2.3L vs 2.4L

sleepydsm · 03-14-2006

Which is better, and why? 6 bolt 2.3L stroker vs 6 bolt 2.4L (g4cs)

I am considering my car's future; I'd like a GT35R.

**Goat Blower** · 03-14-2006

A 2.3 looks like a stocker, as if anybody could actually tell anyways. Other than that, a 2.4 is easier to build, and gives you the extra .1L of displacement. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Either will spool most GT35R's easily.

Super Bleeder!! · 03-15-2006

i like the 2.4Ls extra deck height. more deck height = increased rod ratio = less cylinder side loading = less wear.

not like it really matters, i don't think the avg lifespan of a 2.3/2.4 is 100k miles in built form.

TheBlizzard · 03-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by notnormal

i like the 2.4Ls extra deck height. more deck height = increased rod ratio = less cylinder side loading = less wear.

not like it really matters, i don't think the avg lifespan of a 2.3/2.4 is 100k miles in built form.

The reason they don't last isn't because of them being a 2.3 or 2.4, its because usually they are pushing a shit load of HP. I bet if you put a 14b on it and ran 11psi with minimal mods it would last a long time.

I would definetly do a 2.4 though, cheaper, easier.

rst95eclipse · 03-15-2006

A 2.4 is cheaper and easier, however I have no clue what it takes to mate a 1g or 2g head to a 2.4 block. A 6 bolt swap is well documented, which would give me a better piece of mind. I don't think a .1L difference would mean too much in spooling anything. You'd see it something like 150 RPM sooner, but that's what nitrous is for.

**JET** · 03-15-2006

A 2.4l will be no different than a 6 bolt swap except for the timing belt. All mounts are the same. You may have to tap the knock sensor hole, that should be the extent of it.

GSXMatt · 03-15-2006

So there is no huge performance gain from going to a 2.4 over a 2.3?

**JET** · 03-15-2006

The 2.4 is easier, cheaper, and should be more reliable. Performance should be similar.

SchuttsR1 · 03-15-2006

The extra displacemet will give you a little more tourqe.

**Goat Blower** · 03-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by rst95eclipse

A 2.4 is cheaper and easier, however I have no clue what it takes to mate a 1g or 2g head to a 2.4 block.

I usually use a set of ARP headstuds.

**JET** · 03-15-2006

The displacement advantage in a 2.4 is actually from the bigger bore (since they use the same crank). A bigger bore will affect HP more than torque, where the stroke affects torque more than HP. So, theoretically, the 2.4 will make slightly more HP and basically the same torque as a 2.3l.

rst95eclipse · 03-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by JET

The displacement advantage in a 2.4 is actually from the bigger bore (since they use the same crank). A bigger bore will affect HP more than torque, where the stroke affects torque more than HP. So, theoretically, the 2.4 will make slightly more HP and basically the same torque as a 2.3l.

Don't you have to bore it out when you're doing a 2.3? I believe that a 2.3's bore is 88mm. Maybe you have it switched around. More torque than HP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

I usually use a set of ARP headstuds.

Well there's po-folk like me that doesn't have the cheese to get my hands on that hardware.

niterydr · 03-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

I usually use a set of ARP headstuds.

LMAO!!!
Thats awesome.

niterydr · 03-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by rst95eclipse

Don't you have to bore it out when you're doing a 2.3? I believe that a 2.3's bore is 88mm. Maybe you have it switched around. More torque than HP.

Well there's po-folk like me that doesn't have the cheese to get my hands on that hardware.

No, its a 88mm stroke for a 4g63.
It is a 100mm stroke for a 4g64.
The bore is 85mm on the 4g63.
The bore is 86.5mm on the 4g64. (thanks shane for the correction!)

The srt-4 stuff, just for fun:
101mm stroke w/ 87mm bore. They call it a "2.4" that revs to a blistering 6000rpm (factory redline).

Bore size=horsepower.
Stroke is usually related to reving capiblities, powerband, and torque.
The 4g64 crank in the 4g63 isn't worth it in my honest opinion. Just buy the correct block to begin with.

Super Bleeder!! · 03-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by rst95eclipse

Don't you have to bore it out when you're doing a 2.3? I believe that a 2.3's bore is 88mm. Maybe you have it switched around. More torque than HP.

what you are saying doesnt' make ANY sense. a 2.3 is composed of a standard run of the mill 4g63 block that comes in any dsm, and a 100mm crank out of the 4g64/g4cs motors. the stock bore on the 4g63 is 85mm, and that is the end of that. boring it out to 88mm would leave the sleeves MIGHTY thin, which isn't in your best interests.

for future reference the 2.4 blocks have a stock bore of 86.5mm.

rst95eclipse · 03-16-2006

Alright, I don't understand here. So in order to make a 6 bolt 4g63 into a 2.3L, all you have to do is switch the cranks? No boring needed?

niterydr · 03-16-2006

sigh.
You switch the cranks, thats the easy part.
Weisco makes shelf stock pistons for it.
You need to clearance the mains and the block for the crank to rotate.
It is not that "easy" if you have to ask about it, in all honesty.

sleepydsm · 03-16-2006

Could someone put a built 2.4L in a completely stock car with no ill effects?

niterydr · 03-16-2006

No. The larger motor will consume more fuel. Your turbocharger will also hate life.

Super Bleeder!! · 03-16-2006

there is a kid down here with a built 2.4L in a fwd 2g with the friggin t25 on it, haha. BOOST AT IDLE FTW!!