PDA

View Full Version : Stroker


Pages : [1] 2

Powers
04-05-2010, 07:10 PM
what exactly happens when u stroke a motor from a stock 2.0l to a 2.4l? or what is effected. good or bad?

TkrPerformance
04-05-2010, 07:17 PM
The 2.0 is its own block and crank. The 2.4 is its own block and crank
A stroker would be a 2.0 block with a 2.4 crank making it a 2.3l stroker
Or you can destroke the 2.4 block with a 2.0 crank to make it a 2.1l
Also there is a stroker kit for the 2.4 block to make it a 2.6l

Shane@DBPerformance
04-05-2010, 08:26 PM
Your transmission breaks.

Matt D.
04-05-2010, 08:40 PM
Your rod ratios and bore dimensions get all cattywompus.

goodhart
04-06-2010, 08:40 AM
Oh god you guys.... :rollinglaugh:


Mark, where is this 2.6 kit you speak of? or is that BS too? lol

EDIT: nvm, it's brian crower, I wouldn't waste my time.

Andrew7dg
04-06-2010, 12:11 PM
there is argument for all of the combos

2.0 has better rod to stroke ratio (don't mess with mitsubishi engineering!!!! plus the argument SHEP RUNS IT!!!)
2.3 is better because it has light pistons and more torque shouldn't go over 7000 (shouldn't but people have)
2.4 is better because it could be stronger then the 2.3 and has more torque but only revs till max 8000 (the argument is that MAP RUNS IT!!!)
2.1... ummm.... potential 10,000rpm?..

so all of them have an argument on which one is better

It all comes down to personal preference and what you are going to use the car for

turbotalon1g
04-06-2010, 03:13 PM
Oh god you guys.... :rollinglaugh:


Mark, where is this 2.6 kit you speak of? or is that BS too? lol

EDIT: nvm, it's brian crower, I wouldn't waste my time.

That 2.6 is no joke, there is a guy running a couple of 2.6 motors and revving them past 9k I believe.

there is argument for all of the combos

2.0 has better rod to stroke ratio (don't mess with mitsubishi engineering!!!! plus the argument SHEP RUNS IT!!!)
2.3 is better because it has light pistons and more torque shouldn't go over 7000 (shouldn't but people have)
2.4 is better because it could be stronger then the 2.3 and has more torque but only revs till max 8000 (the argument is that MAP RUNS IT!!!)
2.1... ummm.... potential 10,000rpm?..

so all of them have an argument on which one is better

It all comes down to personal preference and what you are going to use the car for

^Your whole argument is from about 2005, are 20Gs still for race cars only? :drive1:

CarPsyco84
04-06-2010, 03:14 PM
More torque than the 2.0 tends to break transmissions is the big downside I see.

Tachyon
04-06-2010, 03:33 PM
Your transmission breaks.... more frequently

This.

96GST16g
04-06-2010, 03:50 PM
transmissions break running a stock motor with a 16g at 18 psi?