[Eastwood]

Basically which car/company has the best 2 liter turbo. Here are your choices:

Mitsubishi 4G63T
Toyota 3S-GTE
Nissan SR20DET
Subaru EJ20
Chevrolet LN4 (Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Sky)

and just for kicks:

Honda F20C
Ford 2.3 Turbo
Mazda 20B Rotary

anymore engines please contribute. I think I listed them all, but I might be mistaken.

[Nitroholic]

4g63 or gtfo

[godwin]

Technology wise.. GM LNF is probably the latest and greatest on your list.

People like to ignore the fact that engine technology move just as fast as computer technology eg new technology like DI, variable valve timing, low inertia parts (eg turbos and pistons etc).. often don't exist back in the days where "legendary" engines eg 4G63T etc were in production.

[TOPEC]

i say 4G63 or SR20DETT is pretty good, can't say the EJ20 was as good as the other same generation engines. others i wouldnt even think abt it.

[ericthehalfbee]

GM or VW (turbocharged and direct injected).

If you're not direct injected, then GTFO with your lame-ass, old technology.

[Black SC2]

GM or VW (turbocharged and direct injected).

If you're not direct injected, then GTFO with your lame-ass, old technology.

What he said.

[Berzerker]

What turbo does the SRT-4 run?

Berz out.

[68style]

3SGTE man... not that I'm biased at all ;) 300hp stock just by kicking boost up a bit before fuel injectors reach their limit, some mild upgrades get you beyond that... lots of streeted 400+whp examples running around and you can go through Aircare with half your cats gutted and still pass, it never needs any maintenance... mine is stock and I've got 125000 miles on it (over 200,000kms) and it's never had anything more than a timing belt at 70k.

[!Aznboi128]

gti"s engine fsi 2.0T

or k20 + turbo

[cococly]

EJ207! The Current engine in JDM Subaru WRX STi 2.0L Twin-Turbo engine :)

[!SG]

when you say 2.0 turbo, the first thing that comes to mind is the vw/audi 2.0 turbo

[TOPEC]

EJ207! The Current engine in JDM Subaru WRX STi 2.0L Twin-Turbo engine :)

u sure it's twin turbo, or do u want to say twin SCROLL.

[.Renn.Sport]

Since when is F20C a 2000cc turbo engine?
20B can hardly be classified as a 2000cc, more like a 4L engine

VW's 2.0TFSI is probably one of the most refined 2L Turbo engine out there.

[thumper]

u sure it's twin turbo, or do u want to say twin SCROLL.


what he said.

[hk20000]

EJ207! The Current engine in JDM Subaru WRX STi 2.0L Twin-Turbo engine :)

The old legacy EJ20 was indeed twin turbo. Not any more though.

[godwin]

Except fundamentally EA888 is very long on the tooth.. eg Iron block, VVT only on inlet, not to mention slightly off square.

Yes they sell a lot of them vs LNF, but it doesn't make them good, just competent.


VW's 2.0TFSI is probably one of the most refined 2L Turbo engine out there.

[godwin]

Huh?

How can you realistically use only one turbo? Considering the EJ is a boxer4, ie 2 cylinder on each side.

u sure it's twin turbo, or do u want to say twin SCROLL.

[thumper]

The old legacy EJ20 was indeed twin turbo. Not any more though.

sequential... had a small one and a big one for top end.... but the transition was not great and it had a huge hole in the powerband :(

[kumbo1]

volkswagen 2.0t

[maxx]

vee dub - the best

[2damaxmr2]

3s or ej20

[bcrdukes]

I think Eastwood was looking for a discussion on "legacy" 2000cc turbocharged motors but meh :\

[kumbo1]

^4g63-well, the 6 bolt variant that is.

[Leopold Stotch]

i'm going to have to go with the 4g63 or the new 4b11t

for most power that is.

[bcrdukes]

For me, it's a tossup between the 3S-GTE (GenIII) and the SR20DET. I don't know anything about the 4G63 to justify anything and the EJ20 is a boxer motor with a twin turbo (old Legacy.) I'm going to discount newer motors as they're a whole different ballpark on their own. :o

Stock for stock with bolt-ons (I/H/E/IC/Boost Controler) you can easily run these little puppies for up to 300rwhp (+/-10 or 15hp) without spending a fortune and to have them run reliably while passing emissions.

[thumper]

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?

