http://www.turbochargedpower.com/Movies/BCsTTBullittnomusic.wmv


For all of those haters out there. Open your eyes, your all clueless.

front tires are really jacked up on that thing

Re post -- The rims are called skinnys thats what happens under weight.

I wonder what and were that shop is, that the same shop with the 500hp Cobra that was doing donuts

bullits only come in the dark green. im confused

ORIGINAL: drewsky

bullits only come in the dark green. im confused


Bullitt's come in at least 3 different colors.

BTW, after seeing that, I am definatly getting MPH to do my tune on the blower. Its like 16 hours away or something stupid, but they are badass.

repost...and who said turbo's were rice?

sure alot of ricers use turbos to keep up with us. but when we go Forced they have to think and thats hard for them. *theres no replacement for displacement*

ORIGINAL: I G Joe

sure alot of ricers use turbos to keep up with us. but when we go Forced they have to think and thats hard for them. *theres no replacement for displacement*


Listen, in all honesty, why are you bashing "ricers" when it gets right down to it, you should have respect for anyone that can make there car go fast and do the work themselves.. Take a turbo'd honda civic for example.... Yes its a civic, and yes it might be rice... But it has a turbo, they never came with turbos, and you know the dude that owns that car did all the work himself.... it shouldent matter what you drive, if your a tuner and do all your own work, you should get respect

ORIGINAL: FiveOhNo

and who said turbo's were rice?


What he said.

ORIGINAL: Obsol3te


ORIGINAL: FiveOhNo

and who said turbo's were rice?


What he said.

Most fast stangs have turbos!I dont know who said that dum comment.

ORIGINAL: Joe99es


ORIGINAL: I G Joe

sure alot of ricers use turbos to keep up with us. but when we go Forced they have to think and thats hard for them. *theres no replacement for displacement*


Listen, in all honesty, why are you bashing "ricers" when it gets right down to it, you should have respect for anyone that can make there car go fast and do the work themselves.. Take a turbo'd honda civic for example.... Yes its a civic, and yes it might be rice... But it has a turbo, they never came with turbos, and you know the dude that owns that car did all the work himself.... it shouldent matter what you drive, if your a tuner and do all your own work, you should get respect



lol im sorry but its not hard to slap a turbo on a car. hmm lets see you get the turbo and everything you need. goto a stand alone system hook it up to a computer and bam you can tune it that way. i dont think i know a ricer who could tune a carburated engine. sure yeah give him respect he did it himself, but ya gotta admitt why the hell would you slap a turbo on a 1.6L your basically wasting your money and your time. id say turbo's are meant for anything above the 2.0L mark because then you have enough engine to push the turbo. the only respectable rice out there is very expensive rice. Supra,Evo,STI, and so on you get my drift.

ORIGINAL: I G Joe


ORIGINAL: Joe99es


ORIGINAL: I G Joe

sure alot of ricers use turbos to keep up with us. but when we go Forced they have to think and thats hard for them. *theres no replacement for displacement*


Listen, in all honesty, why are you bashing "ricers" when it gets right down to it, you should have respect for anyone that can make there car go fast and do the work themselves.. Take a turbo'd honda civic for example.... Yes its a civic, and yes it might be rice... But it has a turbo, they never came with turbos, and you know the dude that owns that car did all the work himself.... it shouldent matter what you drive, if your a tuner and do all your own work, you should get respect



lol im sorry but its not hard to slap a turbo on a car. hmm lets see you get the turbo and everything you need. goto a stand alone system hook it up to a computer and bam you can tune it that way. i dont think i know a ricer who could tune a carburated engine. sure yeah give him respect he did it himself, but ya gotta admitt why the hell would you slap a turbo on a 1.6L your basically wasting your money and your time. id say turbo's are meant for anything above the 2.0L mark because then you have enough engine to push the turbo. the only respectable rice out there is very expensive rice. Supra,Evo,STI, and so on you get my drift.



So its not hard to "slap on" a turbo on a NA car, and get a full Haltech standalone system and have it tuned properly? As opposed to the all mighty carb? Hondas come with 1.8 Liters, most "sedan rice" cars that most people would think are ricers have 2.0 or bigger engines, and there are 1.8's running 20 psi and it working perfectly fine

ORIGINAL: Joe99es


ORIGINAL: I G Joe


ORIGINAL: Joe99es


ORIGINAL: I G Joe

sure alot of ricers use turbos to keep up with us. but when we go Forced they have to think and thats hard for them. *theres no replacement for displacement*


Listen, in all honesty, why are you bashing "ricers" when it gets right down to it, you should have respect for anyone that can make there car go fast and do the work themselves.. Take a turbo'd honda civic for example.... Yes its a civic, and yes it might be rice... But it has a turbo, they never came with turbos, and you know the dude that owns that car did all the work himself.... it shouldent matter what you drive, if your a tuner and do all your own work, you should get respect



lol im sorry but its not hard to slap a turbo on a car. hmm lets see you get the turbo and everything you need. goto a stand alone system hook it up to a computer and bam you can tune it that way. i dont think i know a ricer who could tune a carburated engine. sure yeah give him respect he did it himself, but ya gotta admitt why the hell would you slap a turbo on a 1.6L your basically wasting your money and your time. id say turbo's are meant for anything above the 2.0L mark because then you have enough engine to push the turbo. the only respectable rice out there is very expensive rice. Supra,Evo,STI, and so on you get my drift.



