GST Motorsports

iTrader: (8)

We don't often get to do a comparison between the 2.0L and 2.3L with the same parts hung off it as people usually upgrade turbos, etc when they move to the larger motor.

Here is a pretty nice comparison, same car, same turbo, same boost, same AFR

2003 Evo GSR

CBRD BBK Full
Brian Crower 280 cams
AKMEE cam gears
HKS intake (mushroom)
HKS SSQV bov
RC 1200cc injectors
GST Boost pill upgrade (stock solenoid)
TBE
Nisei Upper and lower IC pipes
FMIC
GST 2.3L
Stock head
91 octane

Dotted plots are stock 2.0L, solid are 2.3L

Again, same boost(24.5psi peak to 22.5psi) and same AFR

21whp / 43wtq peak gains but the largest gains are seen area under the curve, 30whp gains at some points...



- bryan

JohnBradley

iTrader: (30)

Interesting stuff. Did the car take more timing or was that the same as well?

94AWDcoupe

iTrader: (125)

Hard for a 2.0 to compete with engine that is 250CC larger. I have seen a dozen 2.3 only changes on cars and every one makes significantly more power and dramatically adds to fun factor of car.. I always recommend 2.3 engine if tranny can handle extra torque.

Nice powa on 91 octane. lets see it on e85...

GST Motorsports

iTrader: (8)

Less timing actually, pretty inline with other 2.3L's I have tuned.

Booked in for the 11th.

RAbishi

iTrader: (4)

Interesting results, not exactly what I was expecting.

Was the compression ratio the same?

CA$H

iTrader: (9)

I just went to your website and didn't see a GST 2.3L available?

GST Motorsports

iTrader: (8)

It's a phone call item.

Sharkbite2000

iTrader: (21)

That's a big jump

tweaker41

iTrader: (36)

Interesting comparison. I wasn't expecting that big of a jump in hp, just in tq. It doesn't look like it gained any rpm in spool up though. Is there a dyno sheet with the boost plotted anywhere?

esevo

iTrader: (11)

^^^^ VE was increased dramatically, so yes power will be increased, just not at the same rpms. It reaches it peak hp 1000 rpm before the 2.0l. I hate to say it, no replacement for displacement... With a built head/intake mani a 2.3L will really shine for now its crapping through a straw and getting choked out. Makes for a lot of fun but not using its full potential.

As for boost you will see in a boost plot a increase of spool, at lease 200-500 rpms.

Good comparison GST now convince the customer to get some head work done... lol sorry had to...

Evan Smith

crcain

Changing the displacement I don't think effects VE in any real way.

I'm surprised peak torque isn't a lot earlier though. Seems strange as I always thought a 2.3 would bring in peak boost at least 500 rpm earlier.

So if boost comes in at same time, but peak torque is higher, and peak boost is the same, and VE is the same... I don't get where the extra power comes in.

EE

iTrader: (9)

More air
At 24.5 psi a 2.3L engine is "consuming" about 15% more air than a 2.0L engine at same boost level. The turbo is spinning faster to achieve 24.5 psi on a 2.3L too. That's why i thnk the better comparison would have been "same air flow" instead of "same boost". The 2.3L would still have made more power as it will use less boost to achieve the same air flow which will enable it to run more timing on knock limitted fuel

esevo

iTrader: (11)

sorry late night... I knew that, I ment to say that the increase in displacment allows for peak VE to be seen a lot sooner in the rpm band, thus why it sees peak whp before the old 2.0 setup.

Never type while drowsy, u never know what will come out lol.

scheides

iTrader: (10)

Kinda lackluster results for a BBK on pump gas, esp before the 2.3L. What's holding this car back?


Also, any chance you could post a boost plot? Curious how the 2.3 spools that BBK...

GST Motorsports

iTrader: (8)

Pretty inline with what others are making on this dyno with the BBK on "decent" builds without porting other than the turbo.

On the real well thought-out builds and with more porting, etc the strongest I have seen so far is 367whp on 91 oct, and average is 34X-35Xwhp