# 2.0 vs 2.1 vs 2.3 vs 2.4 - 4G63 type motor **URL:** \ **Category:** NYSpeed Automotive\ **Created:** [February 7, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895 "2006-02-07T20:39:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jskrapper](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/jskrapper/32/7570_2.png) [@Jskrapper](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Jskrapper)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 11:14am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/21 "2006-02-08T11:14:56Z")
Everyone else especially Matt pretty much hit everything right on the head…and then some. Howie, If I were in a Gvr4…I would no doubt build a lower-revving 2.4 for a DD. Your car is a fat pig and needs as much low end as possible. Also, it is a much smoother ride from what I hear. ---
**Author:** ![jrex](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/jrex/32/7232_2.png) [@jrex](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/jrex)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 11:19am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/22 "2006-02-08T11:19:45Z")
I want to build something to rev-out and make big power, and am going with either the 2.0 or the 2.1. The 2.0 is tried and true, but I’m starting to lean more towards the 2.1 as it has that little extra displacement, plus another 2.5k of powerband. ---
**Author:** ![RuBiCaNT](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/rubicant/32/7622_2.png) [@RuBiCaNT](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/RuBiCaNT)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 11:35am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/23 "2006-02-08T11:35:49Z")
> [@jrex](#): > > I want to build something to rev-out and make big power, and am going with either the 2.0 or the 2.1. The 2.0 is tried and true, but I’m starting to lean more towards the 2.1 as it has that little extra displacement, plus another 2.5k of powerband. You can rev the 2.0L out just as much as the 2.1… ---
**Author:** ![Rx3](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/rx3/32/7194_2.png) [@Rx3](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Rx3)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 1:31pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/24 "2006-02-08T13:31:37Z")
> [@Daddie](#): > > Goals - Reliability and fun, maybe 350WHP > > Wouldn’t mind it to be not such a slug down low, but I thinkg 8.5:1 CR would fix things nicely. If that is your goal then in my opinion you will be just fine with the 2.0. Picking the right turbo, cams, and tuning will put you right there. Honestly, you probably can do it without a 3052 if your other supporting parts are just right (but the 3052 will give you a bigger range if you ever decide to change your mind and go for a bit more power). I think it would be plausible to hit that number with one of the new EVOIII series turbos for a lot less money than the 3052 setup. I can think of 3 well known people in the DSM community that are hitting 350 with FPBig28s. So a big turbo is not necessary. > [@jrex](#): > > I want to build something to rev-out and make big power, and am going with either the 2.0 or the 2.1. The 2.0 is tried and true, but I’m starting to lean more towards the 2.1 as it has that little extra displacement, plus another 2.5k of powerband. I dunno, I’m still waiting to see someone prove that the 2.1 can outrev the 2.0. I understand the argument made for the 2.1 config: changing the rod length/ratio changes the breathing characteristics of the engine, and longer rods are “proven” to create greater high RPM power, and whatever the optimal angle for this thing is, it’s supposedly good. But can you justify the cost? I think you can get the same results with the 2.0 if you play the cards right. You could spend that money elsewhere. :shrug: On the other hand the thought of a “High rev” 4G63 is sexy. _Maybe I’ve been watching too much Initial D…_ ---
**Author:** ![RuBiCaNT](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/rubicant/32/7622_2.png) [@RuBiCaNT](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/RuBiCaNT)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 1:43pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/25 "2006-02-08T13:43:28Z")
> [@Rx3](#): > > I can think of 3 well known people in the DSM community that are hitting 350 with FPBig28s. So a big turbo is not necessary. Howie does not like T28’s because they don’t make Hawiian penis look larger… ---
**Author:** ![Rx3](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/rx3/32/7194_2.png) [@Rx3](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Rx3)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 1:46pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/26 "2006-02-08T13:46:34Z")
They will when you rip the guy with a 3052 off the line :gotme: EVO III would be my choice if I were buying from scratch today to hit ~350. I wouldn’t go with a 3052 unless I was looking for 400+ HP. ---
**Author:** ![RuBiCaNT](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/rubicant/32/7622_2.png) [@RuBiCaNT](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/RuBiCaNT)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 1:53pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/27 "2006-02-08T13:53:59Z")
> [@Rx3](#): > > They will when you rip the guy with a 3052 off the line :gotme: > > EVO III would be my choice if I were buying from scratch today. I wouldn’t go with a 3052 unless I was looking for 400+ HP My FP3052 will spool around 3200 - 3500 @ 22psi… T28 can suck it… EDIT - T28 is pretty good for \< 20lbs of boost and 300whp at most. Anything more and it turns into a hairdryer and the turbo bearings won’t last that long because you will be running it at 20+ psi. You want easy 350whp, you want something 50trim size (2.123/3.0 compressor), standard bearing. ---
