Just a general wondering... lol

[Daven]

So from what i have always thought, these "puney" little 4-bangers are tiny powerless engines that are even worse power-wise then my 2.9L v6... But recently i keep seeing on here and other places about people that swapped in a 2.3L turboed engine and am getting some serious power from it. Wth is up with these things? lol

My truck has a good 290XXXk on it, so it is a fairly exhausted engine lol, but i could not beleive that an even smaller engine could be measured anywhere near "fast". So whats the deal with these engines? What makes them so specail (if they really are). Is it just that they are more convienient to turbo? And is it basically only good if you turbo it, like a 2.9L would be "fast" if you turboed it? lol

I dont mean to slam any engines, just was bored and got very interested when i randomly searched these engines to see someone boasting that his had dyno'ed at over 300 HP! lol

 

[John Smith]

I happend to be one here answering a pm..

In my case..as being one who owned a new 1974 pinto ..i'm actually enjoying the thought of working with an easily rebuilt motor small footprint..that basically can handle 2hp per cubic inch with stock rods and crank. Granted, it will take a little creativity to enjoy that in a creaping 4x4..(kind like hill climbing in a 500yz 2 stroke)..but in my case even 1 hp per cubic in ..."140"..is ok as well with reliability an ease of maintenance. It's all in the head...and there is only ONE of them...don't like how it runs..change ONE head....and a few goodies...well anyway..
Please be safe this Christmas season..

And 400+ HP is possible even more..if you have the pocketbook for it...

So from what i have always thought, these "puney" little 4-bangers are tiny powerless engines that are even worse power-wise then my 2.9L v6... But recently i keep seeing on here and other places about people that swapped in a 2.3L turboed engine and am getting some serious power from it. Wth is up with these things? lol

My truck has a good 290XXXk on it, so it is a fairly exhausted engine lol, but i could not beleive that an even smaller engine could be measured anywhere near "fast". So whats the deal with these engines? What makes them so specail (if they really are). Is it just that they are more convienient to turbo? And is it basically only good if you turbo it, like a 2.9L would be "fast" if you turboed it? lol

I dont mean to slam any engines, just was bored and got very interested when i randomly searched these engines to see someone boasting that his had dyno'ed at over 300 HP! lol

 

[Daven]

In my case..as being one who owned a new 1974 pinto ..i'm actually enjoying the thought of working with an easily rebuilt motor small footprint..that basically can handle 2hp per cubic inch with stock rods and crank. Granted, it will take a little creativity to enjoy that in a creaping 4x4..(kind like hill climbing in a 500yz 2 stroke)..but in my case even 1 hp per cubic in ..."140"..is ok as well with reliability an ease of maintenance. It's all in the head...and there is only ONE of them...don't like how it runs..change ONE head....and a few goodies...well anyway..
Please be safe this Christmas season..

And 400+ HP is possible even more..if you have the pocketbook for it...

But what i dont get, is how a little 4 cyl can get up to 400 hp! lol And all while i keep getting told that if i want any power i must swap out my 2.9L because its very hard to get a moderate amount of power lmao. Like, is it all in the turbo system or is it possibly because you would have more rooom in the engine compartment for mods?

 

[John Smith]

good morning..

Well driving and working on what you like is a lot of why we do this maybe?..you can read thread after thread of those who do this and then "that"..and then change it all around...
(I also have a good running 2.9) but it doesn't mod as easily...

I merely want a reliable bottom end that can take up to 600 hp,,,and then do what i want to the induction and exhaust to accomplish the current function..turbocharging is the cheapest quickest way to MORE power obviously..but the old tricks of compression, porting and valve-train is enuf to make it run..even with a carb..as has been proven....and you can actually see the ground when u open the hood....again the head....a little reading and a little more reading..

http://www.merkurencyclopedia.com/

a good all round site...for history as well

another note..I am somewhat more seasoned in life's experience..yet I can still physically lift EVERY part of this engine and trans...(in parts of course...)

Best wishes.. be safe....

 

[Daven]

Well driving and working on what you like is a lot of why we do this maybe?..you can read thread after thread of those who do this and then "that"..and then change it all around...
(I also have a good running 2.9) but it doesn't mod as easily...