[pintoBC_3sgte]

3S-GTE gets my vote :agree:

[fetched]

2.0TFSI
Audi/VW

[Great68]

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.

[kumbo1]

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

[1990TSI]

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

[.Renn.Sport]

Huh?

How can you realistically use only one turbo? Considering the EJ is a boxer4, ie 2 cylinder on each side.

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?

[godwin]

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.

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?

[4drviper]

What turbo does the SRT-4 run?

Berz out.

TD04H-15G

[Adrenaline Rush]

What turbo does the SRT-4 run?

Berz out.

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

[shenmecar]

Since when is F20C a 2000cc turbo engine?
20B can hardly be classified as a 2000cc, more like a 4L engine

VW's 2.0TFSI is probably one of the most refined 2L Turbo engine out there.

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

[.Renn.Sport]

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?

[glh-fc]

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.

[Black SC2]

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

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.

[.Renn.Sport]

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....

[thumper]

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.

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

[ericthehalfbee]

Except fundamentally EA888 is very long on the tooth.. eg Iron block, VVT only on inlet, not to mention slightly off square.

Yes they sell a lot of them vs LNF, but it doesn't make them good, just competent.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.

[Black SC2]

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....

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.

[hk20000]

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.

[LowTEC]

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

[Great68]

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....

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.

[Spun]

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

[roastpuff]

infact has slated that 2010 will be the last year for the car with the Volt to take its place.

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/100505/2011-Chevrolet-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-present-first-details-for-chevrolet-cruze-on-august-21.html#more-6811

[Spun]

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

[.Renn.Sport]

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.

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

[Rich Sandor]

2.0L is not enough, no matter what kind of turbo you put on it, 2,0L will have no NO TORQUE.

There is no replacement for displacement.

[Blue92]

Mitsubishi 4G63T best 2.0L Turbo, Honda K20A (FD2 Spec) best 2.0L N/A

[Adsdeman]

K20!!

[cococly]

2.0L is not enough, no matter what kind of turbo you put on it, 2,0L will have no NO TORQUE.

There is no replacement for displacement.

Are you sure about all 2.0L turbo engines have NO torque?

e.g. A stock 2009 2.0L JDM WRX STi has 311lb-ft of torque all the way at 4400rpm.

That's not bad... more than some BMW E92 M3 with the V8 Engine ( 295lb-ft @ 3900rpm )...

[roastpuff]

2.0L is not enough, no matter what kind of turbo you put on it, 2,0L will have no NO TORQUE.

There is no replacement for displacement.

Tell that to the VW/Audi 2.0T engines. They have immense torque plateaus from 1800-5000RPM, putting out most of their 200+ lb/ft output all throughout that range.

Their newest 2.0TFSI in the A5, EA888, has this output - 155 kW (211 PS; 208 hp) from 4,300 to 6,000 rpm, 350 N·m (260 ft·lbf) from 1,500 to 4,200rpm. That's a lot of torque from a tiny engine.

EDIT: And both the WRX STi and the Evo X put out 300+ lb/ft at ~4400RPM... out of a 2l engine.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

Tell that to the VW/Audi 2.0T engines. They have immense torque plateaus from 1800-5000RPM, putting out most of their 200+ lb/ft output all throughout that range.

Their newest 2.0TFSI in the A5, EA888, has this output - 155 kW (211 PS; 208 hp) from 4,300 to 6,000 rpm, 350 N·m (260 ft·lbf) from 1,500 to 4,200rpm. That's a lot of torque from a tiny engine.

EDIT: And both the WRX STi and the Evo X put out 300+ lb/ft at ~4400RPM... out of a 2l engine.

it really doesnt matter, u dont see a STI getting owned off the line by a GTi whether its peak torque from 2000-5000rpm or at 44,000rpm


just like s2k, sure it redlines at 9000rpm, but it doesnt mean off the line within its class its getting smoked than plays catch up later


on a sidenote, k20 bitches
:thumbsup:

[maxx]

lol what ^

[cococly]

it really doesnt matter, u dont see a STI getting owned off the line by a GTi whether its peak torque from 2000-5000rpm or at 44,000rpm


just like s2k, sure it redlines at 9000rpm, but it doesnt mean off the line within its class its getting smoked than plays catch up later


on a sidenote, k20 bitches
:thumbsup:

I think you are a bit off topic... we are discussing about the best ENGINE, not the best CAR with a 2.0L engine.

