With the 4G64 crank onto a 4G63 block I was wondering how far or high can the motor rev? According to the gallant 100mm crankshaft their red line sets at 6 grand?
Advertisement
To browse the forums without the advertisements above, Login/Register
The correct answer to your “it depends”. The weight of rods and pistons are handy for calculating maximum acceleration forces. However weight is a weak indication of strength. For a given weight forged steel rods are stronger than cast and Aluminum and Titanium rods are stronger than steel. For any material and weight of rod the shape will affect yield strength in compression and tension.
Not to mention:
Bearing material: Tri-metal bearings will have higher loading limits than Aluminum.
Piston skirt height: Shorter skirts are lighter but longer are more stable.
Strength of the crankshaft and its bracing: That meat in the bottom end has a reason to be.
Intake valve area: Max usable RPM can also be limited by air flow.
Cam timing: Higher RPMs have different optimal cams than moderate RPMs.
Wrist pin location: Higher pin locations are more stable than stock locations.
Design boost: Higher boost brings higher compression loading on the internals.
Bore diameter: Friction losses increase with the square of the bore but displacement and weight increase with the cube of the bore.
That is not all but should make the point. There are many variables in the physics that determine optimal rev limit. Beyond the physics there are just as many subjective judgments in engine design.
How much do you want to spend on this engine?
How often are you willing to rebuild the engine?
If the engine blows will you lose a race or your life?
How important is low end torque?
Does your income depend on this being the best engine on the track?
Do you want to waste time on… (No wait that’s me)?
Sorry but complex value judgments just can’t be reduced to a single number (well except for the movie 10.)
Im sure that the crank and lower end can handle quite a bit if built well!
Now the thing i would be most worried about when revving high would be the head and all the valves and lifters.. etc.
"Stroke or not" that pdf will give you any information on stroker/destroke or any of that bs you should ever want to know besides head flow.
The most important part IMO on rev'ing a stroker is the piston speed, that determines the longevity/reliability of your build.
I don't see many strokers, I don't see many strokers rev'in to 10k like a build 2L.
The correct answer to your “it depends”. The weight of rods and pistons are handy for calculating maximum acceleration forces. However weight is a weak indication of strength. For a given weight forged steel rods are stronger than cast and Aluminum and Titanium rods are stronger than steel. For any material and weight of rod the shape will affect yield strength in compression and tension.
Not to mention:
Bearing material: Tri-metal bearings will have higher loading limits than Aluminum.
Piston skirt height: Shorter skirts are lighter but longer are more stable.
Strength of the crankshaft and its bracing: That meat in the bottom end has a reason to be.
Intake valve area: Max usable RPM can also be limited by air flow.
Cam timing: Higher RPMs have different optimal cams than moderate RPMs.
Wrist pin location: Higher pin locations are more stable than stock locations.
Design boost: Higher boost brings higher compression loading on the internals.
Bore diameter: Friction losses increase with the square of the bore but displacement and weight increase with the cube of the bore.
That is not all but should make the point. There are many variables in the physics that determine optimal rev limit. Beyond the physics there are just as many subjective judgments in engine design.
How much do you want to spend on this engine?
How often are you willing to rebuild the engine?
If the engine blows will you lose a race or your life?
How important is low end torque?
Does your income depend on this being the best engine on the track?
Do you want to waste time on… (No wait that’s me)?
Sorry but complex value judgments just can’t be reduced to a single number (well except for the movie 10.)
40 over stroke JE pistons, Eagle rods, 100MM knife crankshaft, and balance shaft remove. That's what I done so far to the bottom block. I don't drive my DSM on the streets anymore because it had retire so in that case I wont be rebuilding as much maybe once in a year depending how many time I visit the track.
Im always into stroker and yes it's worth the time and already invest alot of money into it so why stop? I already know most of these information but thanks anyway.
How much do you want to spend on this engine?
More then I can afford
How often are you willing to rebuild the engine?
Depends because I don't drive it
If the engine blows will you lose a race or your life?
I don't see how you can lose a life in a race but of course lose a race I can understand that
How important is low end torque?
Very important
Does your income depend on this being the best engine on the track?
Of course
Do you want to waste time on… (No wait that’s me)?
I don't call it a waste of time. I sure do wope a lot of ass on the road with it so it's worth it.
"Stroke or not" that pdf will give you any information on stroker/destroke or any of that bs you should ever want to know besides head flow.
The most important part IMO on rev'ing a stroker is the piston speed, that determines the longevity/reliability of your build.
I don't see many strokers, I don't see many strokers rev'in to 10k like a build 2L.
