DCR 2.6lt stroker / has anyone got one

[total sleeper]

I'm in to deep to turn back know but i was wondering if anyone had put the dcr 2.6 stroker on there srt-4. i am farely new to this site and i am very excited to put my car back together but i want to make sure i do it right. i'll tell you about the car and what i plan to do with it.
its a 03 pt cruiser gt which i drive everyday on the street, i will be taking it on the road coarse, and am very much into drag racing. i have up to this point run stock internals on the long block and achieved all my goal with it but it was time to build the motor.
DCR 2.6lt stroker with a pro series head, crane 16 cams
gt3582r turbo with a intercooler sprayer and dirrect port nitrous.
oh and i added methanol injection.

i know there is a lot of knowledge on this site and i was looking for some feed back on what im building and before someone sais why a cruiser ill answer that, its because for me building a car that people don't expect much from makes it way more fun when they see it go.

[TurboGLH]

I think you'll find that most of the people here are more of DIY type of person, that coupled with the lower number of SRT owners compared to the older cars and it's unlikely you'll find someone running a DCR motor here.

On that note, while I'm not a fan of the PT overall I think it would make a killer sleeper.

More details on the amount of time you spend on the road course and the strip vs daily driving and what your goals are performance wise are would help us give you a good recommendation. I personally don't think that the 2.4 needs any more stroke, and the cost for such a mild displacement increase (2.56 or so if I recall) seems out of line to me. Especially considering a FWD platform is hardly in need of more low end torque.

[turbovanman²]

Mike, is that you????????

Where's my vid???? ;)

Yours is still a sleeper but not a "total sleeper" :thumb: :confused:

[TurboNeon568]

If you go to SRTForums.com, 2gn.org, Neons.org, or PTCrew.com. I'm sure you'll find someone running the DCR 2.6 kit. I was under the impression that that was a $7500 kit, though?

[Turbodave]

If any site can appreciate a sleeper it's this one, there are more turbo Omni's Minivans and other K-cars here than anything else. A turbo PT fits right in.

Yours was the one that made 599hp on the dyno correct? I don't have any experience with the DCR 2.6 stroker, but it sounds interesting, what's your goal with this engine?

[contraption22]

I do not have experience with the DCR stroker kit. I know I do not know everything there is to know about engines.... but I know a bit... and I would just think that the last thing a 2.4 needs is more stroke!

[TurboNeon568]

more stroke= more rod angularity
more rod angularity= more torque!
More torque=more fun!

Too much power is never enough,lol.

[total sleeper]

If any site can appreciate a sleeper it's this one, there are more turbo Omni's Minivans and other K-cars here than anything else. A turbo PT fits right in.

Yours was the one that made 599hp on the dyno correct? I don't have any experience with the DCR 2.6 stroker, but it sounds interesting, what's your goal with this engine?

it was the car on the dyno and as for a goal, well i would like to run a 10 and 130+ mph. i am sending off an entry for the 08 uscc as soon as the entry forms are posted and would love to have that oppertunity since it is a great all round street car. hp will not be the issue, it will be setup and suspension.

as for the comments on why add more stroke to a 2.4, well i have heard many people's opinions on it and they are all very good points. i actually was getting a option B motor which is the dcr built 2.4 and darrell said his best motor by far is the 2.6 so for a couple extra bucks i thought why not if thats what he recommends. i did talk to one guy who had a 2.6 and he loved it so i guess time will tell.

[Speedeuphoria]

is the trans going to hold?

[ShelGame]

I'm in the process of building my own "stroker" 2.4. Not quite 2.6L, it's "officially" going to be 2.5L or 155cu in. I got some used Nascar Carriillos off eBay with nearly no miles on them (and no marks) for $80 (for the set of 8!). They're 6.2" long. They'll require custom short deck pistons, but that should be no problem (just $$$). It actually will have a better rod ratio than a stock 2.4 (if only slightly). Oh, and the rods are super light - like 520g each (IIRC).

[total sleeper]

I'm in the process of building my own "stroker" 2.4. Not quite 2.6L, it's "officially" going to be 2.5L or 155cu in. I got some used Nascar Carriillos off eBay with nearly no miles on them (and no marks) for $80 (for the set of 8!). They're 6.2" long. They'll require custom short deck pistons, but that should be no problem (just $$$). It actually will have a better rod ratio than a stock 2.4 (if only slightly). Oh, and the rods are super light - like 520g each (IIRC).

if they work that sounds like the deal of the century for 8 rods.

as for the trans, well i do have a spare but so far there has only been one guy who wrecked a couple of parts in the getrag tranny in the cruiser. i don't want to say bullet proof but they are about as tough as they get, of coarse i am sorta breaking new ground with the car at the moment so time will tell. i have got a lot of street driving and quarter mile passes with slicks at 430whp and it seems to be holding up great.

and yes i do have some video of your car simon, oh and how you doing.

[t3rse]

i wouldn't get the stroker kit. as mentioned, FWD cars don't need massive torque, what you need is to move your usable power up higher, and increasing stroke is not what you want to do here. the rod ratio isn't real great on the 2.4 as is, i don't know how the stroker kit would affect this, but if anything i would think a destroked 2.4 would be the best bet for a race engine.

[TurboGLH]

I'm just thinking that a little less torque would be a good thing. Too much torque breaks parts, and a 2.4 is already a nice engine down low.

For the $1400 price difference, I'd probably skip the 2.6. It's not really 2.6, but in the mid 2.5 range. A 2.4 is already 2.42 and with a .040 overbore it's up to 2.48. I think the extra $1400 is a bit much for an extra .08 liters.

Take the 1400 and invest it somewhere else, or just put it back in your pocket. Just a personal opinion, and it's your car and your money but unless you find yourself lacking low end power I don't think the extra stroke is worth the $$.

[ShelGame]

I'm just thinking that a little less torque would be a good thing. Too much torque breaks parts, and a 2.4 is already a nice engine down low.

For the $1400 price difference, I'd probably skip the 2.6. It's not really 2.6, but in the mid 2.5 range. A 2.4 is already 2.42 and with a .040 overbore it's up to 2.48. I think the extra $1400 is a bit much for an extra .08 liters.

Take the 1400 and invest it somewhere else, or just put it back in your pocket. Just a personal opinion, and it's your car and your money but unless you find yourself lacking low end power I don't think the extra stroke is worth the $$.


Especially since the crank machining only costs ~$250 at a decent crank shop. You can get the rods yourself (even if they're custom) and save over half the DCR cost.