So its not hard to "slap on" a turbo on a NA car, and get a full Haltech standalone system and have it tuned properly? As opposed to the all mighty carb? Hondas come with 1.8 Liters, most "sedan rice" cars that most people would think are ricers have 2.0 or bigger engines, and there are 1.8's running 20 psi and it working perfectly fine


k...only one "honda" came with the 1.8 liter (integra)...most others are using a 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.2, or the 2.3 so, Joe, you're an idiot. it's not that hard to build a turbo honda. i'm runnin a crx Si with the stock D16, T3/T4 .50 trim @8psi, and 720cc injectors...no tuning what-so-ever. stock fuel regulator. no aftermarket computer, no AFC or anything. it doesn't take that much to get one goin so i'm not sure why you're even bringing up the "full Haltech standalone system". yeah, if you want your "1.8 at 20psi" to work you're gonna need a pretty badass tune (and a strong bottom end), but not many people do that.

edit-and about the turbo being for engines above 2.0, that's just ignorant and you need to crawl out from the rock you're living under b/c there are plenty of insanely fast 1.5 and 1.6L turbo'd hondas. not to mention all the B18's runnin a turbo.

thats what my ****in point was ITS NOT HARD TO BUILD A TURBO HONDA. theirs a reason why people goto stand alone systems its called reliability. good for you and your CRX but im sorry i stick with my 2.0L comment and up. its a BIG waste of time trying to get power outta anything below that. reason being your all Top end and no bottom. plus i could spend less money on a Chevy 350 than you do on your Honda B16A or B18's and still kick your ass. if ya wanna talk about corners fine ill whip out my Turbo 2.3L mustang and kick your ass. go ahead call me ignorant or w/e but just remember you'll never win =P

oh also for your CRX you wasted alot of time and money on it. your 720cc injectors = waste, your T3/T4 turbo = waste come on its only running 8psi.... no tuning alright you just wasted alot of money GOOD FOR YOU.

ORIGINAL: I G Joe

thats what my ****in point was ITS NOT HARD TO BUILD A TURBO HONDA. theirs a reason why people goto stand alone systems its called reliability. good for you and your CRX but im sorry i stick with my 2.0L comment and up. its a BIG waste of time trying to get power outta anything below that. reason being your all Top end and no bottom. plus i could spend less money on a Chevy 350 than you do on your Honda B16A or B18's and still kick your ass. if ya wanna talk about corners fine ill whip out my Turbo 2.3L mustang and kick your ass. go ahead call me ignorant or w/e but just remember you'll never win =P

oh also for your CRX you wasted alot of time and money on it. your 720cc injectors = waste, your T3/T4 turbo = waste come on its only running 8psi.... no tuning alright you just wasted alot of money GOOD FOR YOU.


Your extremely ignorant, there are turbo 1.8 liter engines running 500+ WHP, get your head out of your ass

I win!

`No offense but after hearing that, i like the whin of s/c's better!! jus my opinion!!! Nice car tho'

Who ever said theres no point in putting a turbo on anything bellow a 2.0 liter is real dumb! I would put a turbo on my weed wacker if I had the money to waste.

Have you ever seen turbo 600cc bikes? Coming stock from the factory. Thats 0.6 liters.

Oh and heres a new record........... 701hp out of a 1.3 liter four cylinder. And thats coming from a suzuki hayabusa.....

http://superstreetbike.com/releases/pr_hd_701hp/

I hate the mentality of people with muscle cars. They all think there better than everyone else. I respect anyone who knows what there talking about and has an interest in motor sports. Doesnt mean I have the same taste or desire as them, but they have the passion for power sports as I do....

on the turbo on small engine cars. I'm into Nitro RC cars (not so much right now), and they make a turbo and supercharger application for 2.5cc engine. Thats .0025L BTW. They are cool in my book :D

ORIGINAL: Obsol3te


ORIGINAL: FiveOhNo

and who said turbo's were rice?


What he said.



:withtheguywiththebadassfox:

ORIGINAL: I G Joe

thats what my ****in point was ITS NOT HARD TO BUILD A TURBO HONDA. theirs a reason why people goto stand alone systems its called reliability. good for you and your CRX but im sorry i stick with my 2.0L comment and up. its a BIG waste of time trying to get power outta anything below that. reason being your all Top end and no bottom. plus i could spend less money on a Chevy 350 than you do on your Honda B16A or B18's and still kick your ass. if ya wanna talk about corners fine ill whip out my Turbo 2.3L mustang and kick your ass. go ahead call me ignorant or w/e but just remember you'll never win =P

oh also for your CRX you wasted alot of time and money on it. your 720cc injectors = waste, your T3/T4 turbo = waste come on its only running 8psi.... no tuning alright you just wasted alot of money GOOD FOR YOU.


oh...lemme guess...you say a turbo on anything below 2.0 b/c you have a 2.3 right? right, that makes a whole lot of sense. i wasted all of 1400 bucks on the turbo setup i have...man, i sure wish i hadn't done that. you have no logical reason that a turbo shouldn't be put on anything less than a 2.0 (maybe b/c it's a nice even number?) what's so bad about being all top end in a high revving application? i don't need power below 2k b/c i'm never there. only 8psi? wow, yeah...8psi does nothing, you're right...;) whip out your 2.3L mustang and kick my ass...hmmm...easy to type that isn't it?