Yes. F20 or F22 with a light weight body could be quick, but this thread is not about a light weight car or anything -_-

[NashMan]

id have to say 3sgte

is king

here just one exsample
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=wB2hVXchxCk 777hp 515 turq

800hp
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=uHYjQkFfwZc
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vrR4TCmLH1g&feature=related
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=L6mcj_fhKVc&feature=related

i can't find the 899 one oh well

this was one of toyata finest motor's they have ever built cause it chould take any thing cause of the cast iron block witch no one in this class has

only down fall was it weight but peoepl have hit over 1000 plus with this motor and you chould stroke it pretty big as well 2.4 or was it 6 what ever ? and still rev to 9000 to 10000


and the tom castrol tom's supra never used the 2jz they used the 3sgte

i may be toyota nut but all the rest just don't amonte to the power that it can push

[CanadaGoose]

2.0L is not enough, no matter what kind of turbo you put on it, 2,0L will have no NO TORQUE.

There is no replacement for displacement.

LOL :haha:

seriously, people still use this phrase....??

It's not 1998 anymore, there are plenty of turbocharged 2.0 engines with higher torque outputs then big displacement V8's out there

[!LittleDragon]

LOL :haha:

seriously, people still use this phrase....??

It's not 1998 anymore, there are plenty of turbocharged 2.0 engines with higher torque outputs then big displacement V8's out there

It's not how much torque, it's where it is and you just can't get it down low with a small displacement motor. I found my 2.2L non turbo MR2 a lot easier to drive around town than my 2.0L turbo. Even tho it had a lot less peak torque than the turbo, it was down low where it's more useful around town.

[!LittleDragon]

this was one of toyata finest motor's they have ever built cause it chould take any thing cause of the cast iron block witch no one in this class has

only down fall was it weight but peoepl have hit over 1000 plus with this motor and you chould stroke it pretty big as well 2.4 or was it 6 what ever ? and still rev to 9000 to 10000


and the tom castrol tom's supra never used the 2jz they used the 3sgte

i may be toyota nut but all the rest just don't amonte to the power that it can push

Toyota? I'm pretty sure my 3SGTE says Yamaha on the side :p

A lot of the racing Supra's opted for the 3SGTE because it was lighter and smaller. The cars were in races where the HP was limited to 300 and 500hp. You can get that out of a 3SGTE easily so why use the bigger heavier 2JZ? It was also shorter which meant it can be put behind the front wheels effectively making the car mid engined.

If anyone's ever wondered why so many 2JZ parts fit in the 3S, it's cuz it's pretty much just a 3S with 2 extra cylinders.

[ericthehalfbee]

It's not how much torque, it's where it is and you just can't get it down low with a small displacement motor. I found my 2.2L non turbo MR2 a lot easier to drive around town than my 2.0L turbo. Even tho it had a lot less peak torque than the turbo, it was down low where it's more useful around town.I guess you missed the discussion a few posts above about the Audi 2.0T. 258 lb/ft of torque at 1,500 RPM. I checked three Audi sites to confirm because I though it was 1,800 RPM, but it's listed as 1,500-4,200 RPM.

I've driven a lot of turbo cars, and most of them will not develop any boost below 2,000 RPM, let alone develop enough boost at 1,500 RPM to produce that much torque.

The old sayings "no replacement for displacement", "small motors can't develop torque down low" and "you can't build boost at low RPM's" have all been shattered.


The old GM Ecotec was 2.2L so I guess we can't bring it up. Isn't it the world champion and record holder for 1/4 mile drag racing? And didn't they get up to 1,400HP from that engine?

I wonder what NashMan has to say about that? 1,400 HP Ecotec kinda makes your 800HP 3SGTE look weak.

[roastpuff]

It's not how much torque, it's where it is and you just can't get it down low with a small displacement motor. I found my 2.2L non turbo MR2 a lot easier to drive around town than my 2.0L turbo. Even tho it had a lot less peak torque than the turbo, it was down low where it's more useful around town.

That's because it's an old turbo motor, with peaks and troughs. You oughta try the new turbo motors coming from the German automakers.

I guess you missed the discussion a few posts above about the Audi 2.0T. 258 lb/ft of torque at 1,500 RPM. I checked three Audi sites to confirm because I though it was 1,800 RPM, but it's listed as 1,500-4,200 RPM.