[contraption22]

I know I've used this example several times before, but Brian Slowe doesn't post much here.

One of the things he figured out on his Shadow is that with a 2.2 vs a 2.5, he gained both ET and MPH, with basically no other changes. He was rewadred with more top end power, and less drivetrain breakage. The extra torque of the 2.5 was just going up in smoke.

[TurboNeon568]

if they work that sounds like the deal of the century for 8 rods.

as for the trans, well i do have a spare but so far there has only been one guy who wrecked a couple of parts in the getrag tranny in the cruiser. i don't want to say bullet proof but they are about as tough as they get, of coarse i am sorta breaking new ground with the car at the moment so time will tell. i have got a lot of street driving and quarter mile passes with slicks at 430whp and it seems to be holding up great.

and yes i do have some video of your car simon, oh and how you doing.

Not trying to threadjack here but I have been searching up and down but the base of performance PT gus is so small, I can't find anyone who knows much about the Getrag. I would like o know if it has an LSD and if so, clutch or Torsen? Will it bolt up to a neon or are the mounts diferent? What is the FD ratio?

[turbovanman²]

if they work that sounds like the deal of the century for 8 rods.

as for the trans, well i do have a spare but so far there has only been one guy who wrecked a couple of parts in the getrag tranny in the cruiser. i don't want to say bullet proof but they are about as tough as they get, of coarse i am sorta breaking new ground with the car at the moment so time will tell. i have got a lot of street driving and quarter mile passes with slicks at 430whp and it seems to be holding up great.

and yes i do have some video of your car simon, oh and how you doing.

Yeah, I got some Carillo's off Ebay for the same reason on my van, trying something different, paid $75, ;) Ton's of Nascar stuff. another example, got some Wilwood calipers, Superlites I believe, $75.

Anyhow, doing fine, have alot to do for next year, as you do. Post up some pics of your ride, :thumb:

[Ondonti]

7500 dollars would be a decent price if it was a billet crank since it is only 4 cylinders.

but if its just offset grinding the stock crank, I would not do it.

[Speedeuphoria]

Especially since the crank machining only costs ~$250 at a decent crank shop. You can get the rods yourself (even if they're custom) and save over half the DCR cost.

yeah just going to need rod bearings, wonder if they just use the Mitsu bearings and possibly rods?? Dont know the length of the Mitsu rods or the pin size they use??

[total sleeper]

7500 dollars would be a decent price if it was a billet crank since it is only 4 cylinders.

but if its just offset grinding the stock crank, I would not do it.

it is not a billet crank. it is ion coated and they claim it is twice as strong as stock. the motor is built and proven to handle 1000hp. the trueth is the money for me has nothing to do with it, i just want to build it right and have fun with it. if something costs more i just work harder to get it.

as for the question about the getrag tranny, the person to talk to is BRNGRHD (steve) over at www.ptcrew.com he is a tranny tec and has the third fastest cruiser with this tranny. there has been about 6 pt owners put that tranny through hell and back and only one guy had a problem and he would be the first guy to tell you it was because of bad driving. they do not come with a lsd from the factory like the srt4 did from 04 on, but you can buy a quaife for the getrag. i have one and have had no problems. i believe the tranny mount is different. no idea about the fd ratio.

as for saving money ShelGame, yes i could but i sell groceries for a living. i very much like wrenching but i like things to run as well as they possibly can. i find my time is better spent making money on what i do for a living and letting the pro's do what they do. to each is there own on that one

i like the feed back on the stroker and i take no offense to anyones opinion, i appreciate it. i understand the idea behind why add stroke to a 2.4 but everyone who has had one loves it.

[Ondonti]

You are not going to reduce rod journal diameter and come out with a crank that is 2x stronger no matter what "coating" you do.

Now the 2.4L crank might be beefy enough that it doesnt matter. The crank is weaker but it can still handle gobs of power, i dont know.

I just wouldn't do it when the price of a billet crank engine build should be almost the same on that 4 cylinder. Im all for seeing people try to put big torque though their dodge FWD transmissions. You can always go dcr 3 speed if things dont work out.

[total sleeper]

the funny thing is i am not worried about the crank at all, it is most likely the last thing on my mind. Here is some more info on the 2.6lt crank and rods http://www.n2mbracing.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=36&osCsid=b623803e28e6186f886c55a415e4ae5b
i got 600whp and 667tq out of the stock long block so these motors are built very well.

the parts that are on my mind even though i have been hard on them already are : tranny, axles, and clutch even know it has handles everything i've thrown at it so far.

i am not really a 3 speed tranny guy and i love the 5 speed, but if it was my only option then what else am i going to do.

[Ondonti]

Im pretty sure that information about nitriding the crank is not accurate at all.

Increasing the size of the chamfers is a good thing!!!! but otherwise..........nitriding is not magic. Not even close. It makes almost no difference in some crankshafts I know of. Cranks that are nitrided from the factory are usually done so to prevent crankshaft journals from wearing, thats about it. When people have to turn their cranks, they basically never renitride them because it just doesnt make a difference.

You cant remove material, weaken the crank, and then nitride coat and make the crank all of a sudden twice as strong as stock. I dont really see nitriding preventing long term wear/stress either.
but a 4 cylinder inline forged crank has what, 5 main bearings for only 4 pistons and you can probably get away with 1000hp, i just cant see how someone can claim its stronger.

Im not saying the project is a bad idea, I just think the information they provide is missleading.

[mario03SRT]

I'm just thinking that a little less torque would be a good thing. Too much torque breaks parts, and a 2.4 is already a nice engine down low.

For the $1400 price difference, I'd probably skip the 2.6. It's not really 2.6, but in the mid 2.5 range. A 2.4 is already 2.42 and with a .040 overbore it's up to 2.48. I think the extra $1400 is a bit much for an extra .08 liters.

Take the 1400 and invest it somewhere else, or just put it back in your pocket. Just a personal opinion, and it's your car and your money but unless you find yourself lacking low end power I don't think the extra stroke is worth the $$.

AEM EMS FTW

[8valves]

I get really sick of DCR. I go to SRT forums every once in a while and it amazes me with the wool they have pulled over everyones eyes.

A 4.160" stroke sounds scary to me. The gains that most people on those setups are much attributed to the overall combination I think. 90% of SRT4's run like crap. 30R cars that go 115 mph, while a "baby turbo" Mopar S3 car will go 117 on everything else stock. People get excited that their standalone controlled, "crazy" DCR head, 35R, tube header, extrude honed intake, built bottom end car makes 450 whp. Good job. Where's the logic? Sorry, ranting.

