i guess anything that was group A in WRC is a 2.0 turbo? for example, the 2.0 YBT engine in the ford escort cosworth?

3S-GTE gets my vote :agree:

2.0TFSI
Audi/VW

I would hardly consider a motor that has a crankshaft that needs a leash (4G63) a good motor.

It's not good if it can't take the power/abuse/mileage.

^The later gen 4g had the crankwalk issue (hence the 6 bolt is better bit)

late89- may92 had the good 6 bolt motors.

RB20DET was left off the list as well. I had a lot of fun with that motor.
Never driven an SR20DET (just sr20de fwd) but I hear they're fun.


I'm stuck between the RB20 and 4G63. both are great motors that make a lot of power with almost nothing invested.

I like the sound of a 6 more though, so Rb20det wins for me

all 4 headers goes into the turbo?? :rolleyes:

how the hell do you think subaru produce the EJ20 with a single turbo for the past 15 years?

You have a penchant for all things competent don't you?

4-1 header works.. but is it the best solution thermodynamically? no.

Again I thought we are talking about the best solution.

TD04H-15G

I though it was a 16g? The SRT is a 2.4 liter though..

its still 2000cc though it makes the power equivalent to a 4L engine.

you know it needs twice the amount of gas to complete a combustion cycle on a rotary right?

who cares.fuel consumption isn't the issue here anyway.i wouldn't call a evo9/10 economical either.or a SRT-4.almost any 2.0 motor that is boosted economy will just tank.

That's because rotaries function very similarly to two stroke motors. When four stroke MX bikes first hit the scene, they had to group the four strokes with two strokes of roughly half the displacement to make things even. Rotaries and four stroke piston motors share a similar arrangement.


For the topic at hand, if we're talking straight out of the box motors, the Turbo Ecotec/ LNF is far and away the most advanced of the lot, with the VW being a very close second. I've had the pleasure of driving cars with both of those motors (A GTi, and the new Cobalt SS), and they are on a completely different level of refinement, power production, fuel consumption and predictability VS. all the others mentioned in the list from the first post.

Boxers are rough, thirsty pigs. The 4Gs are the same, and you can add to that a bunch of reliability issues that are well documented. Turbo rotaries are in the same boat too, with the worst consumption issues in the group. While rotary power production can be high, I personally don't like the fact you have to rev the bag off of them even for every day driving. Also, you need to really know how to look after a rotary motor, or they will give you constant grief.

Of the older motors, the SR and 3S are both nice, and the aftermarket support is in my mind what makes them good choices for 'project' motors - be they swaps, or just upgraded in their original engine bays. Give the LNf some time though, and I think the flag wavers will be right in calling it the "Small Block Chev" of four bangers.

As for which car are they best in? I'm honestly torn. I've had a ride in a GTi with the DSG, and I fell in love with it, but that may partly be the whizbang transmission. The Cobalt put the power to the road with less fanfare, and a more direct grunt though. I'd personally have to spend a lot more seat time in both to make a decision on the matter.

the GM LNF might be a good engine... but too bad they are put into shitty cars, poor driving ergonomic, rubbery shift. VW is actually able to put the engine in good use, having it mated to perfect gearboxes, better chassis tuning.

what a waste....

isn't the stock ej20t exhaust header a 4-2-1 design? not sure about the twinscroll version however.

I didn't know direct injection or Audi Valvelift had been around long enough to be considered "very long in the tooth".

You should be giving credit where it's due. An aluminum block is better than iron, but only slightly so. Cam timing on exhaust for a forced induction engine is also slightly better than hot having it.

But direct injection is a huge improvement over in-direct injection.

You seem to be placing an unusual weight on the small things as if you have a hate on for VW and are looking for even the tiniest reasons to knock their engine, which has been on Ward's list for I think 4 years now.

As much as I hate to cite lap times as an indicator of ability, the Cobalt SS is the fastest production front drive car around the 'Ring. It's also won a handful of awards from auto magazines. Last years SS won the T3 class in SCCA Runoffs, and that car has worse handling than the current model. The Solstice GXP was one and two in the T2 division of last years Runoffs as well. You can say what you want about dash materials etc., but it's hard to argue facts and results about the ability of these cars.

no one mentions the 4B11? What the fuck?

It'll be the next most versatile engine evarr since the 4G disappeared. It is ALREADY on FF FR 4WD chassis....chassises? alum block and MIVEC equipped

EVOX, Genesis Coupe, Caliber SS(? or R/T?) is using that engine right now. Just about as easy to tune as a 4G but a lot lighter from alum block.

"Who need to walk their dogs when they can walk their cranks"

Better chassis tuning? What?

I'd say if GM was able to make a Torsion beam rear suspension car handle better than a multi-link car like the GTI, that's pretty damn good chassis tuning.

You obviously have never driven one of GM's LNF cars. You don't really know what you're talking about.

The GM LNF is a good engine, and the Cobalt SS is a good platform for it to sit in. The 2009 has a new suspension, that handles better than my 2007 SS/SC with an aftermarket suspension, all 4 corners got Brembro brakes, and launch control, they really went all out improving this car (pisses me off that I bought a 2007).
The car puts out 260hp out of the box and the guys on the cobalt forum are seeing 280-290hp with a simple tune, no aftermarket parts at all. Not bad for $27,000.
That being said it has 1 fatal flaw, there are no aftermarket products for this car, the stock intake pipe has been flatened in the middle of it in order to sqeeze it in to the engine bay, it goes down to the size of a pack of smokes and greatly constricts the air flow.
The SC versions had the option from GM to up the hp, (Stage 1+Stage 2) with injectors and a new pulley and now Harrop has come out with the TVS 1320 which is a 1.3L version of the Eaton M62 SC that came on the car (with cooling mods about 100 bolt on hp)
GM has no plans to offer anything similar with the TC version and infact has slated that 2010 will be the last year for the car with the Volt to take its place. Its hard enough to get parts for the SC version that are out there but the TC doesn't stand a chance in the mods department. So its a great car and fast little engine but you better love it the way it is cuz you won't be able to change much

Er, it's going to be replaced by the Cruze. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Cruze
)

Cuz the Volt is predicted to hit markets around $30k-35k USD, and that's way too expensive for an entry level vehicle. And there's already a Cruze model with pictures floating around the net that's replacing the Cobalt equivalent in Asia/Europe/ANZ.

http://www.auto123.com/ArtImages/100...-Cruze-001.JPG

We can hope the LNF makes a come back in this car... it's not half-bad looking either.

http://www.motorauthority.com/gm-to-...html#more-6811

Your right sorry it was late and some reason I had Volt stuck in my head
either way it looks like a cheap nock off of the 1 series BMW

faster car doesn't mean its a better car

you can put a 1000HP LS9 into a shit box and make it faster then a Veyron, in the end, its still only a fast shit box