I've driven a lot of turbo cars, and most of them will not develop any boost below 2,000 RPM, let alone develop enough boost at 1,500 RPM to produce that much torque.

The old sayings "no replacement for displacement", "small motors can't develop torque down low" and "you can't build boost at low RPM's" have all been shattered.


I've driven the new A4 2.0 TFSI (friend's), and I have to say that the engine is incredible around town. So much passing power down low... especially when combined with the Quattro system. It's just an incredible rush of torque that pulls the car along.

[cococly]

It's not how much torque, it's where it is and you just can't get it down low with a small displacement motor. I found my 2.2L non turbo MR2 a lot easier to drive around town than my 2.0L turbo. Even tho it had a lot less peak torque than the turbo, it was down low where it's more useful around town.

Check out Audi's and VW's 2.0T FSI, they have such a wide torque band. 1500rpm -4k rpm and then peak power come at 6k. Because the 2.0L turbo is old design??

Seriously, I found my 2.5L turbo very easy to drive., and beaten a Mustang GT somewhere as well

[NashMan]

well to asnwer 1400 there most likly is i know there more then one 4cyc out there that does that but thus are justa bout one race wounders just about

toyota and yamaha hadparter ship between the 2 yamaha made the head toyota made the block as well as other toyota motors

[bcrdukes]

I wonder what NashMan has to say about that? 1,400 HP Ecotec kinda makes your 800HP 3SGTE look weak.

Umm...The Ecotec was developed a lot later on and has a lot more technological enhancements. Why are you comparing it to a motor built in the late 80s? And Titan Motorsports and many other tuners out there have pushed the 3S-GTE far beyond 1200hp so...way to compare apples to oranges. :rolleyes:

[!LittleDragon]

While the VW 2.0T is a nice motor and all, 1500rpm isn't what I would consider to be low end torque. Low end is like idle+ and you can't get that without displacement or a supercharger.

[cococly]

While the VW 2.0T is a nice motor and all, 1500rpm isn't what I would consider to be low end torque. Low end is like idle+ and you can't get that without displacement or a supercharger.



1500rpm is NOT LOW END TORQUE?? Do you usually drive a heavy Diesal or something? Most car idle at around 0.8-0.9k rpm...you can't get max torque any lower than 1500rpm, or else it would be a waste.

Most N/A V8 CANNOT get max Torque at 1500rpm and kept the torque output level at the max across the rev-range.

[roastpuff]

While the VW 2.0T is a nice motor and all, 1500rpm isn't what I would consider to be low end torque. Low end is like idle+ and you can't get that without displacement or a supercharger.

Show me another motor that can match it without being a truck diesel.

C'mon, show me!

[Rich Sandor]

LOL :haha:

seriously, people still use this phrase....??

It's not 1998 anymore, there are plenty of turbocharged 2.0 engines with higher torque outputs then big displacement V8's out there

Buddy, technology can't overcome simple mechanical physics.

Why do you think 1-ton trucks have 6+Litre motors instead of 3L turbos?

It doesn't matter what tuners can show on a dyno - what matters is how quickly and how hard the power comes on in real life, and bigger motors will always have the advantage.

End of story.

[2damaxmr2]

large displacement doesn't mean shit. i have owned a few domestics in my life and they are junk.

[bcrdukes]

edited

[!LittleDragon]

1500rpm is NOT LOW END TORQUE?? Do you usually drive a heavy Diesal or something? Most car idle at around 0.8-0.9k rpm...you can't get max torque any lower than 1500rpm, or else it would be a waste.

Most N/A V8 CANNOT get max Torque at 1500rpm and kept the torque output level at the max across the rev-range.

I'm not talking about max torque. It doesn't matter where the max torque comes in, all that matters is that a good chunk of it is available at idle. That's why I stand by my comment about the 2.2L MR2 being easier to drive around town than the 2.0L Turbo. It has more torque available at idle than the turbo. Low end torque is when you can go up hills without adding throttle, it's when you can drive in city traffic using only 4th gear....

[!LittleDragon]

Show me another motor that can match it without being a truck diesel.

C'mon, show me!

Corvette? Mustang? I can be cruising around town in one of those in 4th gear at 1000rpm and it's instant tire smoke if you punch it. That's torque that comes on low and hard. If you've noticed, a lot of the Japanese sedans have switched to using bigger 3.0+L motors, even the Civic has upsized the engine.

