Stroker

[Powers]

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]

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]

Your transmission breaks.

[Matt D.]

Your rod ratios and bore dimensions get all cattywompus.

[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.

[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?

[CarPsyco84]

More torque than the 2.0 tends to break transmissions is the big downside I see.

[Tachyon]

Originally Posted by ecoli

Your transmission breaks.... more frequently

This.

[96GST16g]

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

[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

[CarPsyco84]

Originally Posted by 96GST16g

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

Heh, smart ass. They break alot more with the bigger motors... Ask shane, he knows.

[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 =

[twack]

Aaron - i saw that brian crower 2.6 kit for sale on their site forever but never knew anyone who ran it, would be real interesting setup. Got any links to people who have used it.

fwiw - i still like brian crower

[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.

[turbotalon1g]

^I am not trying to prove him wrong, I am tired of people sticking to rumors and reciting things they have heard or just sayin "SHEP runs it".

Sorry just a long week of people messing with me. I am not trying to make andrew look silly or wrong, fuck he probably knows a lot more about rod ratios and such than I do.

My point is to rely on actual examples of people that running these setups not people just reciting shit, at least if they give u a source that would be better.

[1ViciousGSX]

My 2.4 LR goes to 8500 regularly with no problems.

Transmissions break based on how it's built, applied power and driving skills. The 2.0, 2.4 and all variations in between break trannys, it's a part of life.

[Goat Blower]

I ran my regular old rod 2.4 to 8500rpm several times with no problems. There's more internet poo-poo about engines blowing up then actual cases. The 2.4 is an awesome street engine, just don't expect Lexus reliability and you'll be fine.

BTW, Ecoli can break a tranny just looking at it from across the room.

[Andrew7dg]

Originally Posted by turbotalon1g

^I am not trying to prove him wrong, I am tired of people sticking to rumors and reciting things they have heard or just sayin "SHEP runs it".

Sorry just a long week of people messing with me. I am not trying to make andrew look silly or wrong, fuck he probably knows a lot more about rod ratios and such than I do.

My point is to rely on actual examples of people that running these setups not people just reciting shit, at least if they give u a source that would be better.

Just to clarify
The "SHEP runs it" "MAP runs it" comments were sarcastic comment. I can never make my comments sarcastic in typing....


I was having a conversation with someone else about what I was going to do with a 2.4L block and the rebuttal was "Thats dumb, 2 liter block is for me. SHEP RUNS IT! what is good enough for shep is good enough for me"

After that it has been a running joke.


I myself want to build a 2.4 block just because it will be better as a DD IMO.
I am not even really going for HP, I just want to make my car a little more fun to drive.
What you posted was really good info. Thanks!
But where is the 2.6L combo info?
I bet you can rev it to 9000 But would it really be efficient to rev it to that RPM?