ORIGINAL: FiveOhNo

ORIGINAL: I G Joe

thats what my ****in point was ITS NOT HARD TO BUILD A TURBO HONDA. theirs a reason why people goto stand alone systems its called reliability. good for you and your CRX but im sorry i stick with my 2.0L comment and up. its a BIG waste of time trying to get power outta anything below that. reason being your all Top end and no bottom. plus i could spend less money on a Chevy 350 than you do on your Honda B16A or B18's and still kick your ass. if ya wanna talk about corners fine ill whip out my Turbo 2.3L mustang and kick your ass. go ahead call me ignorant or w/e but just remember you'll never win =P

oh also for your CRX you wasted alot of time and money on it. your 720cc injectors = waste, your T3/T4 turbo = waste come on its only running 8psi.... no tuning alright you just wasted alot of money GOOD FOR YOU.


oh...lemme guess...you say a turbo on anything below 2.0 b/c you have a 2.3 right? right, that makes a whole lot of sense. i wasted all of 1400 bucks on the turbo setup i have...man, i sure wish i hadn't done that. you have no logical reason that a turbo shouldn't be put on anything less than a 2.0 (maybe b/c it's a nice even number?) what's so bad about being all top end in a high revving application? i don't need power below 2k b/c i'm never there. only 8psi? wow, yeah...8psi does nothing, you're right...;) whip out your 2.3L mustang and kick my ass...hmmm...easy to type that isn't it?



I agree i dont think ive evr seen a fast 2.3 liter mustang at the track.....In my eyes those things are a POS no offense G I Joe

ORIGINAL: 2000Si


ORIGINAL: Obsol3te


ORIGINAL: FiveOhNo

and who said turbo's were rice?


What he said.



:withtheguywiththebadassfox:

:D Mwar har har
Go check out my latest addition in the 5.0 section;)

*sigh* this is sad really... do some research guys.

how about you do some research? there are turbo 1.8L I4's out there running 9's

Saleen 351.... Your deffinitly naive. You should just say "no one should turbo charge a four cylinder" but you cant say that because that would make you a hypocrite. An internal combustion engine, basicly works the same no matter what size the displacement. A form of turbo charging just increases the power output. Sure you can take a 350 and turbo charge that, but you can also take a small four cylinder which weights probably 1/3 the weight and make over 400hp and up. Then you can put that motor in a lotus, or s2000. keeping the weight down and the weight ratio close to 50/50. Instead of having a nose heaving chevy. Sometimes bigger isnt better. theres a reason champ cars use. turbocharged 2.6 liter v-8 motors instead of a turbocharged 5.8 liter v-8.

Oh sorry saleen 351. I didnt read your entire post. Sorry.... Your not the naive one!

I G Joe.... I suggest you research yourself. Before you make dumb comments. Your the naive one......

all that power is useless....can't even come close to hooking

yup yup im naive really... no i am, i sware to you i am. i cant wait to toast you GT guys

Well when you make a comment, then 5 members all jump on your back about it , that should throw up some warning signs pal

I understand his point (whoever it was, I'm confused now...). Yeah, you can turbo a 1.8, but if you turbo a 2.3 you'll get more power, and hell yeah, twin turbo a 351 and you'll have even more. Its the same thing as saying not to use a small displacement NA engine because more cubes is where its at. Problem with that is most people have to work with what they got, and if the car came with a 1.8, a 351TT most likely wont fit!

well those people need to learn how to fabricate and make it fit =P

ORIGINAL: Aixtreme89

Who ever said theres no point in putting a turbo on anything bellow a 2.0 liter is real dumb! I would put a turbo on my weed wacker if I had the money to waste.



That'd be badass having a turbo weedwacker:D

ORIGINAL: Aixtreme89

Oh sorry saleen 351. I didnt read your entire post. Sorry.... Your not the naive one!


Hey man I love turbo cars ,I grew up with 89 Turbo tas thats all i ever drove....Every mustang I spanked was like"Thats not a six cylinder"So I'd pop the hood and show them the six with a huge turbo!I love turbos and I would take one anyday over a supercharger. You make more power without taking any from the motor.My turbo ta's run 11's with ease.Turbos all the way!!!!!!!!

ORIGINAL: Joe99es

Well when you make a comment, then 5 members all jump on your back about it , that should throw up some warning signs pal


Now thats a comment that you should live by yourself.....Man you are one screwed up dude

AHHAHAH this is great stuff
"k...only one "honda" came with the 1.8 liter (integra)...most others are using a 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.2, or the 2.3 so, Joe, you're an idiot." now thats just straight up funny and true at the same time for this reason

"Well when you make a comment, then 5 members all jump on your back about it , that should throw up some warning signs pal" by joe99es

now you tell people that comment when you do the same thing you hypocrite
heres the link to prove
http://www.mustangforums.com/m_544602/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm

by the way this is america we have pride in american muscle cars.. and thats what mustangs are obviously.. i mean ricers.. okay so wat the might have some decent looking rides some nice hook ups ok i'll give ya that... but i'd much much much rather have a mustang or saleen then any other car on the market..
heres a funnny one
"So, let me get this straight, Your Honda has 1.6 liters, whereas my bottle of mountain dew has 2?"
lol that one cracks me up

o by the way saleen can i join your club? lol i kinda just put it in there w/o asking

