2.0 in a P-body?

Last fall I built a new built bottom end 2.0 for my turbo neon. I have since decided to convert the car back to NA. Car is to nice to cut up to meet my goals. The pistons I used are iffy and I don't feel right selling it. So I've got a built 2.0 with no home. I'm currently in the process of building my beater 89 CSX into a drag car. I was planning on doing a mild build on a 89 T2 I have this winter. But then I got thinking, why not use the 2.0. Way more power potential, and it's already built. But I think I would have to use a neon tranny correct? Then just build mounts and buy a dizzy adaptor. I have a nice MS1 unit I bought for the neon build I could use too. Undecided on turbo. I've got a 16g and a 20g. But I've also got a couple holset VGTs I'd like to try, if I can make one fit. I'm a little worried about using the smaller 2.0. But I'm planning some serious weight reduction.

Thoughts? I'm a fabricator by trade so making it fit isn't a issue. Mainly worried about the management side.

I don't think I would want to use mS1 on anything these days, its so far back in tech and support. VGT would be interesting to see if you could make it work with a VGT and actually have a powerband. That would come down to how well you control the VGT. Unless you want to run slicks on the street, 16g would make more sense for what you do.

I would run the SMEC, use the 2.2 dizzy and you have full tune-a-bility.

Yeah, why not just use a distributor adapter and modified SMEC? Unless you can get something you think is better for cheaper. MS1 may be 'better' if you can find a good turbo neon base tune to work from. If you're starting from nothing i'm not convinced it would be any better than modding a 2.2 cal.

You can run the 2.0 with the original trans if you want to.

Would love to see this happen. I think a lightened P-body with a high-rpm 2.0 would be a killer combination. +1 for the dizzy adapter. I bet Rob could whip up a turbo 2.0 base cal to start with.

Vigo, do you know of any starter clearance issues with the 2.0 attached to an older transmission? I'm assuming the bellhousing will just have the one front bolt hole misaligned like the 2.4 does. Plenty of ways around that.

As far as i know the only starter fitment issues are with the newer 2.4 blocks. But i havent personally bolted this setup together, so i'm not sure.

You can make 400whp with a 2.0 quite easily with stock head,cams,and built bottom end and 20g?16g would put you in 350 ish range.If your going Auto just use a Neon auto with the good internals.

Other than the Miata, the Neon 2.0/420A probably has better Megasquirt support than any other engine platform

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by contraption22

Other than the Miata, the Neon 2.0/420A probably has better Megasquirt support than any other engine platform

---

Id still like to see you put a mild built n/a 2.0 in your rampage!

2.4's are cheaper to build

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by contraption22

2.4's are cheaper to build

---

About same N/A wise,now turbo thats a different story.Youd like shifting a N/A car at 8k!

As far as i know you can do that with a stock 2.0 other than maybe valvesprings?

I revved my sohc to 7600 once or twice but it seemed like as the engine warmed up it would valve float (stockers) lower and lower. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vigo

As far as i know you can do that with a stock 2.0 other than maybe valvesprings?

I revved my sohc to 7600 once or twice but it seemed like as the engine warmed up it would valve float (stockers) lower and lower. :p

---

I shifted my stocker in the 1st R/T at 7500 with a AFX race comp and stock valve springs.The DCR built 2.0 i was shifting at 8200 with crane 16's and crane springs.Mohler's old car he was shifting at 10+k.I think he has crower springs.The SOHC dont like to rev much like the 2.4.

Yeah and i dont think sohc and dohc valve springs are the same. But the 2.0 bottom end can definitely be revved!