2.0 block + 1.6 turbo crank = 2.1 ??? Thoughts anyone?

slvrstingray · 09-13-2006, 10:36 AM

Just wondering if it was possible. I couldn't find any information on it in the forums. Is it possible to use the 2.0 block and the 4g61T crank to get the high reving 2.1? I've heard that it's possible, but I don't know what components are required. Custom rods/pistons? I'm looking to do a build soon and I have both of those spare parts at my disposal... Has anyone built up that combination yet? Any Ideas?

Thanks

fourreGsixty3 · 09-13-2006, 11:00 AM

No, your displacement would go down with a 1.6L crank, just think about it people put in 4G64 cranks to get a longer stroke which increases displacement, with a 1.6L crank the stroke will be shorter and net you less displacement. The 2.1L is done by getting a 4G64 block, a 2.0 crank, custom pistons, and super long rods(162mm).

Dustin

qtxdevilz · 09-13-2006, 11:03 AM

you will probably end up with a 1.7 - 1.8...

how about a 1.6 or 1.8 crank in a 2.4...will that enable you to rev to like 12.5k or something...

also where will you get the custom rods of these applications...

just a though...

fourreGsixty3 · 09-13-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qtxdevilz

you will probably end up with a 1.7 - 1.8...

Thats probably close to what would come of this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qtxdevilz

how about a 1.6 or 1.8 crank in a 2.4...will that enable you to rev to like 12.5k or something...

If you want to rev at 10k, then upgrade the stock valvetrain, and build-up the 2.0. Why mess with getting a 4G64 block, and piecing in a 1.6 crank, and having custom rods and pistons made, when a 2.0 is sufficient for Shep, and Rau.

Dustin

Injected · 09-13-2006, 08:15 PM

What's the throw (stroke) on the 1.6 and 1.8 cranks?

Turbocharged · 09-14-2006, 05:23 AM

The 4g61 has an 80.6mm bore and 88.0mm stroke.

No, it will not work.

fourreGsixty3 · 09-14-2006, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbocharged

The 4g61 has an 80.6mm bore and 88.0mm stroke.

No, it will not work.

With the right amount of money anything can work. It would be a rev happy engine thats for sure, and I bet it would be perfect for those top speed contests that are help of in the salt flats out in the Mojave, I believe you need a 1.5L for that though.

Dustin

thekellbeast · 09-14-2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fourreGsixty3

With the right amount of money anything can work.

Doesn't the 4g63 have an 88 mm stroke? If so it's the exact same as the 4g61, except the displacement difference comes from the bore. There would be no point in swapping cranks because they're the same.

aero_sallee · 09-14-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekellbeast

Doesn't the 4g63 have an 88 mm stroke? If so it's the exact same as the 4g61, except the displacement difference comes from the bore. There would be no point in swapping cranks because they're the same.

Yep the 2.0 is an 88mm stroke.

qtxdevilz · 09-15-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fourreGsixty3

Thats probably close to what would come of this.

If you want to rev at 10k, then upgrade the stock valvetrain, and build-up the 2.0. Why mess with getting a 4G64 block, and piecing in a 1.6 crank, and having custom rods and pistons made, when a 2.0 is sufficient for Shep, and Rau.

Dustin

i personally would not do it...i just mentioned it since we were on the subject...i personally have a built 2.0 and probably would not build anything else...what you are saying is true that the 2.0 is proven...which is why i am sticking with it...if a 2.3 and 2.4 motors are that great then why is shep not running it...and i currently rev to 9k on my 2.0 because that is what dsmlink limits me to...lol...

Injected · 09-15-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qtxdevilz

i personally would not do it...i just mentioned it since we were on the subject...i personally have a built 2.0 and probably would not build anything else...what you are saying is true that the 2.0 is proven...which is why i am sticking with it...if a 2.3 and 2.4 motors are that great then why is shep not running it...and i currently rev to 9k on my 2.0 because that is what dsmlink limits me to...lol...

What kind of valvetrain upgrades do you have? What transmission are you running?

On a side note, what is the smallest throw crank in the 4G line that will fit the 63/64 block? I'm just curious, I personally am going 2.4 because I like the response and ease of stress on the components.

Injected · 09-15-2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aero_sallee

Yep the 2.0 is an 88mm stroke.

That means we have another source for cranks.

biglady112 · 09-15-2006, 11:59 AM

You all are wrong. Bad information on the 1.6L in here.