ORIGINAL: I G Joe


ORIGINAL: Joe99es


ORIGINAL: I G Joe

sure alot of ricers use turbos to keep up with us. but when we go Forced they have to think and thats hard for them. *theres no replacement for displacement*


Listen, in all honesty, why are you bashing "ricers" when it gets right down to it, you should have respect for anyone that can make there car go fast and do the work themselves.. Take a turbo'd honda civic for example.... Yes its a civic, and yes it might be rice... But it has a turbo, they never came with turbos, and you know the dude that owns that car did all the work himself.... it shouldent matter what you drive, if your a tuner and do all your own work, you should get respect



lol im sorry but its not hard to slap a turbo on a car. hmm lets see you get the turbo and everything you need. goto a stand alone system hook it up to a computer and bam you can tune it that way. i dont think i know a ricer who could tune a carburated engine. sure yeah give him respect he did it himself, but ya gotta admitt why the hell would you slap a turbo on a 1.6L your basically wasting your money and your time. id say turbo's are meant for anything above the 2.0L mark because then you have enough engine to push the turbo. the only respectable rice out there is very expensive rice. Supra,Evo,STI, and so on you get my drift.


Jesus Christ... who are you, Joe99? That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Sub 2L engines don't have enough to spin a turbine? wtf? Where are you reading this nonsense? Turbochargers are PERFECT on small displacement engines simply for the fact that it doesn't take much to get the turbines spinning.

Oh and Allstar, Mustangs are not Muscle cars... they're Pony cars.

ORIGINAL: 2000Si

Jesus Christ... who are you, Joe99? That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Sub 2L engines don't have enough to spin a turbine? wtf? Where are you reading this nonsense? Turbochargers are PERFECT on small displacement engines simply for the fact that it doesn't take much to get the turbines spinning.


You just have to make sure you're using the right size turbo. Now wait for someone to say he was talking about a high A/R turbined turbo..."doesnt belong on a small cc motor!" lol

ORIGINAL: Allstar

o by the way saleen can i join your club? lol i kinda just put it in there w/o asking


If you didnt even ask if you could be it, then your not exactly OFFICIAL member #4 are you? you bandwagon dumbass

ORIGINAL: Magiarn71


ORIGINAL: 2000Si

Jesus Christ... who are you, Joe99? That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Sub 2L engines don't have enough to spin a turbine? wtf? Where are you reading this nonsense? Turbochargers are PERFECT on small displacement engines simply for the fact that it doesn't take much to get the turbines spinning.


You just have to make sure you're using the right size turbo. Now wait for someone to say he was talking about a high A/R turbined turbo..."doesnt belong on a small cc motor!" lol


Psi is Psi

ORIGINAL: Joe99es


ORIGINAL: Magiarn71


ORIGINAL: 2000Si

Jesus Christ... who are you, Joe99? That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Sub 2L engines don't have enough to spin a turbine? wtf? Where are you reading this nonsense? Turbochargers are PERFECT on small displacement engines simply for the fact that it doesn't take much to get the turbines spinning.


You just have to make sure you're using the right size turbo. Now wait for someone to say he was talking about a high A/R turbined turbo..."doesnt belong on a small cc motor!" lol


Psi is Psi



No, it's really not. It's all about CFMs. Using too big of a turbo on too small of an engine will cause turbo "lag" until it spools. In that case you have too much CFM on too small of an engine.

ORIGINAL: Joe99es

Psi is Psi



So you have a turbo from a HUGE diesel motor, say out of an old military truck, on your 2.3 and it's GREAT? Is it from a Kenworth?[sm=alcoholic.gif]

ORIGINAL: Magiarn71


ORIGINAL: Joe99es

Psi is Psi



So you have a turbo from a HUGE diesel motor, say out of an old military truck, on your 2.3 and it's GREAT? Is it from a Kenworth?[sm=alcoholic.gif]


Or even better... Take the turbo off that Diesel dragster that the magazines have been talking about that runs 95 Psi and put that on a 1.6L I4.. be big pimpin

[sm=sigh.gif]

This is a really stupid argument, and joe ive seen you get flamed for being a retard in other posts so shut up

lol you guys are ****in idiots I have the Turbo 2.3L ya stupid asses, your flaming that other guy for somethin he doesnt even have. *sigh* and no i dont need a huge ****in turbo on my car. ill just get somethin for my size engine and power levels im lookin for. yes my engine can hit 35psi =D

AND NO i never said you couldnt slap a turbo on a 1.6L engine. im basically saying is a damn waste to.

ORIGINAL: I G Joe

AND NO i never said you couldnt slap a turbo on a 1.6L engine. im basically saying is a damn waste to.


and your opinion would be wrong. But, sure... keep believing that 1.6s can't make decent power.

well you go empty your bank account and make decent power outta your SI

I tend to gauge power by the block its made from, not just hp at face value. I think a 300 hp 4 cyl is more respectable than a 300 hp big block v8....yeah, you can get more from the BB by doing the same stuff with it, the point is doing what you WANT. If people are happy with the power they get from the block they got, leave them alone. One person's definition of "decent" power is different than another.

yeah IMO there nothing wrong with a 4,6,8,10,12 or 16 cyl. If someone wants a 300hp Civic hey go for it im sure it will be fast

ORIGINAL: I G Joe

well you go empty your bank account and make decent power outta your SI


and you go empty your bank account to even keep that 2.3 running.

