Re:Starion vs. Turbo si
 

no i got first dibbs on the starion.

Re:Starion vs. Turbo si
 

Conquest looks a little better IMO...

Re:Starion vs. Turbo si
 

like what do you mean? their exactly the same.

Re:Starion vs. Turbo si
 

The 2.0 starion is faster than the 2.6 starion, it's only 11hp less than the 2.6 stock (177 vs 188) but it weighs a lot less too.
It would be interesting to get a 2.0 starion (4G63 engine) and swap in a 4G63 from a turbo DSM. The gains are a better flowing head and multipoint fuel injection.

Re:Starion vs. Turbo si
 

An N/A 2.0L in the 80's making 177hp was the ---- !!! I bet turbo RX7s didn't make that much ( in real world, not the play world of "rotory guys" )...

SIde note... RX-8 = 155LBS. of torque !!! Dumb asses !!

Re:Starion vs. Turbo si
 

That would be an interesting swap.. hmm... ;D

Those things are slow than a box of rocks. I hate them, look good but are friggin slow.

Re:Starion vs. Turbo si
 

The turbo 2.0L in the starion was 177hp. It's not really an efficient motor, 8 valves, choking head, choking intake manifold with a tiny little throttle body and TBI fuel injection.

Re:Starion vs. Turbo si
 

Wonder what it would have been capable of if they didnt screw it up so bad :-\

Re:Starion vs. Turbo si
 

That's where the DSM engine makes sense, it's should bolt right in since it's the same basic engine block.

Re:Starion vs. Turbo si
 

the 2.0 was never in a starion. it was alwase a 2.7 and the 4g63 bolts right up to the tranny.