2.6 Stroker??

[c_riggan]

Still cant post in the tech forums....?? ANyway..

Has anybody done the 2.6 stroker from Brian Crower? Uses a 4g64 Block with a 63 head and a 7 bolt crank... BC says it can be a 2.6 with 87.5mm bire and a 106mm crank.

Just wondering if anybody has done it, and how good it really is. Sounds interesting.

The kit is located here: EXTREME PSI : Your #1 Source for In Stock Performance Parts - Brian Crower Mitsubishi 4G64 Block w/4G63 Head 2.6L Stroker Kit

 

[vr4_3000]

You can use a 4G63 belt. but it will be tight. I use a 63 belt.

 

[delta448]

The proper belt is the 94 Galant 2.4 DOHC belt, but as mentioned, the stock 63 belt at least works temporarily. Keep a close eye on it if you go that route.

94 Galant 2.4 DOHC belt at autopartsworld.com
or
94 Galant 2.4 DOHC belt at Slowboy Racing

 

[BklynsDsmer]

Actually not really . He'll have great torque from low rpm and up, he just needs to get some nice 280 cams and a nice turbo to go with it I say a gt35r
and better be going on a awd with a SHep tranny

Honestly I wouldn't do it because you'll have to make your power in low RPMs... a 2.6L stroker would not be good for revving above 7000 RPM (IMO)

 

[jshuman]

The proper belt is the 94 Galant 2.4 DOHC belt, but as mentioned, the stock 63 belt at least works temporarily. Keep a close eye on it if you go that route.

94 Galant 2.4 DOHC belt at autopartsworld.com
or
94 Galant 2.4 DOHC belt at Slowboy Racing

Thats the same information that I have found. I think I am going to run one of the kevlar 63 belts on my long rod 2.4. Hopefully it will hold up being a little tighter than what its meant for.

 

[vr4_3000]

I have a GT37R with a .62 hot .76 cold. My power band is from about 3400rpm to 6500rpm. That matched with my Jacks transmission. you will get great pulls in 2nd - 4th on the stock trans. but I dont think the trans will last too long over 400 hp. Mine held 582 for a few dyno pulls then 3 got stripped

 

[tkelly27]

Just think about motors in general.

<b>All daily drivers want MORE torque. Stroker motors make more torque, and spool turbos faster</b>
... more torque... turning force.. = faster/easier revs = quicker/stronger turbo spool. Think of a stroker motor like this, when you have a stuck bolt and use a wrench, and you use a "cheater bar", know how easy it is to break the bolt loose? You had more leverage/force on the bolt. Same with a stroker motor, the rods journals on the crank are "farther apart" hence more force.

Torque and Power

Myth #5 For an equal displacement, torque should be the same on short vs. long stroke engines.

Not all DD's want insta torque, especially FWD ones. My van has a 2.5 FWD with a pathetic cylinder head and it becomes difficult to drive at 15psi, in the wet you have to be extra careful. A DOHC DSM engine with that much displacement will make unusable power down low. "You'll fry your tires off kid"

 

[MidShipCivic]

Everything has already been explained, no need for recapping the subject.

 

[c_riggan]

Well, the plans have changed a little bit... Not going to be dropping it in the current vehicle. I will continue to build the engine (with GT35R and either 280s or 288s, BC of course). It will not be dropped in anything until I can find a nice GSX platform to drop it in, or a Spyder and a GSX doner for the drive trane. Until then, I have a come accross a late 80s Supra with a 7MGTE (for 600 bucks) that I will be DDing once I grab it.

With that said, my power goal has gone up from 400 to 600 though (and a shep trans to go with it, dont count on seeing it for a couple years though, slow build)

 

[dsm_ftw]

This was given to me when I was asking questions about internal weights and redlines:

http://www.kidzuku.com/StrokeOrNot.pdf

In the end I want to go with a 2.0 because of increased reliability and less rod angle. Less rod angle means less sidewalling and less piston rub. Just my personal opinion derived from this pdf. Read it and develop your own.

Thanks to TunaTalon for the link.