Stroker

[Andrew7dg]

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]

Originally Posted by goodhart

Oh god you guys....


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.

Originally Posted by Andrew7dg

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?

[Andrew7dg]

Originally Posted by turbotalon1g

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



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

2.6 motor to 9k... I call BS...

They make a bigger crank that just makes the rod to stroke ratio worse!!

Even if you buy long rods, I don't think it would be long enough to improve on that.

The 1.5ratio that the 4g64 or the 2.3 combo is pretty bad to deal with already..

and 2005? people are still having this argument today!

its like the 1g big port vs the 2g small port

It is just preference.

For me I would think a 2.4L block would make a nice street car. Extra torque for just driving around or starting from a stop. these low compression 1g 2.0 blocks are too laggy with a big turbo... not that much fun for a DD but if going for a race car then yeah stick with a proven block. or put the 4g64 into an FD

[turbotalon1g]

Originally Posted by 96GST16g

transmissions break running a stock motor with a 16g at 18 psi?

You just have a lot of talent. Must be insane torxs!

Originally Posted by Andrew7dg

2.6 motor to 9k... I call BS...

They make a bigger crank that just makes the rod to stroke ratio worse!!

Even if you buy long rods, I don't think it would be long enough to improve on that.

The 1.5ratio that the 4g64 or the 2.3 combo is pretty bad to deal with already..

and 2005? people are still having this argument today!

its like the 1g big port vs the 2g small port

It is just preference.

For me I would think a 2.4L block would make a nice street car. Extra torque for just driving around or starting from a stop. these low compression 1g 2.0 blocks are too laggy with a big turbo... not that much fun for a DD but if going for a race car then yeah stick with a proven block. or put the 4g64 into an FD

Call BS if you want there are logs and timeslips and videos to prove it.

I agree with you on teh 2.4 for a street car, but all your regurgitation of theories is blown out the window by people actually building these motors and revving the piss out of them.

Blackrosenova on here revs his 2.4 to 8500, so it should be in pieces right?

Built 2.0L magnus recommends a limit of 10.5k, people everywhere go past 9k I actually think this is limited more by the head than the bottom end.

My old 2.4 saw 8500 a few times during testing, only a few times though since it didn't make power up there with the baby turbo.

Here is the copied and pasted version of Magnus Detailed Engine List, its online somewhere.
First number is displacement and the last number is recommended rev. limit.

Motor Displacement Bore (approx) Block Crankshaft Stroke Rod Material Rod Length CH Rod Ratio Recomm. Rev Limit

2.0L 2020cc 85.5mm 4G63 OEM or Magnus 88mm Alum or steel 150mm 1.377" 1.7:1 10,500
Excellent, high rpm performance, light weight piston

2.0L Long Rod 2020cc 85.5mm 4G63 OEM or Magnus 88mm Alum or steel 156mm 1.13" 1.77:1 11,000
Excellent, high rpm performance, light weight piston

2.1L Super Long Rod 2070cc 87mm 4G64 Magnus 88mm Alum or steel 162mm 1.13" 1.84:1 11000
Very peaky engine highest possible rod stroke ratio

2.2L Stroker 2140cc 86mm 4G63 Magnus 92mm Alum or steel 150mm 1.288" 1.63:1 9500
Flat broad power band, our favorite all purpose motor!

2.2L Super Long Rod Stroker 2190cc 87mm 4G64 OEM or Magnus 92mm Alum or steel 162mm 1.062" 1.76:1 10500
High Rpm extreme duty motor, excellent power, wide power band

2.3L Stroker 2300cc 85.5mm 4G63 OEM or Magnus 100mm Steel 150mm 1.13" 1.5:1 8000
Big low end torque

2.4L Stroker 2380cc 87mm 4G64 OEM or Magnus 100mm Steel 150mm 1.13" 1.5:1 7500
More displacement and power than the 2.3

2.4L Long Rod Stroker 2380cc 87mm 4G64 OEM or Magnus 100mm Steel 156mm 1.13" 1.56:1 8500
More RPM limit than standard 2.4L lighter piston

Stroker =

[Tachyon]

Originally Posted by Andrew7dg

2.6 motor to 9k... I call BS...

They make a bigger crank that just makes the rod to stroke ratio worse!!

Even if you buy long rods, I don't think it would be long enough to improve on that.

The 1.5ratio that the 4g64 or the 2.3 combo is pretty bad to deal with already..

I have no doubt when supplied with sufficient airflow, a 2.6 would reach 9k and beyond, the key issue would be increased wear.

I have for the life of me been trying to provide real life examples of an engine with a 1.4 R/S ratio reaching beyond 9k. It would be nice to stir in some supporting evidence.

turbotalon1g, that list really does not support nor deny Andrew's bold proclamation since none of them on the list are in fact reving to 9000 RPM, nor have a 1.4 R/S angle.