[ericthehalfbee]

^ Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call BS on that 4th gear 1,000 RPM tire smoke claim. I've driven shitloads of muscle cars (and many far from stock) and that is a ridiculous claim.

You think 1,500 isn't low RPM? Why not look at some Ford and Chevy trucks with V8's and then see what RPM's they develop their maximum torque at. You might be surprised. In the automotive industry, 1,500 RPM is considered very low to get maximum torque at (for a gas engine).


Rich: C'mon, you're smarter than the last couple comments you've made. Did you drink some of what Timpo usually has?

The reason why trucks use a larger displacement engine (like a V8) is because they need to develop torque continuously, like when towing a trailer. The Audi 2.0T may develop 258 lb/ft at 1,500 RPM, but there's no circumstance where this engine would ever be required to develop that much torque for an extended period of time. If it did, then reliability would suffer greatly.

You drive a truck and tow your car, right? So your comment seems a little out of place.

[Rich Sandor]

Let me give you some history behind my comments:

I learned to drive in a 600cc Trabant. My first car was a 2.2L Cavalier. My next was a 2.5L 944 turbo. Next is a 3.0L porsche 968. At work, I get to drive everything from a 2L focus, 4.6L mustang, to 6.4L turbo diesel truck. I have autocrossed everything from cavaliers to corvettes, bmws, mustangs, and almost every street porsche under the sun, and even some dedicated race porsches.

Once you have autocrossed a new 6.2L Corvette, you will believe me when I say: displacement is king.

My race car has currently a 2.5L 944 turbo motor, stock 220hp/200trq currently boosted to 15psi making a measly 280hp/270trq. Below 3000rpm is it a gutless pig. Once it spools up, I can pull a stock Viper on the highway easily. (but that is because of gearing, more than Horsepower) My street car (the 3.0L 968) that gobs of low end torque - almost as much as a 4.6L mustang, but it dies off until the varicam kicks in, wheras the mustangs/corvettes keep developing more power as the revs rise.

So back to my race car: The most common mod, beyond upgrading the turbo, is to use a 3L crank and 2.7L head to increase the displacement to 2.8L - because no matter what kind of turbos you put on it, it's still going to be weak coming out of the corners. I can get 360+hp by boosting the shit out of my stock 2.5L and stock turbo, but it's still not going to be as good as if I had another 0.5L displacement + stock boost on the stock turbo.

Now, I will fully concede that there are some BIG motors out there (mostly the older 4.6 and 5.0L ford motors) that are pretty bland in their stock forms.

[Rich Sandor]

I'll also admit that some of the new 2.0L turbo audi and scooby engines are totally astonishing. As far as this thread is concerned, these are probably the best ever 2000cc turbos motors.

But I'd still prefer more displacement for motoring pleasure.

[cococly]

^ yes. I would like a 8.4L V10 on the track, but I want a sedate 2.0L turbo for daily drive.

I'm not talking about max torque. It doesn't matter where the max torque comes in, all that matters is that a good chunk of it is available at idle. That's why I stand by my comment about the 2.2L MR2 being easier to drive around town than the 2.0L Turbo. It has more torque available at idle than the turbo. Low end torque is when you can go up hills without adding throttle, it's when you can drive in city traffic using only 4th gear....


WHY DO YOU NEED MORE TORQUE WHILE IDLING....?

let me show you a DYNO result for example.

A quite new 4-cylinder turbo charged Car:

http://www.sponaugle.com/nasioc/08WRXHPSTock.gif

Look at the WHEEL TORQUE OUTPUT at 2000rpm. It's already 170lb-ft.. I do not think your 2.2L MR2 could get this much torque at any rev range.. [ OF COZ it also depends on the gear ratios..]

How Easy to get it from 800rpm - 2000rpm? Within ONE SECOND or so?

P.S. That car doesn't have like a SUDDEN KICKBACK feeling at certain RPM, it's smooth and felt more like a normal N/A 3.2L V6

[roastpuff]

I'm not talking about max torque. It doesn't matter where the max torque comes in, all that matters is that a good chunk of it is available at idle. That's why I stand by my comment about the 2.2L MR2 being easier to drive around town than the 2.0L Turbo. It has more torque available at idle than the turbo. Low end torque is when you can go up hills without adding throttle, it's when you can drive in city traffic using only 4th gear....

