Just read all 8 pages of the first post. [wipes brain matter from screen]

[dsm-onster]

I have three questions. . .

I will be sticking with my 4G63 block.

1. Since there have been rumors of 4G64 crank walk, is crank walk a bloc issue or a crank issue... If I put a 64 crank in my 6bolt block will I have increased my chances of crank walk?
2. I know a longer rod yields a better r/s ratio and consequently an engine better suited for higher rpms. Will a set of long rods make a substancial difference for engine life and/or reving performance?
3. Does the crank have to be modified to clear the oil squirtes? Forced Performance sells a new 100mm crank and it is mentioned that they "clearance" the crank for the oil squirters... I'd rather keep the squirters. Does a JY crank have to be modified then to work in my block?


My final upgrade will be a SMIM. This is why I am wondering about question #2.

Thanx

[nanokpsi]

You can't have a long rod stroker. You get the long rod motor by using stroker style pisons(raised wrist pin) in the 2.4 block, thus allowing a 6mm longer rod. Goin form a 150-156mm rods buys you all of 50rpm higher redlne when looking at max piston speed for the 100mm stroke.

[dsm-onster]

Originally Posted by nanokpsi

You can't have a long rod stroker. You get the long rod motor by using stroker style pisons(raised wrist pin) in the 2.4 block, thus allowing a 6mm longer rod. Goin form a 150-156mm rods buys you all of 50rpm higher redlne when looking at max piston speed for the 100mm stroke.

Ah! Thank you. That definately eliminates #2.

So I'm ultimately trying to determine if a SMIM woth it on a stroker. Does anyone thnk it is worth it? Can a stroker be revved to where a SMIM is significantly beneficial (over 7500 rpms)? Has this rpm level been reliable?

Is the increase in frequency of crankwalk block specific or crank specific?

Does the crank have to be modified to clear the oil squirters and/or other block components in the 4g63 block?

[unlmtdndeavor]

i have been speaking to a shop where they have 2 2.3l equipped cars both on gt35r turbos. they have advised me not to rev the motor over 7.5k as the r/s ratio is not great. there is no reason to as the motor makes plenty of power at that level and another benefit of this motor is the head does not have to be built as extensively as a 2.0. a SMIM will benefit as long as your head can flow it. 1mm oversized valves and portmatching will assist with the SMIM.

[dsm-onster]

Originally Posted by unlmtdndeavor

i have been speaking to a shop where they have 2 2.3l equipped cars both on gt35r turbos. they have advised me not to rev the motor over 7.5k as the r/s ratio is not great. there is no reason to as the motor makes plenty of power at that level and another benefit of this motor is the head does not have to be built as extensively as a 2.0. a SMIM will benefit as long as your head can flow it. 1mm oversized valves and portmatching will assist with the SMIM.

Ok so either I can spend $1500 for a stroker kit (includes forged rods and pistons), a set of FP3s for $425, Ti dual springs and retainers for $300, get my head ported for $50-$80, larger valves for $150, and a SMIM for $450. Total $2890.

Or, I could get a smim for $450, Ti dual springs and retainers for $300, a set of FP3s for $425, raise my rev limit to +9500 rpms (free. I have dsmlink), and get a set of forged rods and pistons for $600. Total $1775.

So, why do you all stroke your setup. Is revving your engine so unstreetable and/or is downshifting so annoying as to merit spending over $1100 more? Now-a-days, that will get a very high flowing turbo plus all the additonal install hardware.

I'm not flaming. I am really curious. I wish to determine of stroking is for me.

[gSx_r1der]

INteresting post, I'd like to hear what people have to say about that, but as far as revving a storker to 9k or 9.k, swordfish did it on his 2.4 long rod block and made more than 500awhp. So it can be done but I'm sure not on a daily basis. But why would you want to rev that high on any motor unless your at the track(no street racing , its dangerous and unresponsible). If your car doesnt see track time all the time then I'm more than positve that revving to the 9k wont blow your car up that second.