I'm guessing that within a year or two people will start to play with de-strokes and go way higher in the revs, allowing way bigger turbo combinations... torque be damned. If I were you, I would get a throw that will put you down at 2.2 or less and rev the piss out of the thing with a grossley oversized turbo that comes on at 5500-6000, but the car rebs to 10K anyways.

Take it for what it's worth.

[contraption22]

I'm guessing that within a year or two people will start to play with de-strokes and go way higher in the revs, allowing way bigger turbo combinations... torque be damned. If I were you, I would get a throw that will put you down at 2.2 or less and rev the piss out of the thing with a grossley oversized turbo that comes on at 5500-6000, but the car rebs to 10K anyways.

Take it for what it's worth.

It may take longer than that. It would have been so nice if the SRT-4 was originally equipped with a 2.0 instead of the 2.4. I miss shifting my old '98 DOHC at 7800 rpm.

[turbovanman²]

I agree with Ondonti, Nitriding is just a surface treating, he might be Cryotreating?

Did you get the Billet bed plate setup also? Thats extra? :confused2: :confused:

[t3rse]

on the dcr note, seen the 60$ oil restrictor? (mig welding tip basically)

[SebringLX]

Hey total_sleeper didn't know you were over here now too. I must have missed you posting about getting the 2.6L stroker over on PTCrew... unless you haven't posted it about it there.

I think you may be the first person to put one in a PT Cruiser... first one I can think of anyway. I know there are quite a few SRT-4's running around with them now though. I thought about doing that in my Sebring, but I've already spent way too much money. There's a guy with a Stratus that is going to follow in my foot-steps here once I am done with my car... he was going to do the 2.6L stroker in his Stratus, but I talked him out of it.

[SebringLX]

You can always go dcr 3 speed if things dont work out.
Screw the DCR 3-speed. Total_sleeper knows about this already I'm sure... but there's a guy (AJ @ A&A Motorsports) in Hempstead New York that builds pretty bullet proof 41TE's. He actually built the transmission that was used with the DCR motor on a land speed record car. DCR stole his stuff for their 3 speed.

I am running his lower end 41TE... built to handle over 425 HP and ft-lbs of torque to the wheels. So are a few PT Cruiser guys. He has a full race version that is supposed to handle well over 700 HP and torque to the wheels.

[Speedeuphoria]

on the dcr note, seen the 60$ oil restrictor? (mig welding tip basically)

I'm not a fan of DCR either, well they get it done for sure but they deff like the $$. I rate them as overpriced and some products are just to take advantage of the uneducated or uninformed consumer group(not very many do-it your self'ers).

They have some great products, pricey, but good. Then there are a few that are way overpriced, oil modifier, "big filter kit", 5 layer headgasket, billet tensioner, the built auto is overpriced but done right

[turbovanman²]

on the dcr note, seen the 60$ oil restrictor? (mig welding tip basically)

It maybe be $60 but add up the dyno and R@D time and $60 is a steal.

[Mario]

I get really sick of DCR. I go to SRT forums every once in a while and it amazes me with the wool they have pulled over everyones eyes.

A 4.160" stroke sounds scary to me. The gains that most people on those setups are much attributed to the overall combination I think. 90% of SRT4's run like crap. 30R cars that go 115 mph, while a "baby turbo" Mopar S3 car will go 117 on everything else stock. People get excited that their standalone controlled, "crazy" DCR head, 35R, tube header, extrude honed intake, built bottom end car makes 450 whp. Good job. Where's the logic? Sorry, ranting.

I'm guessing that within a year or two people will start to play with de-strokes and go way higher in the revs, allowing way bigger turbo combinations... torque be damned. If I were you, I would get a throw that will put you down at 2.2 or less and rev the piss out of the thing with a grossley oversized turbo that comes on at 5500-6000, but the car rebs to 10K anyways.

Take it for what it's worth.

I can't agree with you more. On this and many other subjects. Some people just don't get it.

[20w/ashelby]

I can't agree with you more. On this and many other subjects. Some people just don't get it.


It's actually kind of sad that the 2.4 is such a capable platform but very few people know enough to produce any kind of power from one. Then there's the whole other story of dyno queens. The SRT's are flirting with being FWD supra's.

[total sleeper]

WOW, there are a lot of dcr haters over here, granted the prices are high but i would take experience over cost anyday. i find people always devalue everything, the oil mod yes it's a 2 dollar piece of aluminum and a small amount of time on the lathe but people are getting results from it. does that mean someone who developed it should charge ten dollars for it. thats not the real world. i made too many changes at one time to tell you what it did to my car but i feel it was well worth the money. who knows maybe that had something to do with my motor lasting as long as it did or the hp level i got too. people can say im an idiot, uninformed, or mislead but if someone has taken the same motor as in my car and made the fastest srt street car, drag car, and land speed car then there is a chance they may know what there doing. thats my thoughts on that.

turbovanman : yes i got the bed plate
SebringLX : been on the site for a short time (tough croud) oh and how is you build coming along

[SebringLX]

SebringLX : been on the site for a short time (tough croud) oh and how is you build coming along
These guys are old school. ;) Most everybody here are big fans of low budget junkyard builds. You'll find most people here like to build the best they can for the lowest cost. So don't take them the wrong way when they think something like a lot of the DCR parts are expensive. Lots of good knowledge here though.
There is a full write-up on my build over here: http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12004
I just posted the latest update on it earlier today. I used a few DCR parts on my build. They modified the SRT-4 intake manifold to fit for me... I have the oil mod, and I have their windage tray with crank scraper and baffle.

[Aries_Turbo]

you are right, we are pretty old school over here. that has its advantages and its disadvantages. because the average age of the folks on here is older, we have little of the problems of the boards that are comprised of the 16-25 year old crowd. the member base is more mature and has much experience with things.

disadvantages... sometimes some folks are slower to accept new stuff and many times with good reason.