Im sure that the crank and lower end can handle quite a bit if built well!
Now the thing i would be most worried about when revving high would be the head and all the valves and lifters.. etc.
Well Im not too worrying about the bottom block from not handling the mass abuse because I already beef it up. Im just worrying about If I rev more then it require will it destroy the piston. Because it got me thinking that since the JE stroker piston are shorter then the original piston Im scared that the piston skirt might break or crack at 7000 RPM+. I just want to know if anyone have that problem before. I don't think I'll be reving too high so Im not too worry about it and I've already upgrade the valve train.
lets assume that your head can handle any rpm you throw at it. now what you also want to take into your calculation as well is what your rod/stroke ratio will be when you build your block. a higher rod/stroke ratio is better for higher revs. one way to achieve this is to use a longer rod than normal, and put the wrist pin on the piston higher. i believe the standard rod for a g464 crank is 150mm, giving you a rod/stroke ratio of 1.5:1. i know you can get them for that crank up to 156mm maybe even longer, this would give you a ratio of 1.56:1 allowing you to rev higher/safer! now lets forget about your head for a moment and focus on just your rotating assembly. think of engine a, and engine b. both are 2.4 liters with a 100mm crank. engine a has standard 150mm rods and engine b has 156mm rods. if you rev them both to 7500 for a long period of time in identica l conditions then take them apart. you would find that engine a has much more wear on the cylinder wall and is beginning to take on an oval shape. you would find that engine B has far less cylinder wear because of the higher rod/stroke ratio.
so the higher the ratio you have, the less of an angle your rod will have when it goes up and down in the cylinder as your crank rotates resulting in less stress on your piston and cylinder wall. you will have less of a chance of breaking a rod as well.
i hope that helps you. so if i was going to use a factory 100mm 4g64 crank with lets say the eagle/wiesco combo. i would probably only rev to around 7000 at most if on the 150mm rods. i know people have gone higher with that, but how do their cylinders and pistons like going that high.
im using a full magnus 2.4 long rod assembly. (magnus 100mm crank, magnus 156mm rods, and magnus 9:1 pistons) ill be reving to 7750 for street driving and 8500 at the track
lets assume that your head can handle any rpm you throw at it. now what you also want to take into your calculation as well is what your rod/stroke ratio will be when you build your block. a higher rod/stroke ratio is better for higher revs. one way to achieve this is to use a longer rod than normal, and put the wrist pin on the piston higher. i believe the standard rod for a g464 crank is 150mm, giving you a rod/stroke ratio of 1.5:1. i know you can get them for that crank up to 156mm maybe even longer, this would give you a ratio of 1.56:1 allowing you to rev higher/safer! now lets forget about your head for a moment and focus on just your rotating assembly. think of engine a, and engine b. both are 2.4 liters with a 100mm crank. engine a has standard 150mm rods and engine b has 156mm rods. if you rev them both to 7500 for a long period of time in identica l conditions then take them apart. you would find that engine a has much more wear on the cylinder wall and is beginning to take on an oval shape. you would find that engine B has far less cylinder wear because of the higher rod/stroke ratio.
so the higher the ratio you have, the less of an angle your rod will have when it goes up and down in the cylinder as your crank rotates resulting in less stress on your piston and cylinder wall. you will have less of a chance of breaking a rod as well.
i hope that helps you. so if i was going to use a factory 100mm 4g64 crank with lets say the eagle/wiesco combo. i would probably only rev to around 7000 at most if on the 150mm rods. i know people have gone higher with that, but how do their cylinders and pistons like going that high.
im using a full magnus 2.4 long rod assembly. (magnus 100mm crank, magnus 156mm rods, and magnus 9:1 pistons) ill be reving to 7750 for street driving and 8500 at the track
Thanks. You're information is useful. I have stander size Eagle rods. When my stroke JE piston arrive it got me thinking that it will some how will wear the piston skirts and the cylinder wall because the piston is a lot shorter than the stander size piston. Well I don't drive it anymore unless I take it to the track. I might go with the 4G64 block in the near future to ovoid rebuilding.
I called Road Race Engineering recently to ask them about going with the 2.4 vs. the 2.3. They said that there have been way too many head gasket issues with the 2.4 option. As a matter of fact, Mike told me to "Take the idea of the 2.4 and throw it out the window." The 2.3 will make just as much power with WAY less headaches. And since I don't see a lot of shop cars using the 2.4 option, I have to assume there's some validity to that.
