Saturn Sky Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
First 2000 Sr. Member
Joined
·
1,875 Posts
Hard Top??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
Oh man!!! That sounds wicked!!!!:jester:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Mallard said:
Actually if you read the Hot Rod Mag with the buildup and test numbers you'll see they got a best of 10.8.

That vid was not their best pass.
Let me ask you, are you the Mallard who is dropping these motors in the cars?

If so, I'm curious as to what accessories are kept, such as A/C, P/S etc, or if it's a total race car. I'm also curious about cooling issues with the V-8, and also cockpit temperatures.

I think that this car needs a large six or a small block V-8 to be viable, and it was a smart move on their part to make room for one to fit, assuming there is room for creature comforts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,950 Posts
JLB said:
Let me ask you, are you the Mallard who is dropping these motors in the cars?

If so, I'm curious as to what accessories are kept, such as A/C, P/S etc, or if it's a total race car. I'm also curious about cooling issues with the V-8, and also cockpit temperatures.

I think that this car needs a large six or a small block V-8 to be viable, and it was a smart move on their part to make room for one to fit, assuming there is room for creature comforts.
thats mallett not mallard
http://www.mallettcars.com/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
JLB said:
Let me ask you, are you the Mallard who is dropping these motors in the cars?

If so, I'm curious as to what accessories are kept, such as A/C, P/S etc, or if it's a total race car. I'm also curious about cooling issues with the V-8, and also cockpit temperatures.

I think that this car needs a large six or a small block V-8 to be viable, and it was a smart move on their part to make room for one to fit, assuming there is room for creature comforts.
What SkyMan said.

But Mallett does retain all the accessories. However, I don't agree that it needs a bigger engine to be viable. A turbo or supercharged 2.4L can easily make 350-450HP (new rods and pistons to be safe at that point) and still have a very broad power curve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Mallard said:
What SkyMan said.

But Mallett does retain all the accessories. However, I don't agree that it needs a bigger engine to be viable. A turbo or supercharged 2.4L can easily make 350-450HP (new rods and pistons to be safe at that point) and still have a very broad power curve.
Plus its cheaper and lighter.

The Mallet conversion is a minimum of $20,000 (without A/C).
What Hot Rod did to their Solstice cost more than buying a new Corvette Z06 would, so anywhere from $65-70,000.

The V-8 easily tossed in another 250 pounds on the front end, so they had to use their Hot Rod bag of tricks to bring the wieght down. Carbon fiber, cutting out additional sheet metal etc.

For most bang for your buck, stick with the 2.4 liter and get it turbo-charged, or go for the Redline. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Mallard said:
What SkyMan said.

But Mallett does retain all the accessories. However, I don't agree that it needs a bigger engine to be viable. A turbo or supercharged 2.4L can easily make 350-450HP (new rods and pistons to be safe at that point) and still have a very broad power curve.

The compression is too high with the current 2.4 liter motor to run higher boost.

You'd be looking at a total rebuild to lower compression, and the motor wouldn't be as sturdy as the 2.0 liter, due to thinner walls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,950 Posts
JLB said:
The compression is too high with the current 2.4 liter motor to run higher boost.

You'd be looking at a total rebuild to lower compression, and the motor wouldn't be as sturdy as the 2.0 liter, due to thinner walls.
I think the 2.4 is an entirely different block from the 2.0, plus he was talking about changing the pistons and rods, also to lower the compression I am sure....they have gotten over 1500 HP from the 2.2.engine, they can reliably get around 400..... 300 without major internal mods...
not enough has been done witht he 2.4 yet, since it is new engin, but i am sure there will be plenty to bring the HP up real soon...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
The 2.4 has a 7300 redline and 10.4:1 compression (or 10.3:1...), so it's already a high compression motor and a large capacity 4 cylinder. Lowering compression by dishing the pistions or stroking it will put it up in the 6 cyl range for displacement, so it would be cheaper to just drop in a low compression 6 and boost that.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that only the 2.0 is designed with oil jets on the bottom of the pistons,and the 2.4 is not.

The 2.0 is already running at 20 psi to get 260 hp, and only has a 6300 rpm redline, which is shockingly low compared to it's competitors. I doubt they will up the boost on that motor from the factory, as it would kill them on warranty costs. I also wonder the reasons why it is so handicapped in rpms. It could be that the mass of the pistons and rods is too high to handle the 20 lbs of boost. Maybe some higher quality rods and pistons would lose some weight, and increase the rev limit. The other thing could be the design of the head is keeping it from delivering the amount of air needed for higher rpms.

Any ideas as to why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
SkyMan 07 said:
I think the 2.4 is an entirely different block from the 2.0, plus he was talking about changing the pistons and rods, also to lower the compression I am sure....they have gotten over 1500 HP from the 2.2.engine, they can reliably get around 400..... 300 without major internal mods...
not enough has been done witht he 2.4 yet, since it is new engin, but i am sure there will be plenty to bring the HP up real soon...
The 2.4L is the same block as the 2.0L. The cylinder walls being thinner is not a worry. It's honestly not that much, there's still PLENTY of material there. I've never heard of somebody blowing a hole in their cylinder wall. The only time I've seen that is if a rod or a piston fails and gets sent through the block. That's not a failure of the cylinder wall.

The compression is not too high to run a certain amount of boost with proper tuning. I was speaking of lowering the compression, however, in my last post when I said "new rods and pistons to be safe at this point."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
JLB said:
The 2.4 has a 7300 redline and 10.4:1 compression (or 10.3:1...), so it's already a high compression motor and a large capacity 4 cylinder. Lowering compression by dishing the pistions or stroking it will put it up in the 6 cyl range for displacement, so it would be cheaper to just drop in a low compression 6 and boost that.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that only the 2.0 is designed with oil jets on the bottom of the pistons,and the 2.4 is not.

The 2.0 is already running at 20 psi to get 260 hp, and only has a 6300 rpm redline, which is shockingly low compared to it's competitors. I doubt they will up the boost on that motor from the factory, as it would kill them on warranty costs. I also wonder the reasons why it is so handicapped in rpms. It could be that the mass of the pistons and rods is too high to handle the 20 lbs of boost. Maybe some higher quality rods and pistons would lose some weight, and increase the rev limit. The other thing could be the design of the head is keeping it from delivering the amount of air needed for higher rpms.

Any ideas as to why?
Lowering the compression with dished pistons will not increase displacement. It will only increase combustion chamber volume, which is what decreases the compression. Swapping in a V6 would/could be more expensive, more weight, and a harder install. A turbo 2.4L is a bolt on kit with a reflash of the stock ECU. If you want to run higher boost for 350-450 HP then you should probably replace the rods and pistons to be safe.

The 2.0L has a very small turbo pushing 20psi. It's probably out of breath by 6000 rpm's and only making more heat. Also, the fuel pump is cam driven and I would wonder about cavitation when running the pump too fast.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top