Verdict: 2.0 sohc's are pretty reliable

OverDrive418 · Post by **OverDrive418** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:24 pm

Bought my car Dec 01 from the dealer with 15 miles on it. Today it has 100,397. Kept up on the oil changes (switched to synthetic), flushed trans fluid twice (overkill), replaced accessory belts and plugs...that's about it. No major surgery.
As far as power goes my only complaint is they should've made a DOHC powerplant. You gotta remember aside from the SRT-4 ALL 2GNs are SOHC. Line up a bunch of stock 4 cylinder SOHC anycars together and Neon will get the checker everytime.

kc2005ptgt · Post by **kc2005ptgt** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:42 am

I agree on a couple of levels with the DOHC idea, but then they made the magnum engine which puts out as much power as the DOHC, so maybe what they COULD have done is this:

They made the car heavier, make a 2.0 DOHC standard at 140-150hp, then make the magnum engine a 2.0 DOHC HO, rate it around 175-185hp with 150-160 trq, and THEN you have an RT/ACR... I mean, slapping a sticker on a car and giving it a few extra ponies is not enough - make it significant!!!

Heck, the Hyundai Elantra my wife drives puts out 146 and it is a 2.0 DOHC, and it is a base model.

Post by **racer12306** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:44 am

i still think the n/a 2.4 should have been in there.

kc2005ptgt · Post by **kc2005ptgt** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:52 am

racer12306 wrote:i still think the n/a 2.4 should have been in there.

I thought the same, but I like the idea of a smaller engine putting out all that powa! Like the STi 2.5L i4 that puts out 300 hp or 286hp 2.0L i4 in the Evo... THAT makes me smile when you tell those v8 owners you make twice the power in half the engine.

03blackrt · Post by **03blackrt** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:02 am

R/t's and ACR's should have had the N/A 2.4 IMO.

Post by **racer12306** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:10 am

they could have done it like the PT

150hp 2.4 base
180hp 2.4T
230hp 2.4T HO

03neonRT · Post by **03neonRT** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:17 am

03blackrt wrote:R/t's and ACR's should have had the N/A 2.4 IMO.

I always thought the same thing also...morons at DCx.

OB · Post by OB » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:25 am

I think the 2.4 is a bit much for a car of our size and wieght. A 2.0 twin cam with a better flowing head would be plenty for me to be happy. But then again, we have what we have, and theyre pretty good for what they are.

OverDrive418 · Post by **OverDrive418** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:19 am

racer12306 wrote:they could have done it like the PT

Just a crazy idea: has anyone tried to swap in a PT engine? My buddies LT had 165hp NA. Wanted his engine with my car because it felt like it wanted to go but the PT is like driving a weeble-wobble. Touring suspension my ass!

Post by **racer12306** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:39 am

many people have swaped in 2.4's. PT/SRT doesnt really matter. a 2.4 is a 2.4 in that respect.

i was thinking the 2.4 would be nice, then we would have some good torque. the 2.0 dohc is ok, but torque gets you around town.

hansken_yo · Post by **hansken_yo** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:53 pm

^^I know what your saying... but with some minor mods like CAI and Exhaust you can get respectable power (I'd say both Torque and HP) to get you around town confortably as well. Most drivers probably don't want to take the time to do those mods... I do miss the DOHC with the 1st gens on the 2.0L... they were IMHO rockin for a stock engine.