Go back to home

Turbo vs NA vs BEAMS

Page: < 123 Showing page 3 of 3 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
Author
MRTurbo
SA Moderator
  • Total Posts : 2894
  • Scores: 81
  • Reward points: 4791
  • Joined: 2011/04/07 19:51:15
  • Location: Adelaide SA Australia
  • Status: offline
Re:Turbo vs NA vs BEAMS 2012/05/29 10:00:54 (permalink)
0
Must warn you if you go turbo, you'll probably get bitten by the power bug so be prepared! :P
 
SR20 'truck motor' is overrated. 3S has a better valve train and perfectly square engine (bore=stroke) design. Lots of aftermarket support doesn't make for a better motor.
 

1990 SW20 GT 3S-GTE Targa
2001 Honda CBR600F4i

#31
Knightrous
MR2 Deity
  • Total Posts : 2045
  • Scores: 272
  • Reward points: 5721
  • Joined: 2011/04/07 19:51:15
  • Location: .
  • Status: offline
Re:Turbo vs NA vs BEAMS 2012/05/29 11:57:04 (permalink)
0
MRTurbo SR20 'truck motor' is overrated. 3S has a better valve train and perfectly square engine (bore=stroke) design. Lots of aftermarket support doesn't make for a better motor.

SR20 is a square engine, 86.0mm x 86.0mm, same as the 3S.
 
The main reasons I would go for an SR20 over the 3SG is the Aluminium block on the SR makes it a lighter package, and you can get VVTL from the SR20VE Neo motors (BEAMS is only VVT, no lift control). For application in an MR2, I'd stick with the 3SG simply because I don't think Nissan have any decent FWD gearboxes to that will bolt to an SR motor. It's pretty hard to walk past the E153 when your aiming for decent power and it's a factory config....
#32
Page: < 123 Showing page 3 of 3 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
Jump to:
© 2025 APG vNext Trial Version 5.5