Corvette? Mustang? I can be cruising around town in one of those in 4th gear at 1000rpm and it's instant tire smoke if you punch it. That's torque that comes on low and hard. If you've noticed, a lot of the Japanese sedans have switched to using bigger 3.0+L motors, even the Civic has upsized the engine.

I'm calling bs on the 4th gear/1000 RPM smokeout. Unless you happen to be driving a Hennessey Viper, or a Callaway C6. And I'm going to ask what you consider to be idle speed, because 1500RPM is barely a nudge with my pinky toe in most cars. And I don't think that you can keep going up a hill in any car without adding throttle or downshifting - I'd certainly like to see a video of that. Driving in city traffic in 4th gear is certainly possible on many cars, but you're going to make the engine lug pretty badly.

The MR2 is an old car. Very old. Of course the turbo's going to lag and be peaky. It's not meant for around town driving, it's meant for touging/tracking. Drive a modern variable-vane or twin-turbo engined car and then come back and talk, please.

And the Japanese sedans have switched to using bigger engines because they have bigger and heavier models now and need the extra displacement in order to avoid using a turbo or putting the S2k engine into an Accord/Camry/whathaveyou. Sure, they can wring out the power from a smaller engine, but why would you want to do that when it's going to be expensive to make and expensive to maintain? Also, I don't think Mom n Pop C-Lai want to scream to 9000RPM on their way to mahjong night at the Community center, do you?

[bcrdukes]

^
roastpuff, all this time, !LittleDragon was talking about the NA MR2 which uses the 5S-FE motor also found in the Camry amongst other cars, not the 3S-GTE. The 5S-FE has a gob of torque down low readily available and harnesses rather a sufficient amount of torque for a Japanese motor on the bottom end.

As for tire slippage in 4th gear - he's on his own. :D

And what happened to the OP? This thread fucking sucks donkey balls a bunch.

[roastpuff]

^
roastpuff, all this time, !LittleDragon was talking about the NA MR2 which uses the 5S-FE motor also found in the Camry amongst other cars, not the 3S-GTE. The 5S-FE has a gob of torque down low readily available and harnesses rather a sufficient amount of torque for a Japanese motor on the bottom end.


He was referring to the 3S-GTE MR2 as being less driveable around town than his 5S-FE NA MR2, which I will readily admit as being true. However, he was also bashing the modern 2L turbo motors as not having "torque down low" (I'd love to see his definition of down low) and several of us are trying to explain to him that that's just not true.

I'd like for him to give me an example of any N/A engine in a production car that's not a truck diesel (aren't they mostly turbo-diesels now?) produce more torque than the Audi EA888 2.0T at 1500RPM in order to prove his point that displacement is king.

Also, the point about the sedans having bigger engines nowadays is because they'd otherwise have to resort to either the Honda technique of basically wringing out the engine at very high RPM's or adding turbo(s) to the engine, both of which increase manufacturing and maintenance costs and probably doesn't suit the character of the car as it's meant to be driven.

[CanadaGoose]

Buddy, technology can't overcome simple mechanical physics.

Why do you think 1-ton trucks have 6+Litre motors instead of 3L turbos?

It doesn't matter what tuners can show on a dyno - what matters is how quickly and how hard the power comes on in real life, and bigger motors will always have the advantage.

End of story.

LOL :haha:

It's called reliability. Is someone else logged into your account?

I'm starting to think you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about when it comes to engines...

Even more when I see you reply with these grandiose comments about how many cars you've driven, on this or that track, name dropping, and telling us how your '220hp car can pull on a viper on the highway due to gearing' all of which has nothing to do with the discussion.... lol End of Story? hahaha




AND who's claiming rolling burnouts in 4th at 1000rpm??? and arguing that 1500rpm isn't considered low end. my clutch isn't even fully engaged at 1500rpm...what the hell are you using as a benchmark, cruise ship engines?? :rofl: LOL

[bcrdukes]

^
This thread is full of gay. It would've been a pretty healthy discussion if people didn't start throwing in all this new technology motor bullshit low-end torque this and that burnout mumbo jumbo.