I merely want a reliable bottom end that can take up to 600 hp,,,and then do what i want to the induction and exhaust to accomplish the current function..turbocharging is the cheapest quickest way to MORE power obviously..but the old tricks of compression, porting and valve-train is enuf to make it run..even with a carb..as has been proven....and you can actually see the ground when u open the hood....again the head....a little reading and a little more reading..

http://www.merkurencyclopedia.com/

a good all round site...for history as well

another note..I am somewhat more seasoned in life's experience..yet I can still physically lift EVERY part of this engine and trans...(in parts of course...)

Best wishes.. be safe....

Lol thanks. I just couldnt figure out what makes the 4 cyl so good. So you are saying that it is just handy because it is so small, and that you could do what u can with the 4 cyl to any engine if you have the money? lol

 

[super91(2.3)]

The turbo-ed engines you see here and on YouTube are built up so they can handle the 30+ lbs of boost they are pumping.

 

[Daven]

The turbo-ed engines you see here and on YouTube are built up so they can handle the 30+ lbs of boost they are pumping.

Doyouknowa basicnumberonhowmuch money that would take to do? Would the engine still be cheap on gas like that? lol

 

[Daven]

Doyouknowa basicnumberonhowmuch money that would take to do? Would the engine still be cheap on gas like that? lol

Lmao sorry about no spaces. The computer im on have a crappy keyboard

 

[TheTopher]

A turbo engine is still pretty easy on gas so long as you keep it operating in vacuum.


As for how a 4 cylinder engine can put out so much power... Poke around. The 2.3 lima is just one example. The 2RZ and 3RZ engines from the Toyota trucks are legendary for turbo power as are the Honda B series engines.


Don't let the little rice retards fool you, when a 4 cylinder is done PROPERLY it CAN hang with the big v8s without breaking a sweat. "God made turbo lag to give V8s a chance"

Of course you could also build the v8, but I seem to see better results dollar for dollar in improving a 4 cylinder vs improving a v8 from what I've see.


It just all boils down to what you like and how much you want to spend.




That's an Integra with a Honda B18 motor.




That's a 2.4 liter 2RZ Toyota motor (Ignore the youtube description, the guy who posted the video is an idiot)




That of course, is a Ford 2.3 Lima motor


The bottom line is, if you take an engine and start forcing air into it, now all of a sudden it can hold as much air as a bigger engine and thus, you can add as much fuel and put out as much power.


I'd suggest posting more specific questions in the forced induction section as you'll get people who know more about it than I do to answer you.

 

[super91(2.3)]

Doyouknowa basicnumberonhowmuch money that would take to do? Would the engine still be cheap on gas like that? lol

I had the chance to buy a stock turbo 2.3 for $300 and I rebuilt my own motor for about 300. But to get that much horsepower out of one it would cost you about 1000+ (keep in mind this is a very rough estimate).

 

[Daven]

I had the chance to buy a stock turbo 2.3 for $300 and I rebuilt my own motor for about 300. But to get that much horsepower out of one it would cost you about 1000+ (keep in mind this is a very rough estimate).

Nice. That seems, by the way you guys discribed it, better than a v8 swap. Cheaper, lighter, about the same price, and a motor that is actually meant to fit in a ranger lol. Thanks for the info guys

 

[Insanejughead]

I did it and I LOVE IT!


Also, I'm only running a stock 2.3T motor without an intercooler and a PC1 computer. I only slightly opened up my intake and exhaust ports (lack of time, otherwise I would've done a LOT more to them). Anyways, I'm guessing I'm running about 165-175 horsepower, but it made all the difference in getting my ranger to get up and MOVE. The best part is that when I'm easy on the gas pedal and driving the same as my stock 2.3 NA motor could do, I manage 22 miles a gallon in the ranger. That's quite impressive to me, especially since my Thunderbird turbo coupe manages 24 mpg if I'm rough, and nearly 28 if I baby it.

Plus, the sound of the turbo spooling (and I only manage about 8 psi) gives me a chill down my spine every time!


The turbo swap was worth every minute spent of the two weeks I busted a$$ to get it done.