I'm not starting this whole eco v. TC thing again. 1. Eco does not "own me" 2. Its just preference. I know of a couple 2.0Ls that will make the eco look weak as hell, cuz it is by comparison. The S/C 2.0 eco makes only 205HP, the engines I'm thinking of make 300+ hp with just a turn of a knob at least 220 stock. The problem is American car makers are stuck with this idea there is no replacment for diaplacment but the rest the world knows better. Most American makers are stuck in the 60's with RWD and SB V8s. As a result forgein makers put out more power with fewer emissions and higher reliability.
Sorry for the rant but yes, eco is easier to work on, it draw on GMs global entities
. The potential from the eco vs. the 2.4......well....... that is in the eye of the beholder or tuner. I've been working with the quad/twin cam for almost 15 years and that's what's in my car so that's what I work with.
The hampster convo is a joke. The hampster is in a wheel on one side and the intake turbine is on the other. A rodent powered turbo if you will. I'm thinking quad chincillas, they are fast he||
If you want to bash me send me a PM, email, or IM. Im trying to troll for info on how heads are built, not which engine is better. So if you have some info about THAT topic let me know else get ahold of me outside of this.
Thanks.