I guess if I had a turbo from the factory I'd think I'm superior too.

yay some positive people ^

and there are certain advantages of having a turbo from factory.

Interals are a big part.

how much will those 2.3s handle anyway? are they forged from the factory?

Tell ya what. I'll go buy another 91-96 Escort GT with the 1.8 and I'll bet I can squeeze just as much power from it as you can that 2.3 without touching the internals. ;)

well you hit 35psi with stock internals and give me a call.

haha I'm going to have to call BS on that one. There has never been a production engine, factory turbo or not, that will handle 35 psi on stock anything.

You're not going to hit 35 psi on a 19 year old engine and live to rev with it.

2.3's are forged stock and do handle that much.

takes alittle work and modifying but i can do it =P heres a website that gives me alittle info on how to make a 400+ horse turbo 2.3L

not 35psi but still i think you get the point. http://www.mustangforums.com/m_542956/mpage_3/tm.htm

big oops... http://www.rothfam.com/svo/400hp.htm

So are EJ20/25ts and 4g63s, but they will not handle 35 psi on the stock internals. I highly doubt a 19 year old engine with 1970s techonology will outhandle an engine that was engineered and built with 2002+ technology.

i bet ya it will

16-17 psi is FAR FAR from 35. 35 psi is more than double atmospheric pressure.

A stock Escort GT engine will handle 14 psi on stock internals, and will put down 350 hp.

doesnt mean the Escort GT will keep up. the Ford SOHC 2.3L engine is an amazing engine. as you can see it wouldnt cost me much to hit 400hp which is STI eating material. yes yes i was bull****ing about the 35psi thing. just wanted to see what MR honda boy would do =P plus ya gotta think a 1970's car vs a 2000 car in a crash test head on. which one would leave with less dmg. a 70's chevelle vs a 2000 Civic SI.

Bsing huh? ok. 350 hp in a 2400 lb car will go faster than you think it will.

who cares about crash test ratings? I won't be going through the windshield anytime soon.

With the right fuel and tune mods, intercooler and whatnot, you can run 35 psi, its been done. Usually with an alky mix; its detonation you have to contend with, I never heard about someone with lower internal probs.

point is cars were built harder back then. if the 1970's PINTO engine was so bad why did ford use it in the SVO mustang? producing 205hp in its last year. which is the equivalent of 2x's the power out of the 5.0L at the time. and 400hp in a 2800lb car will go faster than you think. my dad has a 5000lb car that ran 12's and your point? all racing is, is power:weight ratio. more power in the lighter car you have = the faster you go. so my car being under 3000lbs will do decent on the track. im building mine not for drag but for turns.

ORIGINAL: 2000Si
I highly doubt a 19 year old engine with 1970s techonology will outhandle an engine that was engineered and built with 2002+ technology.


Depends on the purpose of the engine build. Were cuts made to save cost? Reliability sacrificed for performance? I'm telling you man, look at the SHO. My brother had one and the cams were famous for coming apart at about 80,000 miles, not to mention that they had those coil packs on the plugs and changing them was huge $$$. I'll take old tech please. lol ;)

My point is you don't need 500 hp in a 2400 lb car to get 12s.

But before you threw this off topic with crash test ratings and specific 2.3 talk was that Joe is a tool and the 2.3 won't handle 35 psi on the stock internals. If you can get it tuned with that much compression, it's not going to last long.

I said something naughty, but Obsol3te Fixed it Right Up For Me!

ORIGINAL: Magiarn71


ORIGINAL: 2000Si
I highly doubt a 19 year old engine with 1970s techonology will outhandle an engine that was engineered and built with 2002+ technology.


Depends on the purpose of the engine build. Were cuts made to save cost? Reliability sacrificed for performance? I'm telling you man, look at the SHO. My brother had one and the cams were famous for coming apart at about 80,000 miles, not to mention that they had those coil packs on the plugs and changing them was huge $$$. I'll take old tech please. lol ;)



SHO's were never turbocharged. I'm talking STOCK TURBOCHARGED ENGINES HANDLING XX PSI. I know all about the 3.4 SHO engines, but in this case I could care less about what they do.

Stop throwing this off topic with inane nonsense that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

ORIGINAL: I G Joe

yeah im a tool i tighten things and loosen em. like i did your mom before you were born. she can sit on a stool and slide down it now cant she?


no no, not you Joe, Joe99 is a tool. I forgot the 99 in there. lol

lol ok good. me sorry for that comment then.

So I must be a tool too then, because I've been into the 2.3T for years, have two of them, and I say it could!

Then do it Mag, I'd like to see how long a completely stock internaled 2.3 handles 35 psi.

well if it runs and lets you go full throttle for a minute the first time lets just say it can handle it. but if it blows itself to **** the minute you romp on the engine then it cant handle it. whose to say top fuel dragsters cant handle what they are doing. they run for the 1/4 mile and then rebuild the engine =P

ORIGINAL: 2000Si

Stop throwing this off topic with inane nonsense that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.