The 4G61's bore is 82.3mm

The 4G61's stroke is 75mm

Just build a 2.0L and call is good. We are revving ours just north of 10,000 rpm. Dogbox, GT42 powered car.

Steven

donmagicjuan · 09-15-2006, 12:00 PM

The 4G61 did not have an 88mm stroke. The dimensions were actually 82.3 x 75.0 mm bore/stroke. I believe you guys are confusing the dimensions with the 1.8L SOHC 4G62.

This page has some good info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Sirius_engine

EDIT: Smoked again! Damn you, FWD!

qtxdevilz · 09-15-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Injected

What kind of valvetrain upgrades do you have? What transmission are you running?

On a side note, what is the smallest throw crank in the 4G line that will fit the 63/64 block? I'm just curious, I personally am going 2.4 because I like the response and ease of stress on the components.

built head...crower cams...titanium retainers...hks 272 cams...blah blah blah...did not cheap out on anything there...tranny is rebuilt by a buddy of mine...if it blows up i will just have him rebuilt it again for free...lol...

qtxdevilz · 09-15-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biglady112

You all are wrong. Bad information on the 1.6L in here.

The 4G61's bore is 82.3mm

The 4G61's stroke is 75mm

Just build a 2.0L and call is good. We are revving ours just north of 10,000 rpm. Dogbox, GT42 powered car.

Steven

just wondering what kind of engine internals...what bearings did you use...when does your gt42r spool by...do you ever run it on pump gas...and if so at how much boost and at what rpm...i have a sc61 bb right now...and i am thinking about upgrading...thanks...

Injected · 09-15-2006, 04:02 PM

So the 2.4 block, 1.6 crank will have a displacement of 1,762.96 cc and a rod ratio (custom rods) of (88mm stroke -> 162mm rod -> 250mm from center of crank to piston :: 75mm stroke -> 175mm rod -> 250mm from center of crank to piston) 175mm/75mm = 2.333333! You could theoretically rev the engine like a crotch rocket! Think of the drag application.

biglady112 · 09-16-2006, 01:38 AM

Still working out the bugs and testing and upgrading the fuel system for the GT42. But we were running a ball bearing SCM6176 before. NOw that turbo is on my 89 mirage.

Aluminum rod motor on the race car. No pump gas for that car. Running 8 injectors , AEM and plenty of other special stuff.

Back on topic. Just build the 2.0L and be done with it. 1.6 anyting is a waste of time.

Steven

fourreGsixty3 · 09-16-2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qtxdevilz

i personally would not do it...i just mentioned it since we were on the subject...i personally have a built 2.0 and probably would not build anything else...what you are saying is true that the 2.0 is proven...which is why i am sticking with it...if a 2.3 and 2.4 motors are that great then why is shep not running it...and i currently rev to 9k on my 2.0 because that is what dsmlink limits me to...lol...

The reason why they dont go with a stroker like the 2.3 and 2.4 is because it has a less then desirable rod ratio, and from that an egg shaped wear will occur when reving past stock rev limiter. I agree with steve drop the thoughts of 1.6L and build up the tried and proven 2.0 4G63.

Dustin

qtxdevilz · 09-16-2006, 12:40 PM

about 3 months ago the number 1 bearing spun on me and seized my motor...we got another crank and i sent my rods back to pauter and they cleaned and fixed them...we put them in with calico coated acl bearings...250 hard miles later i noticed oil leaking from behind the timing belt cover...it ended up being the oil pump that was only 3 months old...it was hard to spin but it was not seized...since we had the pan off to replace the front case and oil pump i decided to check the bearings while i was at it...now this is where the real story begins...

number one bearing was really beat up...almost to the point where it was about to spin...the babbitt looked pretty beat up...this is not a picture of my bearings but it looks just as bad if not worse:

Need some experienced opinions on these bearings
&highlight=king

number two bearing looked ok except for a little stripe down the middle...

number three and four were perfect...

my mains were perfect also...they were king bearings...

i ruled out oil starvation because number four would be more beat up if that was the case...

maybe metal in the oil since the oil pump did get a little funny and ate some metal away...but if that was the case then the mains would be messed up also...

maybe knock...but if i knocked that bad...all the bearings would be bad...but in this case number one was really bad...number three and four are perfect...

maybe too hi or too low oil pressure...i did get the oil pressure relief thing ported a little bigger...did i port to much maybe...if it was an oil pressure thing do you think it would only mess up two bearings...

any advice is very appreciated...thanks...