____________________________
stock block on N20 and loving it.
a 4g63 block is more readily available than a 4g64/g4cs. it takes more work to make a 4g63 into a 2.4 stroker than it is to just drop in parts and make it a 2.3 because of clearance issues, i believe.
i asked pete at magnus about that whole head-gasket thing when i ordered my 2.4 setup from them. he told me that its not a problem as long as u are using the right head gasket, just the same as any other motor.
shops will also tell you not to go with a 2.4 because they cant handel hi rpm's..... that goes back to my post about rod/stroke ratio's. but then again a 2.4 will spool a large turbo around 500 rpms sooner than a comparible 2.0 will and give you crap tones more usable tq. you should also think about piston speed, because your piston is moving a shit ton faster on a 2.4 doing 7500-8500 than it is on a 2.0 at the same rpm. so it all depends on how you want to build your motor because at the end of the day, its still your name on the title( hopefully ).
That's what so many people don't seem to understand about turbo motors. I constantly have to remind local friends of mine, that if you rev to 10 and the turbo falls off at 6 your wasting your time and hurting the motor. That's why dyno tuning is important. Even to newbies. I would much rather have an 8,000 RPM limit with a 2.3 than a 10,000 RPM limit with 2.0. Simply because if your doing things correctly your not gunna buzz the motor to the moon after your turbo stops making power. Plus the 2.3 / 2.4 has a much more usable power band for the street. And if that 2.4 crank is the Butcher crank or an Eagle with no balance shafts and a Fidanza flywheel,......... Forget about it.
____________________________
stock block on N20 and loving it.
I rev my 2.3 with eagle acrank and rods with wisecos to 8k. Motor didn't last very long though either. With my ball bearing to4z on this next build I'm hoping to be able to shift at 7500 and still land in the fat range of my powerband. You want to spool a fat turbo on a daily driver build a stroker. You want a safely high revved racecar that lags like a bitch on the street build a 2.0 Sheps 2.0 for a reason.
That's what so many people don't seem to understand about turbo motors. I constantly have to remind local friends of mine, that if you rev to 10 and the turbo falls off at 6 your wasting your time and hurting the motor. That's why dyno tuning is important. Even to newbies. I would much rather have an 8,000 RPM limit with a 2.3 than a 10,000 RPM limit with 2.0. Simply because if your doing things correctly your not gunna buzz the motor to the moon after your turbo stops making power. Plus the 2.3 / 2.4 has a much more usable power band for the street. And if that 2.4 crank is the Butcher crank or an Eagle with no balance shafts and a Fidanza flywheel,......... Forget about it.
The solution is to use a turbo that can flow enough for a 10,000 rpm 2.0. I would rather have 2,000 rpm's more rev on top than 500 rpm's faster spool any day. Horsepower is a function of rpm, and torque. The same amout of torque 2,000 rpm's higher in the rev range is about 35% more horsepower. If anyone doubts this reasoning, why do all of the fastest 4g63's run a 2.0?
strokers are good for the street, but how many are 1,000 hp +?
The solution is to use a turbo that can flow enough for a 10,000 rpm 2.0. I would rather have 2,000 rpm's more rev on top than 500 rpm's faster spool any day. Horsepower is a function of rpm, and torque. The same amout of torque 2,000 rpm's higher in the rev range is about 35% more horsepower. If anyone doubts this reasoning, why do all of the fastest 4g63's run a 2.0?
strokers are good for the street, but how many are 1,000 hp +?
I called Road Race Engineering recently to ask them about going with the 2.4 vs. the 2.3. They said that there have been way too many head gasket issues with the 2.4 option. As a matter of fact, Mike told me to "Take the idea of the 2.4 and throw it out the window." The 2.3 will make just as much power with WAY less headaches. And since I don't see a lot of shop cars using the 2.4 option, I have to assume there's some validity to that.
Empty claims with little explanation that's so fulfilling.
An oem car with an oem rev limit you're tuning and building for more power throw that out the window please.
So many people worry about "how high can I revv this setup".
Its not how high you can revv it, its were you make power to. Just because you can revv a motor to 9k plus, dosent mean your going to be making efficent power there. Revving high just puts more wear on parts regardless if your 2.0, 2.3, or 2.4....but if you make power there then go for it.
The stock valve train, with cams (hks 272s) had been 8500 easily with no problems for years on end back in the day. Your typical cam setup with valve springs will handle the higher revvs. Its once you get into the wild cams you gotta worry about the more serious situations.