It certainly does have something to do with it. You were talking about new tech vs old tech.


ORIGINAL: 2000Si


Then do it Mag, I'd like to see how long a completely stock internaled 2.3 handles 35 psi.


I dont need to do everything myself to know its been done. Isn't there anyone who doesnt cry bs on everything they dont know about? Sheeesh... I suppose you would also disagree that you can make over 400 hp on the stock internals?

I don't disagree with that, because I believe forged internals can handle 17 psi. But I don't believe 35 psi, and neither of you have yet to show me any proof of a reliable stock internaled 35 psi 2.3.

I don't know everything about the 2.3, but I do know something about living within the realms of reality and simple engine dynamics.

and no, the reliability of a SHO engine has nothing to do with this. That's the inane stuff I was talking about.

Um yeah it does, you just need to think a little. Its an example of how reliabilty is sacrificed for performance sometimes, and whether or not a 2002+ design can outhandle a 1970's design depends on if they did any of THAT. I know they weren't turbos dude. But I do know that tech on ANYTHING newer isn't always built for say, handling stress. "You know we can shave about 50 bucks per build if we make that cylinder wall thinner and it wont even effect STOCK reliability..." Try to take the point instead of blindly ignoring its significance. Maybe I didnt explain myself good enough, but there is a point to it, and it is EXACTLY what you were bringing up.

Ok I'm done. Not going to go back and forth anymore, its pointless.

I see your point and reasoning behind it... and I never disputed that, but it still had nothing to do with a 19 year old turbo engine's reliability at 35 psi.

It simply had nothing to do with the point we were discussing. I still want some proof that a 2.3 can handle well over twice the atmospheric pressure reliably.

well lets see the turbo 2.3L i have right now was overboosting and it hit in excess of over 20psi id say somewhere like 25psi so whats 10 more psi gonna do?

add almost another equivalent to Earth's atmospheric pressure between the four cylinders. 10 psi is a lot of boost, let alone making it that "extra" 10 psi.

Nice vid..... What the heck was wrong with the Dino?

1 bar or earths air pressure at sea level is 14.7psi. id say 25psi being near 2 bar that the engine could take 10 more psi.

Yes I know that. What I'm saying is 35 psi is 2.4 times earths atmosphere. I have never seen a stock engine ever handle that without putting a rod or a headgasket out of commission.

that is what you call a bullit damn......[sm=jawdrop.gif][sm=hail.gif]

ORIGINAL: 2000Si

Yes I know that. What I'm saying is 35 psi is 2.4 times earths atmosphere. I have never seen a stock engine ever handle that without putting a rod or a headgasket out of commission.


Diesels run 35 psi regularly, stock right from the factory

the evo runs 19 psi stock...

diesels have thicker cylinder walls there buddy and they need the compression to run. diesels dont use spark plugs.

there are diesels out there that can run 95psi... the evo with a 2.3L stroker kit can run 35psi we know this. the big question is if a 1970's pinto engine can run 35psi stock.

or well a 1986 Mustang SVO can.

That evo could probobly do 40 Psi if he went the rest of the way with it

ORIGINAL: Joe99es


ORIGINAL: 2000Si

Yes I know that. What I'm saying is 35 psi is 2.4 times earths atmosphere. I have never seen a stock engine ever handle that without putting a rod or a headgasket out of commission.


Diesels run 35 psi regularly, stock right from the factory

the evo runs 19 psi stock...


No they dont I have two F-550 powerstrokes and neither of them had more than 20 pounds of boost stock, even my modded one has only 25 psi.You need some very expensive injectors ($1500) to run that boost

Cummins Turbo Diesels run 25 psi stock.. And that diesel dragster runs 9's and it has a stock bottom end and runs 95 psi of boost.. diesels are amazing

why can't we all just get along???

ORIGINAL: 2000Si

So are EJ20/25ts and 4g63s, but they will not handle 35 psi on the stock internals. I highly doubt a 19 year old engine with 1970s techonology will outhandle an engine that was engineered and built with 2002+ technology.


What about the Hemi thats still out performing new engines

wo this video rawks!!! please post more iam in love.

all i can say is damnnnn!!! thats an awesome ride have u takin it to the track yet , oh and my buddy is like that dont beat my lexus is 300 but what he forgets to mention is that lexus is riced out to the max

turbos kick ass

ORIGINAL: I G Joe

well lets see the turbo 2.3L i have right now was overboosting and it hit in excess of over 20psi id say somewhere like 25psi so whats 10 more psi gonna do?



BLOW UP

ORIGINAL: 99saleen351r


ORIGINAL: I G Joe

well lets see the turbo 2.3L i have right now was overboosting and it hit in excess of over 20psi id say somewhere like 25psi so whats 10 more psi gonna do?



BLOW UP


Lol Agreed!

I don't believe Turbo is rice but some of stuff in this thread is outlandish, Can a 2.3L engine run 35Psi...probably. Is it reliable Uh, probably not. I think that's what should be debated. I can take a Geo Metro or Yugo and put whatever I want on it. Will it survive? That's the question. Weight and ratios also have an impact on speed. If you have two identical cars save for weight and gear ratios, their 1/4 mile time and hp per lb are going to be VERY different.