I can see why some are hard on DCR.... a little ways back Stephane Beauregard was more active in the scene and had that low 8 sec shelby charger. while following the drag race scene more closely then we kept an eye on DCR when they had the SRT-4 drag car and back when they had factory sponsorship. DCR kind of made fools of themselves by throwing the money around on somewhat frivolous things. in the meantime Stephane was running consistently and reliably on a TIGHT budget and many stock parts while DCR was breaking all the time and not doing so hot. That stuff sticks with you. I know nowadays that Stephane isnt in the picture (another story) and DCR is doing quite well with the business end of things but there are some things that dont bode well.

the old school TD market is a niche market. the cars are old and the people dont always have the most money to throw around so the vendors prices are mostly reasonable. the newer crowd that the SRT stuff appeals to is used to the higher priced import market so they are used to some of the seemingly unreasonable prices.

so when DCR comes out with a setup that flies in the face of somewhat proven methods for good power delivery in a FWD car and high prices for those parts, it doesnt go over well over here.

total sleeper, you do have an amazing PT and i absolutely love that front fascia conversion.... the PT should have came from the factory like that. piss on bumperettes. many of us just dont believe that increasing the stroke on a motor that is already stroked much to begin with is the best idea. i think a destroke something like 2.2L would be a better idea for power deliver and actually getting the car to hook.

what does the PT weight anyway?

Brian

[t3rse]

It maybe be $60 but add up the dyno and R@D time and $60 is a steal.

does this 60$ part give me 60 hp? or even 60% of a hp?


These guys are old school. ;) Most everybody here are big fans of low budget junkyard builds. You'll find most people here like to build the best they can for the lowest cost. So don't take them the wrong way when they think something like a lot of the DCR parts are expensive. Lots of good knowledge here though.


I have no problem spending money on things if they are worth it. fact is that most of DCR's stuff is gimmicky at best. You can get a good windage tray/baffle from ishihara-johnson that does the trick just fine. the big oil flow tube just has a kink in it so the motor doesn't starve when the oil splashes away from the pickup, something the stock balance shafts or a good baffle would solve. The strap kit is a good idea but any good machinist could pull that off for a fraction of the price. What about the 5k twin turbo kit that yields 380 hp? Last time I looked a certain person with an old charger and no DCR parts is still faster than mr cox...

i'm not saying they don't build high quality motors, just that i would give him a penny...

[turbovanman²]

WOW, there are a lot of dcr haters over here, granted the prices are high but i would take experience over cost anyday. i find people always devalue everything, the oil mod yes it's a 2 dollar piece of aluminum and a small amount of time on the lathe but people are getting results from it. does that mean someone who developed it should charge ten dollars for it. thats not the real world. i made too many changes at one time to tell you what it did to my car but i feel it was well worth the money. who knows maybe that had something to do with my motor lasting as long as it did or the hp level i got too. people can say im an idiot, uninformed, or mislead but if someone has taken the same motor as in my car and made the fastest srt street car, drag car, and land speed car then there is a chance they may know what there doing. thats my thoughts on that.

turbovanman : yes i got the bed plate
SebringLX : been on the site for a short time (tough croud) oh and how is you build coming along

Yeah, some people are afraid to spend money. I lost track on my engine build, :o

Got pics of the bed plate?


does this 60$ part give me 60 hp? or even 60% of a hp?

...


Not sure but from what I've seen, it helps tons. $60 is a steal.

You could say that about alot of TM parts but we don't. DCR may not have the fastest cars but he makes money, which alot of us could benefit from, ;)

[total sleeper]

what does the PT weight anyway?

Brian[/QUOTE]

last time i weighed it the car was 3250lbs without driver and since then ive dropped about 100lbs off it. so it is not lite at all and i don't help by weighing 268lbs. i ran a 11.96@121mph at 430hp which i think is very good considering its a loaf of bread on wheels. keep in mind this is my daily driver.

i respect peoples opinions and have no problem with old or new school thinking, i'm not young myself and i have always spent more money then necessary on every project i take on but that is my passion and i do not regret one dollar. i am not one of those guys who like more show than go but there is nothing wrong with wanting both. there will always be junk yard builds than can blow away a large budget car and i give them all the respect in the world for those builds. i think this cruiser will shock a lot of people next year and who knows maybe i'll break a lot of ---- too.

[TurboGLH]

last time i weighed it the car was 3250lbs without driver and since then ive dropped about 100lbs off it. so it is not lite at all and i don't help by weighing 268lbs. i ran a 11.96@121mph at 430hp which i think is very good considering its a loaf of bread on wheels. keep in mind this is my daily driver.

i respect peoples opinions and have no problem with old or new school thinking, i'm not young myself and i have always spent more money then necessary on every project i take on but that is my passion and i do not regret one dollar. i am not one of those guys who like more show than go but there is nothing wrong with wanting both. there will always be junk yard builds than can blow away a large budget car and i give them all the respect in the world for those builds. i think this cruiser will shock a lot of people next year and who knows maybe i'll break a lot of ---- too.

Keep us up to date one way or the other. You have a great looking car that puts down some mean numbers and seems to have to problem getting down the track. So while we may not agree on your upgrade path, doesn't mean we don't love the car.

[8valves]

It's not a money thing for me with DCR, I just see them sling some terminoligy at the consumer and the general ownership falls right for it. I guess kudos to them for making well off of the market.

A perferct example of this was the machined throttle bodies description by one of his own employee's on the site... "Darrel first took the stock TB and went to the mill and bored it out, then decided that this particular size would be the absolute best for overall performance through amazing mathematical equations....." . So it's not a word for word quote, but you get the idea. It's like the man is made out to me the messiah or something! Then again, he is the fastest so far...

On another note, perhaps I am just rather dissapointed in how long it has taken people to really grasp hold of the cars potential. DCR's drag car went very fast when it went fast... but that seemed to be a rare occasion. It seems like people are stuck at this barrier of 450 WHP or so unless they are a totally radical car, and I can't understand why. There should be no reason that some of these guys and gals setups aren't doing better.

Oh well, nevertheless, I love your PT. You did well with a stock motor, I'm sure you'll do well with whatever you choose to run.

[20w/ashelby]

I feel the need as others have to give you a :thumb: for your PT. Very, Very Impressive. My point, much like Aaron's, is how everyone seems to be stuck. DCR has amazing parts and also an amazing amount of money in R&D. Sometimes a little out-of-the box thinking goes a long way.

[Ondonti]

We have a 3 speed auto here with t66 and a 5 sped with t67.
They are making big power......but

both of them also went 120+mph on a modded stage 3 turbo too so they are not complete idiots.

[Ondonti]

Screw the DCR 3-speed. Total_sleeper knows about this already I'm sure... but there's a guy (AJ @ A&A Motorsports) in Hempstead New York that builds pretty bullet proof 41TE's. He actually built the transmission that was used with the DCR motor on a land speed record car. DCR stole his stuff for their 3 speed.

I am running his lower end 41TE... built to handle over 425 HP and ft-lbs of torque to the wheels. So are a few PT Cruiser guys. He has a full race version that is supposed to handle well over 700 HP and torque to the wheels.

How do you control shifting on the 41TE.

