[quote author=ryukensfj link=topic=136963.msg3534080#msg3534080 date=1265499560]
[quote author=pinkcheese link=topic=136963.msg3533873#msg3533873 date=1265487542]
[quote author=Zoomdoom17 link=topic=136963.msg3533843#msg3533843 date=1265486510]
[quote author=pinkcheese link=topic=136963.msg3533783#msg3533783 date=1265483181]
[quote author=Zoomdoom17 link=topic=136963.msg3533763#msg3533763 date=1265482254]
I like your Avatars Alkaveli and Freddyboi.
but yours is so much better no offence guys. haha.
without a power adder you wont get much hp out of a tune max has been what +15whp? search the forums read up on what these cars can do with what and consider the options. power adders are turbo, Supercharger, nitrous. those other cars are seeing more hp from a tune prolly because either they have more displacement or are high compression, possibly both, that is why they see some huge gains from just simple exhaust and CAI. we on the other hand have lower compression cars that are 4 cylinder. and being a 2.0 means you are even lower on the tier because of the less displacement, on ther other hand from what i have read 2.0's are the ones who handle boost ebtter.
Haha, got to love you some Jack.
I have heard 2.0's handle boost better too. Not sure why. It's always been in the back of my head to boost my 2.0.
lower compression pistons, and a shorter stroke giving. lower compression aids in how much boost you can trow at them while the reduction in the stroke makes the opossing forces on the rods less. just holds up better. although i havent seen a boosted 2.0 try and push much past what the specs of a turbo kit are with a stock block. both models share the same 5speed tranny so limited on how long the 3rd and 4th gear holds up.
The 2.0 has higher compression pistons...10.1 vs 9.7 for the 2.3l The main thing is shorter stroke. 3.27 vs 3.70 on the 2.3
whoops my mistake. i was under the impression, it was a 9.2 vs a 9.7