whp with 7.5psi of boost on a stock 2.4L. So, at half the boost, the 2.4L makes more power than the 2.0. Low end response is also better on the 2.4L. They are two different engines so its really pointless to compare the two. The 2.0 is a good engine, I just prefer the 2.4 as a starting point when looking to make gobs of power.

Well I have read that from several sources, about the 2.0 engine being more sturdy than the 2.4. I read an interview with a GM engineer about what changes they made to the 2.0 to make it more robust. These included an oil sprayer in the pan, stronger pistons and such. I seem to recall him also saying that the smaller block bores for the cylinders allowed for more metal and cooling jacket around the cylinders. I read a separate review in one of the major auto magazines (can't remember which one now) that said similar things. But even your company, in your GT package, makes changes to the 2.4 to add to its robustness. Of course maybe you can do with less boost than the GT without mods, I don't know and defer to you on that.

I certainly agree that for the same boost, given other similar constraints like valve arrangement and such, it makes sense that the engine with more displacement should make more power. I’m still learning about turbos and performance mods and I’[m no expert on engines. But hey, I did rebuild a few MG engines years ago. Very low tech!

I never said the 2.0 could or would make more power than the 2.4 (although upon reading what I wrote I could see how it would be interpreted that way), all I meant is that I am hoping someone can get the 2.0 to make more power than it does out of GM's door. You had mentioned that the 2.0 is getting up to 20psi of boost, which was already a lot. All I meant was that maybe it can handle a bit more boost than it does, or handle some retuning or whatever. I really hope you guys manage to do an ECM retune.

If the modded 2.4 still ultimately makes more power than the modded 2.0 that's okay with me, I just want mine to have more than it does

Part of me regrets trading my base Sky for the RL. I might have preferred to ship you the base Sky for the GT package and the expanded trunk. But at the time I made the decision, the RL looked like the way to go with the upgraded suspension, factory turbo engine, improved gearing and so on, and I didn't know about your GT package. At the same time, trading cost several thousand less and keeps the warranty intact. Plus, I much prefer my new colors (black with blk/red interior over the graphite with all blk interior). And my second favorite improvement, after the turbo, is the addition of door unlock switches! They are even lighted! So I can't regret it too much.

But hey, keep us 2.0 folks in mind when you do your tinkering. We’re pulling for ya!

[RPIpower]

No worries brother! We have started on some stuff for you RL guys to make more power. What we want to do first is make the car more efficient. When we start modifying turbocharged cars, we want to make sure we can keep temperatures on check. As for the engines, they are both good. I just like the 2.4 over the 2.0 thats all. We are working on a turbo upgrade package right now that will give you guys a lot more power at the same boost level. Stay tuned.

[SLtoRL]

Originally Posted by RPIpower

No worries brother! We have started on some stuff for you RL guys to make more power. What we want to do first is make the car more efficient. When we start modifying turbocharged cars, we want to make sure we can keep temperatures on check. As for the engines, they are both good. I just like the 2.4 over the 2.0 thats all. We are working on a turbo upgrade package right now that will give you guys a lot more power at the same boost level. Stay tuned.

good to know!

[jarcher]

Originally Posted by RPIpower

We are working on a turbo upgrade package right now that will give you guys a lot more power at the same boost level. Stay tuned.

"Tuned" I shall stay, thanks!

[BlueSkyRL]

I would bet that if you could keep the boost up near the 20psi point much longer than it does now, we would see better performance. Just because the turbo will pop up to 20 psi very breifly does not mean we are really running at 20 psi for an average. You know when you think about it for a minute, the numbers aren't panning out. 251 whp on a 2.4 with 7-8 psi vs. 238 whp on a 2.0 with 19-20 psi. The numbers on one of these is wrong!

[jarcher]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyRL

I would bet that if you could keep the boost up near the 20psi point much longer than it does now, we would see better performance. Just because the turbo will pop up to 20 psi very breifly does not mean we are really running at 20 psi for an average. You know when you think about it for a minute, the numbers aren't panning out. 251 whp on a 2.4 with 7-8 psi vs. 238 whp on a 2.0 with 19-20 psi. The numbers on one of these is wrong!

I have never seen more than 14 psi and even then only at a peak.

[Valistener]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyRL

I would bet that if you could keep the boost up near the 20psi point much longer than it does now, we would see better performance. Just because the turbo will pop up to 20 psi very breifly does not mean we are really running at 20 psi for an average. You know when you think about it for a minute, the numbers aren't panning out. 251 whp on a 2.4 with 7-8 psi vs. 238 whp on a 2.0 with 19-20 psi. The numbers on one of these is wrong!

It is not just the pressure of the incomming air, it is also the volume of the air supplied by the turbo. The Hahn turbo is much larger than the stock redline.
Also the stock 2.4 has a much higher compression ratio than does the RL. Lastly, there is no replacement for displacement.

[RPIpower]

NONE of you guys ever put a stroker kit on past vehicle projects? There is a huge difference even stroking a 2.0 motor to 2.2. The difference in characteristics of the 2.4 ecotec and the 2.0 is even greater.

[Valistener]

Originally Posted by RPIpower

NONE of you guys ever put a stroker kit on past vehicle projects? There is a huge difference even stroking a 2.0 motor to 2.2. The difference in characteristics of the 2.4 ecotec and the 2.0 is even greater.

IE Stroking an engine gives you more displacement by increasing the stroke length or the length the piston travels in each stroke. The longer the stroke the greater the torque, basic physics.