/fail

[!LittleDragon]

4th gear slippage was with an aluminum and fiberglass AC Cobra kit car with a 427 :D Threw it into 4th on Lougheed and the rear tires broke loose. Driving a car with a big motor like that, I would've already shifted by 1500rpm in traffic. You can show me all the numbers and pictures you want but from actual driving experience, I prefer the bigger motor. I can shift lower, don't have to shift as often, no need to downshift a gear unless you're slowing down to a stop...

Also pretty much all the numbers and dyno's out there are most likely based on a WOT run. Most people don't drive at WOT. Show me something at like 1/4 throttle or something. How much torque does it actually make driving around town?

I'd like for him to give me an example of any N/A engine in a production car that's not a truck diesel (aren't they mostly turbo-diesels now?) produce more torque than the Audi EA888 2.0T at 1500RPM in order to prove his point that displacement is king.

You didn't look into the cars I gave you? The base Corvette LS2 is already at 300ft-lbs by 1500rpm, the current C6 makes more and the Z06 LS7 a lot more. But again, that's at WOT... how much is available at 1/4 throttle? A lot more than any 2.0L Turbo at the same throttle levels no matter how you boost it.

[Rich Sandor]

LOL :haha:

..It's called reliability...

So then what you're saying is that a big engine is more reliable than a smaller boosted engine making the same power? So basically you are agreeing that bigger = better? So WTF are we argueing about?

We are not arguing about me being an arrogant prick, because I already know that.

[falcon]

Basically which car/company has the best 2 liter turbo. Here are your choices:

Mitsubishi 4G63T
Toyota 3S-GTE
Nissan SR20DET
Subaru EJ20
Chevrolet LN4 (Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Sky)

and just for kicks:

Honda F20C
Ford 2.3 Turbo
Mazda 20B Rotary

anymore engines please contribute. I think I listed them all, but I might be mistaken.



Nissan is the King of 2L Turbo engines.


The older "holy grail" engine was the FJ20ET in the 1983-1985 DR30 Skyline Coupe. The more "modern" engine would defiantly be the RB20DET over the SR. The RB has more torque and is a 6cyl. It has a lot more potential over the SR, even though the SR has more aftermarket support in North America (in Japan it's different).

And a 20b would be comparable to a 4L engine. The 1.3L 13B-REW is the equivilant to 2.6L engine. *basically double the displacement of a rotary*

[bcrdukes]

Nissan is the King of 2L Turbo engines.

Please explain. :)

[ericthehalfbee]

^
This thread is full of gay. It would've been a pretty healthy discussion if people didn't start throwing in all this new technology motor bullshit low-end torque this and that burnout mumbo jumbo.

/fail:confused:

So we're supposed to talk about old crappy motors and all the problems they have (turbo lag, poor power delivery, no power down low)?

[2damaxmr2]

SR20DET comes with paper headgasket @_@

[godwin]

The problem with the latest DI turbo motors is for end users who want to use them as crate motors.. making it integrated with other systems are near impossible...aftermarkets like Megasquirt etc don't have enough precision for the job. That's also one of the reasons why Lotus went with Toyota (non DI) instead of the LNF... (even Lotus helped out with the design of the LNF).

With the latest Inconel turbos, there will be virtually no turbo lag, if you are paired with a properly sized motor.

As for EA888, it is mainly due to economy of scale... it is always a good thing for a large company's bottom line like VAG to maximize on parts compatibility rather than clean sheet design on every motor.

Picking a motor especially for a manufacturer is a multivariate optimization.. performance is probably one of the least looked at variable.

[ericthehalfbee]

^ So you're saying a motor that's advanced and integrated tightly with the vehicle systems (ABS, transmission) through CAN is a bad thing because it makes them a poor choice as a crate motor?

Since you are talking as if you are well-informed as to the inner workings of the automotive industry and what "variables" they use when designing engines, I find this comment ridiculous.

Why should a manufacturer who spends millions on a new engine be concerned with the aftermarket crate engine business?


But maybe they do....

Lotus may use Toyota, but there are a lot of companies (like the KTM X-Bow or Spyker) that rely on VAG sourced engines for their cars. They don't seem to have problems with "integration".

[godwin]

Err no, what I am saying is if you want to use NFR engine as a crate engine, you also have to invest in the knowledge and most importantly the license to understand GM's modelling and ECU code (which I don't think they have even licensed that publicly yet). You can't just buy a NFR crate from KMSTools and expect your hotrod to run.

