|
It isn't the bores, or the 'level'; it is the cost to failures ratio given a particular power output per unit mile. Around/after 450-500bhp or 600bhp the cost of the sr20 'built' far exceeds similar statistical ratios given a larger more robust, near stock engines at a tiny % of the comparison cost (i.e. cost to failures ratio per unit output/miles is significantly better when using a larger engine) as mileage increases above say, 20k to 100k.
And then you have the in between 380 and 500 crowd. You want 450? You will want a 'built sr20'- opening the same avenue for parts related failure that the 500 and 600bhp crowd has to deal with, with hundreds less horsepower. That is what I call the 'dead zone' where nobody should find themselves, a pointless grey area where other, larger stock engines are not only cheaper but tend to be more reliable.
I am only trying to save people headache and money. If a $800 longblock from a truck weighs 80lbs extra and exceeds the power goal of a $5,000 sr20 engine in the dead zone AND is statistically likely to give you many more miles (mileage = fun)... where is the logic behind using the 2.0? Unless you absolutely NEED that 2.0 for some reason (class or specific genre or personal desire) engines are just engines.
|