That seemed like the biggest problem with the trans. If I could control the shifting then My auto trans choice would be the much beefier 41te (go a604 woot).

BTW I thought DCR stole stephane's transmission secrets for the 3 speed. I mean......stephane was building the transmissions for dcr's car after Forward Motion was unable to make something suitable.

[total sleeper]

thanks for the props on my build to date, i do appreciate it.
here is something i've been thinking about that the knowledge on this site mite be able to help with. the pt comes with a dual mass flywheel and has nothing aftermarket to replace it. the dual mass has a plus where it makes a very aggressive clutch and makes it very streetable and easy to drive even in traffic but i am not sure handling the power i plan on putting down will go far. this part is very much on my mind as a possible problem. if i had someone make a aluminum flywheel which would be crazy bucks for a one off. i am thinking the clutch would be more like a light switch where it is on or off making it not so streetable. is there anyone else on the site that has had a dual mass and gone to a aluminum flywheel, or just thoughts on a aluminum flywheel in general. thoughts on this would be very helpfull.

[Ondonti]

Also, I think it is pretty clear that the information they posted about the "2.6L" crankshaft is absolutely not true.

I think the oil restrictor is neat and seems very proven. I would pay 60 bucks before I went to the bother of spending time making one.

[total sleeper]

We have a 3 speed auto here with t66 and a 5 sped with t67.
They are making big power......but

both of them also went 120+mph on a modded stage 3 turbo too so they are not complete idiots.

i read back and just wondered where the "idiots" comment came from. i just want to make sure that doesn't have anything to do with me cause i would never call someone an idiot. i couldnt figure out where that came from.

i personally can't figure out how this "ion" could make it twice as strong. it doesn't make sence. seeing how the stock crank had no problem with 600hp i'm thinking it will not be the weakest link anyways. i did 8 pulls from 520hp up one after another and to me that paid huge props to the chrysler engineers who built it. (oh and my tuner Lowell Foo)

[Speedeuphoria]

Got pics of the bed plate?


Not sure but from what I've seen, it helps tons. $60 is a steal.


I think the oil restrictor is neat and seems very proven. I would pay 60 bucks before I went to the bother of spending time making one.


Heres the bedplate, basically machine down the stocker, then add some billet straps for strength to make it bullet proof.
you can see pics here
http://www.thebettencourtfamily.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=thumbnails&album=46&page=4&sort=



The newer 2.4 motors dont have any oil restrictors to the head like the orig 2.4's and the 2.2/2.5's. The only restrictor is the head gasket passage is shrunk, not much, so using an old school $3 restrictor fits right in the block, if you do your homework you can also make it smaller diam(hint look what the hybrid guys run). Thats why I think its overpriced, then again you dont have to pull the head to add there's it goes in the head instead of in the block.

[turbovanman²]

last time i weighed it the car was 3250lbs without driver and since then ive dropped about 100lbs off it. so it is not lite at all and i don't help by weighing 268lbs. i ran a 11.96@121mph at 430hp which i think is very good considering its a loaf of bread on wheels. keep in mind this is my daily driver.

i respect peoples opinions and have no problem with old or new school thinking, i'm not young myself and i have always spent more money then necessary on every project i take on but that is my passion and i do not regret one dollar. i am not one of those guys who like more show than go but there is nothing wrong with wanting both. there will always be junk yard builds than can blow away a large budget car and i give them all the respect in the world for those builds. i think this cruiser will shock a lot of people next year and who knows maybe i'll break a lot of ---- too.


I am hoping we can square off for a few races. Hopefully they will get the IMport Weekend ironed out and we can embarrass a few people, :amen:

[turbovanman²]

How do you control shifting on the 41TE.

That seemed like the biggest problem with the trans. If I could control the shifting then My auto trans choice would be the much beefier 41te (go a604 woot).

BTW I thought DCR stole stephane's transmission secrets for the 3 speed. I mean......stephane was building the transmissions for dcr's car after Forward Motion was unable to make something suitable.

Not sure on the SMP thing but he knows how to make them work.

Total sleeper is running a 5 speed.

Sebring LX has a built 4 speed auto for his 04 Sebring project and is using SCT to adjust the shifting etc.


thanks for the props on my build to date, i do appreciate it.
here is something i've been thinking about that the knowledge on this site mite be able to help with. the pt comes with a dual mass flywheel and has nothing aftermarket to replace it. the dual mass has a plus where it makes a very aggressive clutch and makes it very streetable and easy to drive even in traffic but i am not sure handling the power i plan on putting down will go far. this part is very much on my mind as a possible problem. if i had someone make a aluminum flywheel which would be crazy bucks for a one off. i am thinking the clutch would be more like a light switch where it is on or off making it not so streetable. is there anyone else on the site that has had a dual mass and gone to a aluminum flywheel, or just thoughts on a aluminum flywheel in general. thoughts on this would be very helpfull.


Our 2.2/2.5 flywheels fit your engine and we have aluminium ones, you have that plus tons of clutch choices.

[total sleeper]

Anyhow, doing fine, have alot to do for next year, as you do. Post up some pics of your ride, :thumb:

here are some links of the car to date just incase they haven't been seen.
-4 runs of my last dyno day. first was a 432whp pull on just the motor/turbo and is what i have run at the track to date, second was 557whp@606tq which was the 432 run and a 110 shot of nitrous, third pull on video i blew my fuel pump fuse, forth was a 599.9whp@667tq which was 33lbs boost (scary) 432 run with 110 shot and intercooler sprayer which made 51hp (large solinoid) the header got crazy red hot. http://media.putfile.com/nitrous-80

here are some pictures of the car
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2503148/1

and some hitting the 11's passes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfE43Has09k

[turbovanman²]

That turbo really sounds like it spools fast. Nice power runs, :thumb:

[total sleeper]

Not sure on the SMP thing but he knows how to make them work.

Total sleeper is running a 5 speed.

Sebring LX has a built 4 speed auto for his 04 Sebring project and is using SCT to adjust the shifting etc.




Our 2.2/2.5 flywheels fit your engine and we have aluminium ones, you have that plus tons of clutch choices.

are you serious, there is a aluminium flywheel that will fit my car. are you sure? the spec clutch stage 3+ with 20% added clamping power is working great so i'm ok for a clutch but this could be huge. post a picture or link to a recommended one.

how do you add pictures on this site?
http://dsc01291_1.jpg
http://dsc01292_1.jpg

[turbovanman²]

are you serious, there is a aluminium flywheel that will fit my car. are you sure? the spec clutch stage 3+ with 20% added clamping power is working great so i'm ok for a clutch but this could be huge. post a picture or link to a recommended one.

how do you add pictures on this site?
http://dsc01291_1.jpg
http://dsc01292_1.jpg

99% sure our flywheels bolt up to the 2.4L.