If you look from the standpoint from ECU people, especially generics (ECU that works on various makes) eg like Megasquirt, Motec etc.. they already have problems integrating electronic throttles (standard on most cars since 2001) etc. DI is just another nail on their coffins.

At this stage, there is no standalone aftermarket ECU that can drive a DI engine (later in 2009 but not today).. let alone the rest of the systems, eg traction which needs throttle control, speedo etc etc.

DI is one of the technologies which make life a lot harder for hot rodders. Basically to understand / code for DI, you need at least need a EE, a Mech degree and have good grasp of Matlab modelling, since the code is model based. eg base on the atmospheric conditions, you might spray fuel (variable) up to 5 times per combustion cycle , that's a lot more feedback cycles than conventional (1 squirt) injection systems.

The only company that manages to use NFR in a car so far is Fisker for the Karma.. because GM is an investor. KTM with VAG (you know they have a long collaborating / ownership relationship right?). Artega does not, so no DI.

Basically besides forking up the $$ to buy an engine, you now also have model your own engine application and compile that into the ECU.. I just can't see that many small volume manufacturers (eg the likes of Boyd Coddington etc) or Tier 2 /3 aftermarket manufacturers going to do that. I would say for companies that have the resource to use / license DI from the big names, you have to generate income comparable to the likes of Hartge etc. or at least you have 1 or 2 EE PhDs on staff.

With DI and Dual clutch gearboxes, the days of "I just weld parts together to build a hotrod" is over.

^ So you're saying a motor that's advanced and integrated tightly with the vehicle systems (ABS, transmission) through CAN is a bad thing because it makes them a poor choice as a crate motor?

[yvrnycracer]

2 litre engines make no torque?!

Are we talking stock... because I know what can be cranked our of a two liter engine if upgraded properly. And if you really want to get into on demand torque power lets take a look at a 2 litre diesel engine... max power at 1500rpm...

I know I am biased but the 2.0L TFSI and current TSI engines produced by vw can hold their own against any other 2 litre engine especially the engines factory equipped with a BW K04 (TT-S, S3, GTI ED30 etc)...

[death_blossom]

out of the list that Eastwood provided, I would pick 4G63 as best 2.0L motor due to its potential to push out big hp numbers w/o much modification.

as for new technology stuff, why dun we make a new thread about them?

[Chopstick]

SR20DET comes with paper headgasket @_@

haha nice to know

+1 4g63 - smooth as woman's underwear (^__^) b

...Chopstick misses 4g63 :crybaby:

[ericthehalfbee]

godwin

You spent a lot of time talking about how difficult it is to use an advanced DI motor in a hot-rod or custom project.

It doesn't change the fact that the GM and VW 2.0L engines are the best out there right now. That's what this thread is about - the best 2.0L engine, not the engine that's easiest for some backyard tuner with limited skills to integrate into his custom vehicle.

I find it funny that you're criticizing a modern engine because it's "too advanced to be used in a hot rod".

[hk20000]

6A12....coz I have one.

no I'm joking V6 is hard to maintain and twice as expensive to make extra power. You need to upgrade 1.5 times the con rods 2 times the turbo 2 times the headgasket to get the same effect as ,,,,

4G63. Mitsu ftw.

[godwin]

Actually if you read my posts in this thread. I have said GM's LNF is actually ahead of EA888 because a few design decisions.. mainly aluminum block and variable valve timing on the exhaust side, not to mention a more square design. While the EA888 is tailored more to the economy of scale of the existing VW manufacturing line.

Yes the LNF's advantages are probably not hugely significant without a Horiba testing suite. However, advantages are cumulative especially when you look into engine design, so they are still a step ahead.

Whether the engine can be dropped into kit cars comes into consideration when other posters bring in things like AC Cobra kits.. and I am pointing out that unless someone really bring out 3rd party DI ECUs there is no way the technologically superior engines can go into kit cars and function at this moment.

godwin

You spent a lot of time talking about how difficult it is to use an advanced DI motor in a hot-rod or custom project.

It doesn't change the fact that the GM and VW 2.0L engines are the best out there right now. That's what this thread is about - the best 2.0L engine, not the engine that's easiest for some backyard tuner with limited skills to integrate into his custom vehicle.

I find it funny that you're criticizing a modern engine because it's "too advanced to be used in a hot rod".

[Captain Bondo]

4g63 or gtfo

Correct. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either inexperienced or handicapped, or both. :haha: