2.3 Stroker, GT42r 2g DSM tuned on C16 last night
Apr 19, 2007, 04:46 AM
#31
Thank you very much scott for the help, here is what my solution is I figured that it will get fresh air going down the track and keep the chunks of tire from being injested into the turbo
Yes 760 awhp through an auto is mind bending.... I am going to try to reach that number in a few weeks as well
the velocity stack is for a carburator (sp) so the standard 5 1/8 inch dimension fits perfectly on the 5 inch pipe
sorry to ***** your thread,
once again great numbers and beautiful car.
Yes 760 awhp through an auto is mind bending.... I am going to try to reach that number in a few weeks as well
the velocity stack is for a carburator (sp) so the standard 5 1/8 inch dimension fits perfectly on the 5 inch pipe
sorry to ***** your thread,
once again great numbers and beautiful car.
) it should run low 9's.
Apr 19, 2007, 04:27 PM
#40
Account Disabled
iTrader: (81)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Frenchy, an idea of what this ams beast will do on the track, heres a automatic 2g talon making 729hp and it did 9.8@145, it has a built 2.4. Ams built talon is doin 760hp with a built 2.3, this car can do mid 9's even lower, the power its makin is sick for a awd and auto, props to ams and scott for a deadly talon that will do some sick numbers at the track.
http://www.tappauto.com/project.cfm?ProjectID=1
http://www.tappauto.com/project.cfm?ProjectID=1
Why a 2.3?
Why only 760whp? On a Dynojet too..
Not knockin it, definatly a bad *** car, just seems to be down about 150whp from what you'de expect from a 42r. Plus the 2.0's have proven to be the better choice with huge turbos.
I'm thinkin with a 42r, your pretty limited in the car only being fast in a straight line, why limit the powerband by using a 2.3?
Any reason for the 2.3 and the relatively low power?
Why only 760whp? On a Dynojet too..
Not knockin it, definatly a bad *** car, just seems to be down about 150whp from what you'de expect from a 42r. Plus the 2.0's have proven to be the better choice with huge turbos.
I'm thinkin with a 42r, your pretty limited in the car only being fast in a straight line, why limit the powerband by using a 2.3?
Any reason for the 2.3 and the relatively low power?
Apr 19, 2007, 07:16 PM
#41
Evolved Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I said I wasn't knocking the car, I said it was a bad *** car.
I asked why it was down on power compared to other 42r builds, if that's "starting something" I apologize...
It just seemed a little low, that's all, Evo's are AWD too, as I'm sure you know. You've built quite a few 42r Evo's over 900whp on your dyno.
I didn't realize automatic transmissions sucked that much more power of a car, 150whp is a lot of power, and I was curious where it went.
relax
