2.0 vs 2.4

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 02-22-2007, 12:24 PM
misuman's Avatar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location:
Posts: 16
Default 2.0 vs 2.4

I got into a little debate earlier this moring during Biology about which is the better engine, the 2.0 or the 2.4. I drive a 93 eclipse GS and personaly I think that is the better one. He did drive a 01 eclipse with the 2.4 before he was hit in the side which totaled his car. He saidif the 2.0s are so much better than why did they stop putting them in the new eclipse. But I know that I am right about this what do yall think??
 
  #2  
Old 02-22-2007, 01:19 PM
RCJr9186's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Summerville, SC
Posts: 5,650
Default RE: 2.0 vs 2.4

they are both slow... what is there to debate about? we all know the 4g63t is a bad @$$ motor, and if you drop the 4g64 2.4l crank in it and stroke it, that it makes it even better. so what is the real question here?
 
  #3  
Old 02-22-2007, 07:50 PM
silvercoupe97's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO.
Posts: 3,430
Default RE: 2.0 vs 2.4

In reality, those motors suited each car just right for what they are, N/A motors. The reason the 2.4 was put into the 3g Eclipse instead of the 2.0 N/A motor is because they are heavier. Power increases was also a reason the 2.4 was put into the car instead of the 2.0. Why do you think that the 2.4L was put into n/a Spyders and not the 2.0L? <--2G
Which one is faster? I would rate them close to the same.
 
  #4  
Old 03-08-2007, 04:56 AM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location:
Posts: 87
Default RE: 2.0 vs 2.4

i would say 2.0 strictly cause that has more aftermarket. but the 2.4 is what i have.
 
  #5  
Old 03-08-2007, 10:19 AM
TheEngineer's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 11,758
Default RE: 2.0 vs 2.4

Well the 4g63 is definetly the more potential engine (why do you think they have it in the evo ) But like silver said, its what fit the car. And they stopped putting the turbo engines in the eclipses because they didnt get amazing sales with the 2g turbos and they got away from that, now the evo is the fast car, so they dont want to make another turbo fast car to compete. Why compete against yourself?

Now if you look at the cost in building each up. He definetly wins there because i think the internals on the 3g GS can actually handle 10-15psi from what i understand. Whereas your 4g63 NT will not handle anything. You would need to completely change out the internals to turbo it. So there is where he wins
 
  #6  
Old 03-20-2007, 06:16 PM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5
Default RE: 2.0 vs 2.4

But you also have to think that poeple are starting to put the 4g64 into there evo's. with minor or major work done on the internals depends on what there doing. But the 4g64 has more torque than the 4g63. Mix the 2 and you have a monster being born.
 
  #7  
Old 03-20-2007, 06:54 PM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location:
Posts: 87
Default RE: 2.0 vs 2.4

I have heard lots of good things about the bottom end on this 2.4
 
  #8  
Old 03-21-2007, 02:04 PM
RCJr9186's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Summerville, SC
Posts: 5,650
Default RE: 2.0 vs 2.4

it's b/c it's 2.4 lol it basically becomes a stroker motor for quicker spool time.
 
  #9  
Old 06-18-2022, 11:55 AM
RalliartMF's Avatar
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 1
Default

Originally Posted by RCJr9186
it's b/c it's 2.4 lol it basically becomes a stroker motor for quicker spool time.
If I had that motor an ppl asked what's that I'd say that's my bad motha ****a aka little weapon but must be said in an Australian accent....
 




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 AM.