You use the to post pics from a hosting site or become a member and you can use the onsite photo section, or link your computer.

Check out www.fwdperformance.com or www.turbosunleashed.com

[total sleeper]

looking at the photos of the flywheel, it looks like they are half the thickness of the overall flywheel i have. i will add two pictures to my cardomain site at the end of the second page. take a look. thanks simon

[Ondonti]

i read back and just wondered where the "idiots" comment came from. i just want to make sure that doesn't have anything to do with me cause i would never call someone an idiot. i couldnt figure out where that came from.

i personally can't figure out how this "ion" could make it twice as strong. it doesn't make sence. seeing how the stock crank had no problem with 600hp i'm thinking it will not be the weakest link anyways. i did 8 pulls from 520hp up one after another and to me that paid huge props to the chrysler engineers who built it. (oh and my tuner Lowell Foo)

I was referring to the people commenting that the srt-4's of the world dont make the power they should.

Trying to point out that not everyone who goes big turbo fails to make power......but those same people also were able to trap 120+ on a stage 3.....and they did it at high altitude.

[total sleeper]

granted we are lucky to have our track at sea level, but i am also running a heavier and non aerodynamic car. i was blown away at the mph my car hit on just the motor. i think when i get the new motor and add the nitrous it will really put some good numbers down.

[total sleeper]

These guys are old school. ;) Most everybody here are big fans of low budget junkyard builds. You'll find most people here like to build the best they can for the lowest cost. So don't take them the wrong way when they think something like a lot of the DCR parts are expensive. Lots of good knowledge here though.
There is a full write-up on my build over here: http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12004
I just posted the latest update on it earlier today. I used a few DCR parts on my build. They modified the SRT-4 intake manifold to fit for me... I have the oil mod, and I have their windage tray with crank scraper and baffle.

you are doing my type of work on your car, clean and well put together. i have looked at your pictures over and over on ptcrew and got some ideas from it. love your build, keep me posted on it.

[Speedeuphoria]

hey what size slick are you running? what are your 60ft times?

[87csx2.4]

I am running his lower end 41TE... built to handle over 425 HP and ft-lbs of torque to the wheels. So are a few PT Cruiser guys. He has a full race version that is supposed to handle well over 700 HP and torque to the wheelsNow there's a good Idea:thumb: been thinking of this myself.Good luck with the build Im not really a fan of the pt cruiser but it will definately be the ultimate sleeper.Ive got a new project myself the 2.4 in the daytona is on its way to a csx:nod: which is 450 pounds lighter.

[contraption22]

These guys are old school. ;) Most everybody here are big fans of low budget junkyard builds. You'll find most people here like to build the best they can for the lowest cost. So don't take them the wrong way when they think something like a lot of the DCR parts are expensive. Lots of good knowledge here though.

There is a huge difference between "expensive" and "over priced". More power to DCR for making huge profits on offset ground stock cranks. But for about the same money you can have a billet crank custom made to whatever stroke you want, and even still use standard bearings if you like.

[SebringLX]

Sebring LX has a built 4 speed auto for his 04 Sebring project and is using SCT to adjust the shifting etc.

Our 2.2/2.5 flywheels fit your engine and we have aluminium ones, you have that plus tons of clutch choices.
I'm also converting to AutoStick. ;)

Doesn't Fidanza make an aluminum flywheel for the manual PT Cruiser?

[SebringLX]

Now there's a good Idea:thumb: been thinking of this myself.Good luck with the build Im not really a fan of the pt cruiser but it will definately be the ultimate sleeper.Ive got a new project myself the 2.4 in the daytona is on its way to a csx:nod: which is 450 pounds lighter.
I don't have a PT Cruiser... I have a 2004 Chrysler Sebring Sedan. total sleeper has the PT Cruiser... a nice one at that. :thumb:

[total sleeper]

hey what size slick are you running? what are your 60ft times?

26"x15" slicks and my 60' is 1.81-1.83 . i am still learning how to launch so that will get better next year. HP will not be the problem it will be setup and suspension.

[Ondonti]

There is a huge difference between "expensive" and "over priced". More power to DCR for making huge profits on offset ground stock cranks. But for about the same money you can have a billet crank custom made to whatever stroke you want, and even still use standard bearings if you like.
It just doesnt make sense to me but its obvious that people are not questioning the things that DCR says.
If you are willing to pay that much it seems strange to not want to get a crankshaft that will blow away the stocker no matter how capable the stocker might be. You could even go with larger journals and match them to another bearing size that is widely available.

[total sleeper]

It just doesnt make sense to me but its obvious that people are not questioning the things that DCR says.
If you are willing to pay that much it seems strange to not want to get a crankshaft that will blow away the stocker no matter how capable the stocker might be. You could even go with larger journals and match them to another bearing size that is widely available.

don't get me wrong, i would love to have a billet crank. one of my bikes has a MVR motor with a billet stroker crank and it is amazing. the problem is no one makes one that i can find and a one off would cost more than a dcr proven kit.

[Ondonti]

A one off 4 cylinder billet crank should cost between 3000 and 4500 depending on who makes it for you.

It would probably be wiser to go with less stroke and larger crankshaft journals........or stick with a stock crank.

[TurboGLH]

It may take longer than that. It would have been so nice if the SRT-4 was originally equipped with a 2.0 instead of the 2.4. I miss shifting my old '98 DOHC at 7800 rpm.


i wouldn't get the stroker kit. as mentioned, FWD cars don't need massive torque, what you need is to move your usable power up higher, and increasing stroke is not what you want to do here. the rod ratio isn't real great on the 2.4 as is, i don't know how the stroker kit would affect this, but if anything i would think a destroked 2.4 would be the best bet for a race engine.


I do not have experience with the DCR stroker kit. I know I do not know everything there is to know about engines.... but I know a bit... and I would just think that the last thing a 2.4 needs is more stroke!


I'm in the process of building my own "stroker" 2.4. Not quite 2.6L, it's "officially" going to be 2.5L or 155cu in. I got some used Nascar Carriillos off eBay with nearly no miles on them (and no marks) for $80 (for the set of 8!). They're 6.2" long. They'll require custom short deck pistons, but that should be no problem (just $$$). It actually will have a better rod ratio than a stock 2.4 (if only slightly). Oh, and the rods are super light - like 520g each (IIRC).