[dsm-onster]

Originally Posted by gSx_r1der

INteresting post, I'd like to hear what people have to say about that, but as far as revving a storker to 9k or 9.k, swordfish did it on his 2.4 long rod block and made more than 500awhp. So it can be done but I'm sure not on a daily basis. But why would you want to rev that high on any motor unless your at the track(no street racing , its dangerous and unresponsible). If your car doesnt see track time all the time then I'm more than positve that revving to the 9k wont blow your car up that second.

I agree whole-heartedly. Responsibility merits lifting your foot off the accelerator. Most accidents by far are caused by speeding regardless of the level of performance.

The 2.4 long rod is just a stock 2.4 4664 or g4cs block. From my understanding, this has a better rod/'stroke ratio. Though not as good as a 2.1 "destroker", it should be as reliable as revving a 4G63, correct?

[andymoraitis]

I'm building a stroker because I'm tired of the piss poor performance with respect to daily driveability on a 2.0 and cams. Even with the 16G, I wouldn't see full spool on the 2.0 until 3800-3900 RPM and that makes life with a daily driver somewhat mundane. I'd rather run a higher compression motor on less boost with gobs more torque on the street. Besides, it's not like my tranny will like shifting at anything above 8000 RPM anyway. When the motor goes together in the next couple of weeks, I don't plan on shifting much above 6500-6700. I came from the land of V8's where torque was king and we could give a crap about revving past 5800.

If you want a long rod motor than can rev high, look into the Magnus 2.4 shortblocks. I believe they normally run these to 9K or so.

Good luck Matt,

Andy

[gSx_r1der]

Originally Posted by dsm-onster

The 2.4 long rod is just a stock 2.4 4664 or g4cs block.

As stated above, the long rod is different from the generic 2.4. The long rod uses a different rod setup.

Originally Posted by andymoraitis

If you want a long rod motor than can rev high, look into the Magnus 2.4 shortblocks. I believe they normally run these to 9K or so.
Andy

Swordfish did it on magnus' 2.4LR

[dsm-onster]

Thank you, both. This helps keep things in perspective. Although I am likely to dedicate my car to the track or at least build for the track and accept the DD issues that may rear up, my primary goal is more flow. A 2.4 long rod would definately accomplish this. Purely more volume plus the ability to hold out the gear higher. Ideally, this would be the best option. I am going to strongly consider this. If I have to rebuild for any reason. Since this may cost more, I don't mind waiting and reaching the limit of my stock 6-bolt block before any shortblock upgrades.

[andymoraitis]

Matt,

One of the things that Darren King at FFWD mentioned to me regarding strokers is that, even with the use of of a stock head and intake, the velocity of the air charge is wicked fast. It makes all that torque even more fun.

Andy

[TimG]

Originally Posted by andymoraitis

Even with the 16G, I wouldn't see full spool on the 2.0 until 3800-3900 RPM and that makes life with a daily driver somewhat mundane.

Something else is wrong if you are spooling a 16G that late. I just finished installing a 16G on a talon with not so impressive compression and it hits a full 18psi around 3200-3300rpm.

[dsm-onster]

Originally Posted by andymoraitis

Matt,

One of the things that Darren King at FFWD mentioned to me regarding strokers is that, even with the use of of a stock head and intake, the velocity of the air charge is wicked fast. It makes all that torque even more fun.

Andy

That says alot. . . Imagine the advantages of properly porting for a stroker. But It is good to know nonetheless, if this would tip you beyond your budget... I'm sure stock cams w/ their particular power band are nothing short of exciting w/ a stroker... I wonder how far the farthest has gone with stock cams and a long stroke.

[andymoraitis]

Originally Posted by TimG

Something else is wrong if you are spooling a 16G that late. I just finished installing a 16G on a talon with not so impressive compression and it hits a full 18psi around 3200-3300rpm.

Comp 200 Cams and 28psi? There's a big difference between spooling 18 and spooling 28 although I would see close to 20 at 3400-3500.

