Starion vs. Turbo si
10-23-2004, 08:44 AM
#14
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,194
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 18
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.
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.
10-23-2004, 08:55 AM
#15
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,115
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 !!
SIde note... RX-8 = 155LBS. of torque !!! Dumb asses !!
10-23-2004, 09:40 AM
#16
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 0
Re:Starion vs. Turbo si
Originally Posted by baldur
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.
Originally Posted by 89dxhunchback
SIde note... RX-8 = 155LBS. of torque !!! Dumb asses !!
10-23-2004, 10:20 AM
#18
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 0
Re:Starion vs. Turbo si
Originally Posted by baldur
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.