Exactly my point, who else? The 2.0 has been 6's. I'm not bashing strokers. Many people have problems keeping them together at high revs. Strokers are very good, up to a point. After a certain point a 2.0 actually has a wider powerband, just higher. When you have a turbo capable of really big power, sure you spool 5-700 rpm's sooner. But, you rev limit is 2500 rpm's lower/ what the stroker really does is make more torque, the enemy of the dsm trans. If you are looking for a 6-700 hp monster a stroker is killer. To run 200mph in the quarter you need the revs of the 2.0.
My reasoning to turn people to the stroker is because it's tons more fun to drive. 99.9 perceent of people won't be in the 6's, or go 200mph. Why run something that isn't as much fun to drive, because the fastest people run 2.0's? That doesn't make sense to me.
If you balance everything correctly, you can go higher than 9k on a stroker.
I understand where you're coming from, but I wanted people to see the other side too, ya know?
My reasoning to turn people to the stroker is because it's tons more fun to drive. 99.9 perceent of people won't be in the 6's, or go 200mph. Why run something that isn't as much fun to drive, because the fastest people run 2.0's? That doesn't make sense to me.
If you balance everything correctly, you can go higher than 9k on a stroker.
I understand where you're coming from, but I wanted people to see the other side too, ya know?
____________________________
Josh
Last edited by 420a-t; 11-03-2009 at 09:32 PM.
Reason: Auto-merged with previous post to prevent "bumping"
Exactly my point, who else? The 2.0 has been 6's. I'm not bashing strokers. Many people have problems keeping them together at high revs. Strokers are very good, up to a point. After a certain point a 2.0 actually has a wider powerband, just higher. When you have a turbo capable of really big power, sure you spool 5-700 rpm's sooner. But, you rev limit is 2500 rpm's lower/ what the stroker really does is make more torque, the enemy of the dsm trans. If you are looking for a 6-700 hp monster a stroker is killer. To run 200mph in the quarter you need the revs of the 2.0.
Most people wont even be into the 9s.
Tony from extremepsi has been 9.9@ over 145 2g
Chris Tapp from Tapp auto has been 9.7 at over 150 in a 2.4 2g
Tim Zimmer has been 9.96@143 on low boost 2.4 and the old setup. 2g
Im sure there is more, there just off the top of my head.
If you think your gonna keep any kind of factory "glorified" built transmission together in a 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 at 500+ hp and whatever torque number your terribly misinformed. There are guys making 900hp and running a factory built gearbox with a 2.0 making over 700 ft lbs of torque? So whats the difference in a 2.4 making 650hp and 550 ft lbs? Driving plays a key roll. And honestly if your not auto, or have a dogbox then you might as well be ready to break alot of transmissions.
Arguing about whats better is really useless. There will always be he said she said on here. Really no motor will be better at the start if the machine shop dosent build it right. Guys havent pushed the 2.4 far yet, but they will be there, and as usual all this will be out the door.
Read post back in the day when people thought a 60-1 turbo was WAY to big for the street lol, now guys like me are street driving gt42s.
With the 4G64 crank onto a 4G63 block I was wondering how far or high can the motor rev? According to the gallant 100mm crankshaft their red line sets at 6 grand?
8400rpm is the safe limit with aftermarket internals using steel rods, and supporting modifications.
You can rev higher, but it requires some more trick parts to make it hold together for longer.
If you are intending on making ALOT of power, or revving it regularly to or above 8450rpm, I would strongly suggest running 0.220"-wall tool-steel wrist pins. I would also run aftermarket steel rods with a quality rod bolt.
As for my engines, past and present....
*2005-2008 setup: 2.3L 7-bolt stroker = FFWD Butcher Crank cryoed, Eagle rods cryoed, 0.020"-over Ross stroker 9.0:1 compression 23mm-pin, stroker pistons cryoed/coated, Clevite 77 tri-metal bearings rod/mains. 99-block w/ split thrust main bearing. BSEK with stubshaft and helical oil pump gears. ARP mains, ARP L19 11mm head studs, Mitsu MLS head gasket.
---Re-ringed and new bearings around 30K miles in spring 2008. Rod bearings were pounded up pretty good and material was flaking off. Main outer bearings looked brand new, main inner bearings were getting chewed up, thrust bearing had some wear.
---Took motor apart in September 2008 after a few thousand miles when the GT4088R died. Found that the rod bearings were still getting pounded, and that the main bearings were looking good on the outers, and the inner mains were thoroughly chewed up along with the thrust bearing. I also had tossed two harmonic dampers, and took out 2 crank angle sensors.
---End result = crank was bent 0.014" out-of-straight, causing my crank to essentially jump-rope and take out the inner mains/thrust surfaces. It actually curved the riding surface on the block and girdle for the thrust bearing.