Someone on here pointed out that a top fuel dragster engine has to be rebuilt after each use. Yep, and it's modified to the hilt. Nascar engines are only good for one or two races and they're N/A.

Diesel engines aren't the same type of engine design as Gas so they are out of the conversation. They are designed specifically to handle higher compression ratios and forced induction so saying that a diesel can handle 95psi is pointless. Custom build a gas engine, use steel sleeves, get forged internals and you too can increase the compression and use ungodly amounts of forced induction. That's not the point.

So i think the question we should ask is, will the stock motor be reliable with that amount of boost? My point, stick to apples vs apples and ask something that someone really cares about.

the thought of running 35psi on a turbo is great and eveyrthing but number one 35psi is useless, if you dont have anything to back it up, you wont be making any power at 35psi, more boost does not mean more power...not even to mention that not every turbo is capable of running 35psi....alot of turbos, The very hi-tech ones aside, have a compressor surge at anything more than 30 (not saying all turbo's or the one on "your buddy's car" or the the one thats one "this guy you know" or "this guy who owns this shop").....and deisels come stock with anywhere from 15-20psi of boosy anything and the dealer woouldnt be ableto issue a warranty for the vehicles....****s breaks when you raise boost to astronomical level.

-Mike :D

ORIGINAL: 2000Si

Bsing huh? ok. 350 hp in a 2400 lb car will go faster than you think it will.

who cares about crash test ratings? I won't be going through the windshield anytime soon.


Indeed. I've seen 2250 pound Civic's with barely over 200 fwhp run high 12's. Stock LS blocked cars (1.8) with an SC61 and not much else make close to 400 fwhp. Built, sleeved 1.8's make 500+ horsepower, 1.8 blocks bored and sleeved to 2.0 make close to 700 horsepower at 38 psi.

A friends Civic with a 1.6 liter b16 runs 11 psi daily and made 372 front wheel horsepower. Not to mention AWD talon/eclipses that are DAMN near stock and run 22-23 psi and can run high 11's and such.

There's plenty of ways to turbocharge a car, and in regards to "anyone can turbocharge a Civic" .. anyone could do the same to a 2.3L Mustang. How much power and reliability you plan to have is based on how much you're willing to spend. Want to hit 11's real quick? Buy a turbo car, such as a supercoupe Mustang, turbo 4 clyinder and pump up the boost, or build a cheap boosted LS Honda.

Both could be made MUCH more reliable with more money and time and knowledge.

Speed, Reliability, Cheapness. Pick 2 of the 3, because that's all you're gonna get.

ORIGINAL: 2000Si

Yes I know that. What I'm saying is 35 psi is 2.4 times earths atmosphere. I have never seen a stock engine ever handle that without putting a rod or a headgasket out of commission.

Diesil dude.

ORIGINAL: Big Jay D

ORIGINAL: 2000Si

Yes I know that. What I'm saying is 35 psi is 2.4 times earths atmosphere. I have never seen a stock engine ever handle that without putting a rod or a headgasket out of commission.

Diesil dude.


It's diesel. and we were talking about a 2.3L 4 cyl Turbo Mustang... not a diesel truck.

i wonder what would win. That twin turbo stang, or the black cobra that was at the same shop on a dif vid? I think the cobra had a kenne bell but not sure.

ORIGINAL: Aixtreme89

Saleen 351.... Your deffinitly naive. You should just say "no one should turbo charge a four cylinder" but you cant say that because that would make you a hypocrite. An internal combustion engine, basicly works the same no matter what size the displacement. A form of turbo charging just increases the power output. Sure you can take a 350 and turbo charge that, but you can also take a small four cylinder which weights probably 1/3 the weight and make over 400hp and up. Then you can put that motor in a lotus, or s2000. keeping the weight down and the weight ratio close to 50/50. Instead of having a nose heaving chevy. Sometimes bigger isnt better. theres a reason champ cars use. turbocharged 2.6 liter v-8 motors instead of a turbocharged 5.8 liter v-8.



Thiss may have been said already but the reason most formula and other types of race cars use 2.6 and smaller 4 and 6 cylinder engines is because the sport they are in limits the displacement on the engines they run.

ORIGINAL: I G Joe

sure alot of ricers use turbos to keep up with us. but when we go Forced they have to think and thats hard for them. *theres no replacement for displacement*



Now see i dont know why you have to come out and make fun of Imports, Dont hate becuz im 3.0 Liters smaller then most of you guys im all motor and i can Beat / Rape the **** outa most your cars " FWD BABY ", i mean i got nuttin wrong with Muscle i own a Camaro, but whats worse with you guys is you Own PONY'S what do you expect to do with them things?, i thought them things went out in the 80's early 90's?? dont make me hit up footlooker and go get me a pair of Pony's


BTW you guys can keep all that HP and Tq in the long run your gunna need it

wow...did you start a profile just to post that?