[Turbocharged]

In my opinion, a longrod 2.4 is best motor you can build for a dsm.

I have a stock-rodlength, 100mm stroke 2.4 g4cs and absolutely love it. There is no reason to rev this motor past 7.5k because it makes the majority of its power in the lower rpm range. I personally would never want a motor that has to spin to 9k to reach its peak power (especially with our transmissions). Upgrading to a 2.4 moved my power band up (more power) and to the left (lower rpms). I can spin tires now from a pull, which I never thought I would be doing with lsd rear awd and 225 yokohama avs's. Its most powerful in the 3.5-7k range with a 50 trim.

I think alot of the longevity issues that some people have claimed is due to excessive and unnecessary reving.

If I could do it again, I would build a 2.4 longrod because of the better r/s ratio; but Im still very happy.

[dsm-onster]

Originally Posted by Turbocharged

In my opinion, a longrod 2.4 is best motor you can build for a dsm.

I have a stock-rodlength, 100mm stroke 2.4 g4cs and absolutely love it. There is no reason to rev this motor past 7.5k because it makes the majority of its power in the lower rpm range. I personally would never want a motor that has to spin to 9k to reach its peak power (especially with our transmissions). Upgrading to a 2.4 moved my power band up (more power) and to the left (lower rpms). I can spin tires now from a pull, which I never thought I would be doing with lsd rear awd and 225 yokohama avs's. Its most powerful in the 3.5-7k range with a 50 trim.

I think alot of the longevity issues that some people have claimed is due to excessive and unnecessary reving.

If I could do it again, I would build a 2.4 longrod because of the better r/s ratio; but Im still very happy.

Good experience.

I dont care about where my power band is as much as I care about how much power i have under the curve (power band width) AND peak power. All that concerns me: which block, rod, crank combination will yield me the most potential? If a long rod stroker can rev to 8500+ rpms, then I consider that superior. . . for my goals. My 2.4 not to be limited as much as others... So yea, I think a long rod stroker probably is best for me...

[Turbocharged]

Originally Posted by dsm-onster

Good experience.

I dont care about where my power band is as much as I care about how much power i have under the curve (power band width) AND peak power. All that concerns me: which block, rod, crank combination will yield me the most potential? If a long rod stroker can rev to 8500+ rpms, then I consider that superior. . . for my goals. My 2.4 not to be limited as much as others... So yea, I think a long rod stroker probably is best for me...

You are going to need a pretty nasty setup to make power through 8.5k with a 2.4. Keep in mind that a 2.4 is going to inhale 20% more air with each rev. I just dont see the point of reving that high unless this is strickly a track car with huge turbo (gt35 and up - 500+hp).

Many people seem to be obsessed with high reving applications. I would rather have a 400hp low reving setup than a 400hp high reving setup, but I guess thats personal opinion.

[Turbocharged]

Originally Posted by dsm-onster

If a long rod stroker can rev to 8500+ rpms, then I consider that superior. . . for my goals.

What are your goals? How much power are you looking to make? Is this a street, street/strip, or track car?

[andymoraitis]

Originally Posted by Turbocharged

Many people seem to be obsessed with high reving applications. I would rather have a 400hp low reving setup than a 400hp high reving setup, but I guess thats personal opinion.

I'm with you on this fact. I would rather have a much more flat torque curve and a motor that made more power down low than something I had to rev to 9K to enjoy. Aside of the streetability and pure fun factor, it's more usable power on a daily basis. While I'm building a 2.3, I'd eventually like to step up to a long rod 2.4 as an ultimate goal with a moderately sized turbo along for the ride (57 or 60 trim). That'd be an absolute blast to drive.

Back to reality, since I'll only be running a 16G variant for the next few months, I doubt I'll need to rev above 6200-6500, even with Comp 200 cams. With a larger turbo, I doubt I'll rev past 6800-7000.

Thanks for sharing your real world input,

Andy