---Cause: = crank could not handle higher than ~35psi before it started having jumproping issues. I was also revving to 8400-8600rpm and running anywhere from 42-52psi of boost for a long time without severe issues.
This engine produced 766AWHP/713TQ at 42psi on VP Q16 with the Garrett GT4088R. It did 9.96@ 143mph, and a top mph of 148mph -- on the 641AWHP/567TQ tune with the old SMIM at 35psi (which produced 740AWHP/696TQ at 49psi before changing to the Beyond Redline SMIM). I never got back onto the dyno to produce the numbers I was hoping for -- 800-825AWHP on a Garrett GT4088R. Compressor wheel snapped off, and hand-grenaded the turbo. The engine was making around 1000-1035HP and 900-940TQ at the crank before it died.On Eagle off-the-shelf rods, on a 7-bolt.
If you want to see some dyno graphs to see where the powerband is on a moderately large turbo (GT4088R), check out my photo album in my profile, as I have several posted. You can see where the torque starts to drop, and that you don't really need to rev past 8000rpm with a stroker on a GT4088R.
*2009 Setup: 2.3L 7-bolt stroker = STOCK 7-bolt 2.4L crank from a 2002 Kia Optima, custom Groden aluminum rods w/ ARP harware, custom CP ~8.0:1 compression 0.005"-over pistons with skirt coating only. Custom 24mm 0.220"-wall tool steel wrist pins, custom ring pack placement and dome/skirt designs. 1999 4G63 virgin block. BSEK w/ stubshaft and 1990 straight cut gears. Aluminum rod bearings, Clevite Main bearings with split-thrust main design. ARP mains, ARP L19 11mm head studs, Mitsu MLS head gasket.
So far, this engine has only been pushed a little bit, as I ran out of fuel with the current twin-pump setup and 1350cc injectors.
It did 643AWHP/496TQ at 30psi, revving out to only 7500rpm. HP was carrying and still climbing, and peak torque was at 6200rpm, and down to 460TQ at 7500rpm.
It did 779AWHP/602TQ at 6500rpm on a partial pull at 41psi (low boost). Ran out of fuel. Both numbers were still going upwards at 6500rpm. (Approximately 1012-1050HP / 782-813TQ at the crank).
Redline is at 9000rpm on this engine setup, as it is making upward power above 8000rpm due to the size of the turbocharger I am currently running (Borg Warner S400SX 74mm with Bullseye RACE compressor cover on a 1.1A/R T4 divided turbine housing). The goal is to run over 50-55psi of boost with this turbo if possible. HP Goal is 900+AWHP. ET Goal is high-8's. MPH Goal is 160-162mph.
At 30psi, the Eclipse did 10.20's at mph's ranging from 138-145mph on Q16/Import mix on a very very safe and conservative tune. 4-6 degrees of ignition timing only. I could have been running 93-octane all-day at this boost/timing level. Race gas was an insurance policy since I was having fuel issues, and low voltage issues.
There is a helluvalot left in the setup.
____________________________
Tim Zimmer
2.3L, BW475, AEM, etc.
Its not how high you can revv it, its were you make power to. Just because you can revv a motor to 9k plus, dosent mean your going to be making efficent power there. Revving high just puts more wear on parts regardless if your 2.0, 2.3, or 2.4....but if you make power there then go for it.
Bingo! Somebody gets it
____________________________
Home of the First 8 Second 4G63 Engine
We offer several different stroker combinations and performance level packages for our 4G63 engine customers. As with all our builds we determine the best internals and methods needed to achieve the desired power goals.
Typically and all too often a customer will choose a serious mismatch of internals and this causes permature failures and poor results. Not all parts can live in the same hostile enviroment or tolerate the same levels of abuse. The wrong part can and will take out everything. All components are NOT created equal no matter how much advertising is done on that parts behalf-the end results and engine life is the true quality test!
We currently have several stroker engines that can run in excess of 8800rpm's and still make Power Our specialized engine designs can make more power at lower boost levels, run harder, run longer and give the customer more performance then expected.
All too often "Shops" advertise and incorperate methods and services into their 4G63 customer build that were actually not designed or inteneded for the 4 cyl engine use and performance benefits.
With our complete builds we address everything with our customer for his/her performance and use the first time.
____________________________
Home of the First 8 Second 4G63 Engine
I know there is alot of knowlegable people on here that just wanna help. I just wanna see everyone learn the right ways. I figured the forums are for information, and alot of information on here is hear say, and it gets very annoying sometimes.
Learning new stuff is the fun part, Im still learning.
