Compairing a 2.3L to a 2.4L

Scott_S · 06-30-2006, 01:07 PM

My motor just crankwalked so I'm going to start gathering things to build a new one. Basically I'm thinking of two different routes and I would like some opnions on them. The first thing I was thinking about was a 6 bolt 2.3 stroker swap with the SBR stage 3 kit. Pretty straight foward there but I would need basically a complete 6 bolt and the kit on top of it. I was at LSE today and I was talking to the guys there and they suggested going for a 2.4 in that case I would need a 64 block and a 1g head and I dont know how much more complicated the swap is but I'm sure there are wirte ups all over. Is there a big selection for bottom end parts for the 64? Basically for the 6 bolt bottom end I'm looking at spending around $1700 for the short block and idea how much a 2.4L would be with similar ratings?(hold up to 800hp). And do the advantages of the extra .1L of displacement out weigh the hassel of the swap or is it smarter to just go 2.3?

TSIMonsteR · 06-30-2006, 01:21 PM

Have you called ffwdconnection about prices on their motors?

hakcenter · 06-30-2006, 03:15 PM

i think the only differences between a 2.3 and the long rod 2.4 is possibly the pistons. The deck on the 2.4 is taller, so your going to have to use the 2.4 timing belt.

But if you got the cash, I think a 2.4 would definatly be a better choice over the stroked 2.0.

Scott_S · 06-30-2006, 03:45 PM

How much more do you think it would cost?

hakcenter · 07-01-2006, 08:42 PM

crank + block

ISUJakey · 07-03-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott_S

I was at LSE today and I was talking to the guys there and they suggested going for a 2.4....

Just curious, what was LSE's reasoning behind recommending a 2.4 versus a 2.3?

Scott_S · 07-04-2006, 01:10 PM

I guess they believe the more displacement you can have the better. One person told me that in all actuallity a 2.3 is actually a 2.35L and a 4g64 also is a 2.35L so its basically the same thing

steel_3d · 07-06-2006, 08:36 PM

A "2.3" is a 4g63 with stock 85mm bore x 100mm stroke = 2.270L
A "2.4" is a 4g64 with stock 86.5mm bore x 100mm stroke = 2.351L
A 4g63 bored 60 over is 86.5mm bore x 100mm stroke = 2.351L
and so on...

RipperXX · 07-07-2006, 08:23 AM

Hope you dont even plan on rebuilding it if you bore it out that much.

wishihadatalon · 07-07-2006, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RipperXX

Hope you dont even plan on rebuilding it if you bore it out that much.

why would you say that? I know someone who received the wrong pistons and decided to have the block bored 90 over. The motor had super low compression and love the 500+ whp it saw everyday.

Scott_S · 07-09-2006, 05:39 PM

I didnt relize there was enough metal to go .090 over....

PokinatchaPunk · 07-21-2006, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hakcenter

crank + block

Hello pick n pull.....

$85-$100 for the complete block

1gcrazy · 07-21-2006, 07:27 PM

Hmm....so you could take the 4g64 to like 60 over and have a 2.8?

steel_3d · 07-21-2006, 07:41 PM

Ummm... what non-euclidean geometry do you live in?? 88mm bore with 100mm stroke will only give you 2.43L.

Lunch_Box · 07-21-2006, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hakcenter

i think the only differences between a 2.3 and the long rod 2.4 is possibly the pistons. The deck on the 2.4 is taller, so your going to have to use the 2.4 timing belt.

But if you got the cash, I think a 2.4 would definatly be a better choice over the stroked 2.0.

The long rod 2.4L uses 156mm rods instead of the standard 150mm rods.

suicidal2af · 07-23-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wishihadatalon

why would you say that? I know someone who received the wrong pistons and decided to have the block bored 90 over. The motor had super low compression and love the 500+ whp it saw everyday.

There's not enough material between cylinders to bore it 90 over. I've *never* seen an experienced machine shop that would go more than .030 -- most won't even do that.

hakcenter · 07-23-2006, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunch_Box

The long rod 2.4L uses 156mm rods instead of the standard 150mm rods.

SRSLY? I was under the major assumption that they do indeed use the same exact rods, but different pistons. Mostly because a lot of everyone else that i've seen, agrees they are the same.

http://www.shiftedthinking.com/pivvay/stroker.html
^ Even ^

Not to mention I cannot find '4g64' connecting rods on any of the sponsors websites...

steel_3d · 07-24-2006, 01:03 AM

There's enough material for more than 30 over. A 4g64 is supposedly the same casting, just a taller deck height, and with its 86.5mm bore it's already "60 over" from the 4g63. It's common to go to 87mm which is "80 over" from a 4g63. I wouldn't do it, but it's been done.

Hakcenter, a LONG ROD 2.4 is not a normal 4g64. It uses a 156mm rod instead of a 150mm (which both 4g63 and 4g64 use), and uses a stroker style piston with a 6mm raised wrist pin to fit in the same deck height. This helps the rod/stroke ratio somewhat (1.56 instead of 1.5).

hakcenter · 07-24-2006, 07:22 AM

Maybe you can help me find some 156mm rods then, cause I have not been able to locate any.

I know Manley makes 162mm rods, for a de-stroked 4g64 w/ 4g63 crank, but still can't locate any 156mm rods.

Turbocharged · 07-25-2006, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hakcenter

Maybe you can help me find some 156mm rods then, cause I have not been able to locate any.

I know Manley makes 162mm rods, for a de-stroked 4g64 w/ 4g63 crank, but still can't locate any 156mm rods.

http://www.magnusmotorsports.com/engines/dsm.htm

Correct, the 4g63 and 4g64/g4cs all have the same rod length. The 4g64/g4cs comes with the the same rods found in 6 bolt 4g63's (the "big" rods).

12's · 07-25-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott_S

I guess they believe the more displacement you can have the better. One person told me that in all actuallity a 2.3 is actually a 2.35L and a 4g64 also is a 2.35L so its basically the same thing

Why wouldn't you get a 2.3 stroker that can rev highter then. Do you even know what the rest of your setup is going to be? Turbo selection and many other things play a role in what you should get. I knew the LSE guys before they even had teh shop opened and I am fairly certain their shop 1g is going to be running a 2.0 actually. I think they were trying to go for shep also but that would be hard to do. The car won't be running until next season most likely though.
The motor I will be running soon is a 2.3 stroker bored .030 over with 9:1 pistons.
BTW, there is a local dsm site www.dsmstyle.com if you don't know yet.

Scott_S · 07-25-2006, 11:22 PM

My goals are this. The car will be a daily driver. I want more low end because of this and the fact that On a normal basis I never go above 7200rpm. The car is also an ongoing project and I want to eventually be running 500-600awhp but that is far off into the future and I'm going to take things one at a time. For a turbo I'm looking at the garrett gt series and I've still iffy about what I actually want to run. I plan on running 1000cc injectors with link obviously, comp 101200 cams, ported head, SMIM, and all the other little mods(fuel pump, AFPR, ect) But like I said I'm not talking about doing it all at once because I can't afford it, heck I can't even afford to build the bottom end.