A bit off topic, so maybe this needs to be split off to a new thread. But what about a 2.0 crank in a 2.4 block with a set of longer rods like the ones rob is talking about (I found three different lengths f/s right now) with either a stock of forged srt-4, or custom, pistons to replicate Garry McKissicks Long Rod 2.5.

I'm trying to find the calculation required to determine rod length based on compression height of the piston and the block height. Could be an interesting project and it would allow you for an easy bolt in de-stroke for srt-4s.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok more info if anyone is interested.

2.4 Block info
Bore -- 3.44 (87.5)
Stroke -- 3.98 (101)
Block height -- 9.36 (237.8)
Rod length -- 5.94 (151)
Stock Piston compression height 1.102 inches

2.0 Block info
Bore -- 3.44 (87.5)
Stroke -- 3.27 (83)
Block height -- 8.35 (212.0)
Rod length -- 5.47 (139.0)


Cylinder block deck height =
Crankshaft throw + connecting rod length + piston compression height + piston deck clearance =

With a stock turbo 2.4 it works out like so...

1.99+5.94+1.102+0 = 9.032

That leaves a .328 deck clearance. So to use the stock pistons with the 2.0 crank we would need to retain that same deck clearance. So we work it backwards to obtain rod length

9.032-1.635-1.102=6.295"

A 6.295" rod with a 2.0 crank would give a rod ratio of 1.925, a vast improvement over the 1.492 ratio of the stock 2.4.

This would all be contingent on a 2.0 crank working in a 2.4 block, I don't know for certain that it can but I suppose a bit more checking could confirm of deny that pretty quick.

[Speedeuphoria]

Yeah the 2.0 crank doesnt fit in a 2.4, according to neons.org "2.4 has a longer crank and block casting", compared to the 2.0 of course.

Now Indy Cylinder heads sells a 2.2 Stroker kit for the 2.0 motor.

Also there are longer rods for the 2.4(alum and steel) and shorter JE pistons available from FM.

[TurboGLH]

Yeah the 2.0 crank doesnt fit in a 2.4, according to neons.org "2.4 has a longer crank and block casting", compared to the 2.0 of course.

Now Indy Cylinder heads sells a 2.2 Stroker kit for the 2.0 motor.

Also there are longer rods for the 2.4(alum and steel) and shorter JE pistons available from FM.

Link for me? I'm pretty sure they're talking about the fact that you cant use a 2.0 block to build a 2.4 since the 2.4 block is taller (like the early tbi 2.5).

[ShelGame]

This would all be contingent on a 2.0 crank working in a 2.4 block, I don't know for certain that it can but I suppose a bit more checking could confirm of deny that pretty quick.

It won't - the 2.0 uses smaller mains than the 2.4. The 2.4, BTW uses the same main size, rod bearing size, and block deck height as the turbo common block. The 3 middle main bearings even line up with the common block mains. But, the front and rear mains are offset by ~2-3mm from the CB. With a little machining to the front and rear counterweights, you could fit a CB crank in a 2.4 block. But I think the front and rear mains would lose some durability...

[BadAssPerformance]

It won't - the 2.0 uses smaller mains than the 2.4. The 2.4, BTW uses the same main size, rod bearing size, and block deck height as the turbo common block. The 3 middle main bearings even line up with the common block mains. But, the front and rear mains are offset by ~2-3mm from the CB. With a little machining to the front and rear counterweights, you could fit a CB crank in a 2.4 block. But I think the front and rear mains would lose some durability...

Other than 2.2L or 2.5L, are there any interesting CB crank options, or all the MP 'stroker' cranks pre-CB?

[TurboGLH]

It won't - the 2.0 uses smaller mains than the 2.4. The 2.4, BTW uses the same main size, rod bearing size, and block deck height as the turbo common block. The 3 middle main bearings even line up with the common block mains. But, the front and rear mains are offset by ~2-3mm from the CB. With a little machining to the front and rear counterweights, you could fit a CB crank in a 2.4 block. But I think the front and rear mains would lose some durability...

Thanks, that's the info I was looking for (btw it's a pretty good difference too, 2.047 vs 2.36)

Although a 2.2 would be even better, not totally without torque on the low end, but still able to spin for a bit.

Wouldn't give as good of a rod ratio, but still better than stock and would require a 6.120 rod length to use stock srt-4 pistons.

An easier way, may be to offset grind the stock 2.4 crank shaft to reduce the throw and resize the rod journals to accept a set of these rods. They would require a stroke of 3.615 (with the 6.125 length)and some welding to accept the smaller end width (.825 vs 1.013) and the small rod end would have to be resized to .866 (all this is contingent on running stock srt pistons, you could avoid some work by running a custom set)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/NASCAR-CARRILLO-CONNECTING-RODS-CHEVY-FORD-DODGE-6-125_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33623QQihZ017QQitem Z270177102622QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

[turbovanman²]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/NASCAR-CARRILLO-CONNECTING-RODS-CHEVY-FORD-DODGE-6-125_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33623QQihZ017QQitem Z270177102622QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW


I've bought from him before, there almost brand new, :amen:

[total sleeper]

hey simon, here is the link to the only runs i got on video , i hope it does bother you i put them on putfile. oh and let me know about the flywheel.
http://media.putfile.com/simons-sleeper-which-hasnt-been-tuned-yet-it-will-be-a-very-fast-milk-getter

[turbovanman²]

hey simon, here is the link to the only runs i got on video , i hope it does bother you i put them on putfile. oh and let me know about the flywheel.
http://media.putfile.com/simons-sleeper-which-hasnt-been-tuned-yet-it-will-be-a-very-fast-milk-getter

Thanks, I'll look when I get home, work computer can't view it.

As for the flywheel, I am not sure, I don't have a 2.4 here to see if the bolt pattern is the same. I would honestly call up the vendors I posted, they will know. The other issue could be the thickness of the dual mass flywheel, using a normal one could mean the input shaft is too short?

[total sleeper]

that is what i'm thinking. just looks different thickness.

[20w/ashelby]

Since no one has said it yet I would avoid an Aluminum flywheel. It would make the car much more difficult to drive on the street and your engine could possibly fall out of the powerband between shifts.

[total sleeper]

Since no one has said it yet I would avoid an Aluminum flywheel. It would make the car much more difficult to drive on the street and your engine could possibly fall out of the powerband between shifts.

see know thats the kind of info i need. i am just scared the springs inside the dual mass fly wheel will fail.