ORIGINAL: FiveOhNo

wow...did you start a profile just to post that?



yea i did, i hate how you guys Swear to God you have Big balls or something.. just wait till you get a Real Import Driver to pull next to you, these Ricers give us a bad name. just like the Pony drivers that Add neons to 4or 6 cyl stangs!!

to have any sort of reliability when putting in a turbo or even supercharging your car, you are going to have to basically rebuild the bottom end or else the engine will basically blow up. ive put a lot of money into my car already (motor pulled out and gone over, new cnc H beam rods, forged 2618 alloy pistons, gapless moly rings,stock crank was polished, new arp bolts,new bearings, new ported and polished patriot stage 1 heads, ported polished stock upper intake,cold air intake,king cobra clutch put in a year ago, new u joints, the rear was rebuilt with stock 3.27 gears, new summit adjustable clutch quadrant & firewall adjuster,new SLP catback ,new tinted headlights,new clear foglights, cobra brakes on front and rear.) and now it is finally ready to run a turbo, NOS, or a supercharger. Go ahead, buy a turbo and put it on your stock engine, see how long that engine lasts.

ORIGINAL: ImportDriver


ORIGINAL: FiveOhNo

wow...did you start a profile just to post that?



yea i did, i hate how you guys Swear to God you have Big balls or something.. just wait till you get a Real Import Driver to pull next to you, these Ricers give us a bad name. just like the Pony drivers that Add neons to 4or 6 cyl stangs!!



[quote] Dont hate becuz im 3.0 Liters smaller then most of you guys im all motor and i can Beat / Rape the **** outa most your cars



Dont sing it bring it....Little ricer boy.....Please let this TOPIC DIE

A newbie signs on to post on a topic that ended on 6/22 to have every other newbie to post there 2 cents as to why we bust on ricers??????Cause its a mustang forum!!!!WHY WHY WHY LET IT DIE DIE DIE........ PLEASE ITS TIME................................[sm=closed.gif]

ORIGINAL: 99saleen351r

A newbie signs on to post on a topic that ended on 6/22 to have every other newbie to post there 2 cents to??????WHY WHY WHY LET IT DIE DIE DIE PLEASE ITS TIME................................[sm=closed.gif]


so?

Own PONY'S what do you expect to do with them things?, i thought them things went out in the 90's?



Sorry guy but that was the Camaro's that went out in the 90's not STANGS.

ORIGINAL: nanaki

ORIGINAL: 99saleen351r

A newbie signs on to post on a topic that ended on 6/22 to have every other newbie to post there 2 cents to??????WHY WHY WHY LET IT DIE DIE DIE PLEASE ITS TIME................................[sm=closed.gif]


so?



Am i bothering you???Oh well

ORIGINAL: Fryguy22

to have any sort of reliability when putting in a turbo or even supercharging your car, you are going to have to basically rebuild the bottom end or else the engine will basically blow up. ive put a lot of money into my car already (motor pulled out and gone over, new cnc H beam rods, forged 2618 alloy pistons, gapless moly rings,stock crank was polished, new arp bolts,new bearings, new ported and polished patriot stage 1 heads, ported polished stock upper intake,cold air intake,king cobra clutch put in a year ago, new u joints, the rear was rebuilt with stock 3.27 gears, new summit adjustable clutch quadrant & firewall adjuster,new SLP catback ,new tinted headlights,new clear foglights, cobra brakes on front and rear.) and now it is finally ready to run a turbo, NOS, or a supercharger. Go ahead, buy a turbo and put it on your stock engine, see how long that engine lasts.


haha...i'll let ya know ;)

ORIGINAL: stangboy_05

Own PONY'S what do you expect to do with them things?, i thought them things went out in the 90's?



Sorry guy but that was the Camaro's that went out in the 90's not STANGS.


well i was Talking about the Shoes, and yea imo Camaros were out in the 70's after the 67-68 and 69 body styles they killed it,



Dont hate becuz im 3.0 Liters smaller then most of you guys im all motor and i can Beat / Rape the **** outa most your cars



Dont sing it bring it....Little ricer boy.....Please let this TOPIC DIE

like it says i got 2.0 liters and ill whoop your ass. no doubt mustangs got power but just becuz most do doesnt make them all, believe me i had a mustang driver almost wreck his car tryna catch me but you dont see me making fun of him, yea i eat rice so what, just one word of advise Dont sleep on Hondas... you got alot that are all show no go but then you get the serious ones

ORIGINAL: ImportDriver

like it says i got 2.0 liters and ill whoop your ass. no doubt mustangs got power but just becuz most do doesnt make them all, believe me i had a mustang driver almost wreck his car tryna catch me but you dont see me making fun of him, yea i eat rice so what, just one word of advise Dont sleep on Hondas... you got alot that are all show no go but then you get the serious ones



interpreter please.

and the fact that you come in and claim to be able to whoop everyone proves a lot about you and your silly "2.0L"

ORIGINAL: ImportDriver


like it says i got 2.0 liters and ill whoop your ass. no doubt mustangs got power but just becuz most do doesnt make them all, believe me i had a mustang driver almost wreck his car tryna catch me but you dont see me making fun of him, yea i eat rice so what, just one word of advise Dont sleep on Hondas... you got alot that are all show no go but then you get the serious ones



bahahahahhahaaha

Ok, I'm an import guy myself here. But I implore you to search and look for 351s track times before you tell him you'll whoop his ass.

and please, stop talking like you'll own everyone here until you actually give us a build, dyno sheet and a scanned track time of 11.2s or faster... you're just making me look bad here, and I really don't appreciate it.

yeah, 2000si doesn't need you here to make him look bad. ;)

pleh. [>:]

<3