1st gen's run 7psi on a 14B stock. 2nd gen's run 14psi on a T25 stock.pancito wrote:Ok to set things straight (not defending anything, just facts like everybody here)
1st Gen Turbos where 14b, 2nd gen received the smaller t25
about stock PSI i don't know about that.
****ty drivers don't mean ****ty cars(once i heard a story of some guy in a DSM, beating vipers and ****, BS??? Maybe, i wasn't there)
1st gen where stronger the the 2g, and didn't had the problem of "Crankwalk" not "clutchwalk".
to me 3g DSM (wich they are not anymore) compared to the previous versions, where somehow the same as S13 to S14 change, they wanted a new market, they don't care about the car or sport enthusiast, they just care about money!!!!
instead of a turbo they get the v6..go figure!!!
i wasnt trying to say they are, but no one that knows about racing get a fwd dsm. The reason for getting them is turbo, and awd. (atleast in the racing scene) Of course gst's are fwd, but who wants one of those?biggie wrote:Friend has a '01 Eclipse GT spyder. I like it but it doesn't feel like your in a sports car, the FWD thing ruins it. And it doesn't handle that well, especially for that much money. And walking dog is cool---walking a crank is not.
Jesse,What are you talking about DSM's are AWD---not all of them.
Dude, I don't belive that. I have a friend with a 97 GSX. He has a built bottom end, because there is no way the stock bottom end will handle that much power. He has a calculated (based of 1/4 mile time and weight) 374 HP at all four's. And he's running 28psi on a Frank2 turbo. There is no freaking way a stock 4G63 can support 500 HP to the ground, ESPECIALLY on a GSX. That is lilike 650 hp at the flywheel on stock bottom end. There is NOOO way. By the way, my friend has run 11.8 before on street tires. I would also think 500@wheels would net a better 1/4 than 11.6, but I may be wrong on that.dcmetro240 wrote:I love my 240 and all, but a friend of mine has a 99 GSX putting down almost 500 at the wheels on his stock bottom end. He has a built ported and polished 1G head, a green turbo, FMIC, Thermal exhaust, and DSM link ecu. It is one sick car another friend of mine an I put together a video of him smoking a corvette here is the link: http://www.streetracing.com/me...t.wmvThats one DSM I wouldn't mind having, but not giving up the 240 for anything.
Oh and he is running about 26 psi on race gas, running 11.6. so anything is possible I'm sure he spent more that 2500 though.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. In fact, I'm on the 4G64 mailing list. For my senior design project in school last fall, we turbo's a 4G64 eclipse (96 GS Spyder). The 4G63 and 4G64 block are identical except that the 4G63 block is milled down 6mm lower than the 4G64 because it has a smaller stroke. Other than that, the block are the same. You can even swap on a DOHC from the 4G63 onto the 4G64, and turbo that, then you'll have a DOHC 4G64T, which is just as strong as any 4G63. The shorter rod:stroke ratio of the 4G64 makes a ton more torque than the 4G63, especially when turbo'd.pancito wrote:last time i post about this
http://www.2gnt.com/dcforum/DCForumID31/397.html
(Turbo talk on a Non Turbo page go figure)
The max they talk about is around 400 or 450 HP ( i don't recall if it's WHP or Flywheel HP)
like every production thing built, you will get super freaks (when 99% stock cars run 15.5 those run 15.00 or even 14's in stock form)
and there are lemons,
BTW is this ironic???
I had a 2.0 "neon engine" in my 2g NT DSM, i was going to transplant the block from a stratus to get 2.4 lts. displacement, NOW i have 2.4 lts stock and i want to swap a SR motor with 2.0 displacement... ironic isn't????
89sxRCR wrote:Eclipses are a dime a dozen around here. My neighbor next door has a 240z, with a chevy v8 swap. Runs about 530 horsepower, the car is cheaper than ****, the swap costs about 4 grand like the sr swap in ours, and the car owns everything with tires around here. In my opinion, older cheaper cars still own, specially ALL 240's.