[20w/ashelby]

I'm sure there are other options between dual mass and aluminum. I can't reccomend anything else because I don't know what else is out there, but I would think there must be another choice by now.

[turbovanman²]

Since no one has said it yet I would avoid an Aluminum flywheel. It would make the car much more difficult to drive on the street and your engine could possibly fall out of the powerband between shifts.

With the power he's making, that won't be an issue.

Remember, the SRT's don't even have a flywheel, just a flexplate.

[TurboGLH]

With the power he's making, that won't be an issue.

Remember, the SRT's don't even have a flywheel, just a flexplate.

They have one, the flywheel is part of the modular clutch package. So instead of bolting the flywheel to the crank and then the disc and PP the whole FW, disc and PP bolt to the flexplate.

[t3rse]

yes our late model flywheels will bolt up to the 2.4 crank. You don't want aluminum, fowardmotioninc sells a "middle weight" flywheel which would probably be best for a heavy car.

as far as using other cranks in the 2.4 don't forget the oiling...

[turbovanman²]

They have one, the flywheel is part of the modular clutch package. So instead of bolting the flywheel to the crank and then the disc and PP the whole FW, disc and PP bolt to the flexplate.

Gotcha, I figured it was something like that but didn't know if there was a real/huge flywheel involved, ;)

[20w/ashelby]

yes our late model flywheels will bolt up to the 2.4 crank. You don't want aluminum, fowardmotioninc sells a "middle weight" flywheel which would probably be best for a heavy car.

as far as using other cranks in the 2.4 don't forget the oiling...

I don't know anything about this particular flywheel but it sounds like what I would choose.

[rbryant]

I'm not a fan of DCR either, well they get it done for sure but they deff like the $$. I rate them as overpriced and some products are just to take advantage of the uneducated or uninformed consumer group(not very many do-it your self'ers).

They have some great products, pricey, but good. Then there are a few that are way overpriced, oil modifier, "big filter kit", 5 layer headgasket, billet tensioner, the built auto is overpriced but done right

Some stuff is definitely overpriced.

I got an oil modifier because I figured it would be easier than pulling the head on my engine again... For the discount price of $55 shipped he has about a 500% markup.

I base this on the fact that I made a CAD drawing of it to see what it would actually cost to make a batch of them...

6162


-Rich

[t3rse]

Some stuff is definitely overpriced.

I got an oil modifier because I figured it would be easier than pulling the head on my engine again... For the discount price of $55 shipped he has about a 500% markup.

I base this on the fact that I made a CAD drawing of it to see what it would actually cost to make a batch of them...

6162


-Rich

want to hook a brother up? (cad file that is)

[turbovanman²]

Some stuff is definitely overpriced.

I got an oil modifier because I figured it would be easier than pulling the head on my engine again... For the discount price of $55 shipped he has about a 500% markup.

I base this on the fact that I made a CAD drawing of it to see what it would actually cost to make a batch of them...

6162


-Rich


Did you forgot the price of R@D to make it?

[rbryant]

want to hook a brother up? (cad file that is)

It won't be shared.

It is just something I did for fun. DCR has the idea and I won't be helping anyone reproduce it.

If he discontinues it or something then I could make a batch but otherwise it won't go anywhere.

-Rich

[rbryant]

Did you forgot the price of R@D to make it?

Not completely but it is really just a way of doing what chrysler did with the original oil restrictor design without pulling the head.

It is a valid point though and I don't plan to make them since it was his design.

-Rich

[Aries_Turbo]

so seeing his design, could we use a old school restrictor in the newer 2.4L block for a similar effect?

Brian

[rbryant]

so seeing his design, could we use a old school restrictor in the newer 2.4L block for a similar effect?

Brian

Yes the oil restrictor from the 2.2 or 2.0 can be used but then you have to pull the head.

The good thing about the DCR restrictor is that you just pull a cam cap and slide it in.

It also only restricts the oil to the lifters and leaves the cam journals alone where the in block restrictor restricts both (not that it should matter).

-Rich

[Aries_Turbo]

ahh gotcha. thanks.

Brian

[Speedeuphoria]

the stock TD restrictor will work fine(drops right in), making it slightly smaller will help:nod:. As afaik the newer 2.4's since the mls gasket came out dont have on in the block, just the smaller hole in the gasket which is larger than the 2.2 restrictor.

I just welded mine shut and redrilled it, look at the sizes hybrid guys use for refference:thumb:

[total sleeper]

even though there are many on the site against the 2.6 stroker I thought i would put a quick update in. I have received my motor and have begone re-assembly of the car for next race season. I will have it on the road by mid January. Here is a link to some pictures if your interested to see how its coming together. http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2503148/3

[ohiorob]

sweet car:thumb: , glad to see that you went with the 2.6. can't wait to see what it will do.

[Darkapollo]

wow. that is one of the NICEST PT's ive ever seen!

[turbovanman²]

even though there are many on the site against the 2.6 stroker I thought i would put a quick update in. I have received my motor and have begone re-assembly of the car for next race season. I will have it on the road by mid January. Here is a link to some pictures if your interested to see how its coming together. http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2503148/3

Sweet, you'll have to give me a holla when you get her running, :nod:

Oh, I got the wife a Spirit R/T so she can come out and play next year, :partywoot:

[total sleeper]

Sweet, you'll have to give me a holla when you get her running, :nod:

Oh, I got the wife a Spirit R/T so she can come out and play next year, :partywoot:


i'm thinking mid to end of january but i will let you know Simon. have a great holiday.

[turbovanman²]

i'm thinking mid to end of january but i will let you know Simon. have a great holiday.

You too, :nod:

[total sleeper]

hey Simon, I would like to pick up a set of your plug wires. send me your phone number and if your around poco i can show you how the build is coming along. thanks mike

[turbovanman²]

hey Simon, I would like to pick up a set of your plug wires. send me your phone number and if your around poco i can show you how the build is coming along. thanks mike

I can pop around on Sunday if you want, I have errands to do.

What year is your cylinder head? Work is 604-533-1162, cel is 604-218-5062.

[total sleeper]

its a 03 head but the length is a bit longer. the shop my car is at is closed on sunday but i will give you a call tomorrow. thanks mike

[TurboGLH]

Some hi-res pics would be nice. The car domain ones are really just a tease at that size.

[total sleeper]

i have tried, i can't figure out how to post pictures on this site. if you could let me know how i will. thanks mike

[Turbulence]

A few choices to do that. One is to become a member, another is to put them on a site like photobucket and then link them using the "insert image" button.

Martin
89 Horizon...waiting for warmer weather and time
90 sundance