Just made a huge decision.

[THe_DeTAiL3R]

Doesn't the L36 have a different compression ratio than the L67 (better for turbocharging?)

[pwmin]

yeah, cant remember what the exact ratios are, but the L36 has higher compression. also, if you take an L36 vs. an L67 w/o the s/c belt, the L67 is noticeably slower than the L36

[terryk2003]

turbo L32 better than all...

 

In all actuality your going to be spending more. You could have turbo'ed an L36 or L32 and been in the 13's off the bat. You're going to have to spend ATLEAST another grand to break into the 13's with the L67.

 

No more like $500 if not less. Downpipe, PCM, pulley and your in the 13's

 

EXACTLY what i was going to say...homeade FWI, DP, PCM, Pulley & Rockers would deffinatly net you 13's...especially in a 1st gen!

[pwmin]

when redz did the swap in his 92, he ran 14.2 @ 5800' (almost a 12 at sea level) with a 3.0, DHP v1.0, mands downpipe, 4" intake, and 2.5" exhaust

[5speedz34]

when redz did the swap in his 92, he ran 14.2 @ 5800' (almost a 12 at sea level) with a 3.0, DHP v1.0, mands downpipe, 4" intake, and 2.5" exhaust

 

Wow!

[JakeMetz63]

5speedz34 your avatar crack me up.

 

There is a thread here about a TT L32 with a STOCK bottom end running in the low 9s, so I dont think that the L32's bottom end needs to be beefed up that much (if at all).