2.4 vs 2.4

[turbovanman²]

Plus some say that as rpm climbs, the oil squirters really rob hp from the crank due to the mentioned windage. Wonder if anyone has actually tested it, doing a true back to back?

[R/T]

As for the "why" I heard they went with smaller valves cuz the reshaped ports game them more flow so they didnt need as big of a valve to get the CFM they wanted.

Could be:

Volume *VS* Velocity: The smaller valve/port will increase the velocity of the air charge, and increase "snap" in throttle response. Sometimes smaller = faster.

Don't know if it makes a real difference when a turbo is pushing the air into the cylinder, though....

[turbovanman²]

Could be:

Volume *VS* Velocity: The smaller valve/port will increase the velocity of the air charge, and increase "snap" in throttle response. Sometimes smaller = faster.

Don't know if it makes a real difference when a turbo is pushing the air into the cylinder, though....

Wasn't the HH head +1 mm intake and -1 mm exhaust?

[contraption22]

Wasn't the HH head +1 mm intake and -1 mm exhaust?

Vs what?

I think you are confusing the HH head with the lore of the +1-1 8valve head.

[turbovanman²]

Vs what?

I think you are confusing the HH head with the lore of the +1-1 8valve head.

Could be. Its probably on the DDG but I seem to remember someone coming out with a +1 -1 head that made more power than a regularly sized head.

[Mopar318]

I don't see the need for squirters in a true performance or race engine. People go through some effort to control windage, and keep oil off the rotating assembly.

No, but it is good if you want pick-a-part 500hp capable engines in stock...for us cheap people!