**Author:** ![King](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/king/32/7329_2.png) [@King](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/King)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 3:24pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/28 "2006-02-08T15:24:59Z")
2.4’s torque \> 2.0’s high revs ---
**Author:** ![Adam0137](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/848f3c/32.png) [@Adam0137](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Adam0137)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 6:04pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/29 "2006-02-08T18:04:01Z")
If you’re going for a DD w/ 350whp then I would say go with a 2.4L. I have one in my 1g and I noticed a huge difference over the stock 2.0. With a small turbo like the EvoIII you’d have full boost well below 3k, and even a 50trim would be spooled by 3k if setup right. A 2.4L and a standard bearing 50trim, for any turbo that size, would put you right where you want for a 350whp DD. ---
**Author:** ![Carnut](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/carnut/32/7590_2.png) [@Carnut](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Carnut)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/30 "2006-02-08T21:18:23Z")
> [@Daddie](#): > > Goals - Reliability and fun, maybe 350WHP > > Wouldn’t mind it to be not such a slug down low, but I thinkg 8.5:1 CR would fix things nicely. 2.3 if you dont want too much down time and want to use your same block, or 2.4 for the street. Torque is what gets you moving, torque wins races, horsepower sells cars. ---
**Author:** ![Locutus](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/locutus/32/7574_2.png) [@Locutus](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Locutus)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/31 "2006-02-08T21:19:16Z")
go big or go home… unless you want it for a dd… ---
**Author:** ![Rx3](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/rx3/32/7194_2.png) [@Rx3](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Rx3)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 6:06pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/32 "2006-02-09T18:06:49Z")
Just for reference, there has been an ongoing Turbo comparison done on a single platform by Slowboy comparing various turbos. Here are the results for the EVO III [from DSMTuners.com](http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208481) > [@Slowboy Racing](#): > > _MHI Evo III 16g_ > > * * * > > We had only linited time today to get the test done, we had a few dyno appointments. We did manage to spend some time with the MHI Evo III turbo however, notice on the 15 PSI graph the boost crept from 15 to 20 psi… the opposite problem we have been having! This was an unported turbo with no 34 mm flapper to help control boost creep. It was only an issue when we tried to run less than 20 psi however. > > 15 PSI: 290 ft/lbs 344 WHP (crept to 20 PSI)[/b] > 20 PSI: **344 ft/lbs 344 WHP** > 25 PSI: **400 ft/lbs 375 WHP** > 30 PSI: **436 ft/lbs 397 WHP (fell to 23 PSI at redline)** > > We can easily make 400 WHP if we wanted to run more timing, or if we were on our old 2.3l motor we liked to beat on back in the day! We will have this turbo back on once we go external as well. > > [http://www.slowboyracing.com/downloa...0-25-30psi.JPG](http://www.slowboyracing.com/downloa...0-25-30psi.JPG) > > [http://www.slowboyracing.com/downloa...st%20Graph.JPG](http://www.slowboyracing.com/downloa...st%20Graph.JPG) > > Mike Huml Cliffnotes on the engine: shortblock is actually 8.3:1 Wiseco 2.0l .020" over. ---
**Author:** ![RuBiCaNT](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/rubicant/32/7622_2.png) [@RuBiCaNT](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/RuBiCaNT)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 8:41pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/33 "2006-02-09T20:41:35Z")
I don’t care what anyone says about high boost on the MHI EvoIII, anything about say 23+ lbs of boost is going to wear out prematurely. That turbo was never designed to run at those PR’s… ---
**Author:** ![Rx3](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/rx3/32/7194_2.png) [@Rx3](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Rx3)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 9:42pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/34 "2006-02-09T21:42:01Z")
If he is running a 2.4, could he could probably get the same numbers at less PSI? ---
**Author:** ![Carnut](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/carnut/32/7590_2.png) [@Carnut](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Carnut)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 10:48pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/35 "2006-02-09T22:48:06Z")
No, I dont think so. It would be out of its efficency too fast ---
**Author:** ![Rx3](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/rx3/32/7194_2.png) [@Rx3](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Rx3)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/36 "2006-02-09T23:55:19Z")
> [@Carnut](#): > > No, I dont think so. It would be out of its efficency too fast Because of the increased airflow of the 2.4 compared to the 2.0? What is the airflow rating of a 2.4 compared to a 2.0? ---
**Author:** ![RuBiCaNT](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/rubicant/32/7622_2.png) [@RuBiCaNT](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/RuBiCaNT)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 5:58am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895/37 "2006-02-10T05:58:04Z")
> [@Rx3](#): > > Because of the increased airflow of the 2.4 compared to the 2.0? > > What is the airflow rating of a 2.4 compared to a 2.0? There are no documented numbers AFAIK because it’s not a turbo block out from the factory. NABR might have numbers somewhere, however. [Previous page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2-0-vs-2-1-vs-2-3-vs-2-4-4g63-type-motor/7895.md?page=1)