2.3 stroker vs RPM's

20psimitsu · 03-28-2007, 05:01 PM

Does anyone know what the highest RPM you sould go and still be safe? Still debating if I'm gonna go 2.3 or stay 2.0.

definitiveno · 03-28-2007, 05:03 PM

Who cares......2.3's/2.4's make pump gas power. What difference does it make what rpm it's at?

20psimitsu · 03-28-2007, 07:43 PM

I shift now @ 8500, so I'm wondering if it can still go to 8500 and still live.

definitiveno · 03-29-2007, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 20psimitsu

I shift now @ 8500, so I'm wondering if it can still go to 8500 and still live.

What turbo are you going to run on it?

20psimitsu · 03-29-2007, 07:28 AM

It's got a T66 with .68 a/r hot side. If I go 2.3, I'm gonna change it to a .81 hot side.

paper_clip_boy · 03-29-2007, 08:05 AM

The question you need to ask yourself is, are you going to be revving that high on a daily basis. I mean with a stroker our power comes in low, so its not like your going to be living up at 8500rpm all day long. For a daily Driver 8500-9000 is no problem as long as you have covered your bases in regards to strength. Make sure the head is built to handle it. Also remember that the piston speed of a 2.3L at 9000 rpm is going to be much more that a 2.0L at 9000rpm.

Im going to have my Redline for my stroker at 9000rpm and shift at around 8700rpm. Gotta remember one important thing, your driving to work in traffic in the morning, not much place to open the car up.

People will always say that your hurting your engines longetivity by revving high on a stroker, but they never remember. That for the power goals that Most people building strokers are looking for, Longetivity isnt the main concern.

If your a ####y, set rev limiter to 7500rpm, If you wanna make power and still have a reliable car, set it to 8500rpm.

BTW PM Topstreet, Ask him what he is revving his 2.3L stroker to.

20psimitsu · 04-02-2007, 08:10 AM

I plan on still shifting @ 8500 but, just wondering if anyone had any failure from doing it. Thanks for ya'lls input, it was appreciated.

snox135 · 04-02-2007, 08:25 AM

You would be much better off putting your car on a dyno and seeing where you should shift. If your peak power is 7500 your not gaining anything by shifting at 8500. A stroker will move your power band lower due to the increased air flow per a stroke.

20psimitsu · 04-02-2007, 01:59 PM

You got a good point. DAMM good point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1gcrazy · 04-02-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snox135

You would be much better off putting your car on a dyno and seeing where you should shift. If your peak power is 7500 your not gaining anything by shifting at 8500. A stroker will move your power band lower due to the increased air flow per a stroke.

Agreed...

1gcrazy · 04-02-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by definitiveno

Who cares......2.3's/2.4's make pump gas power. What difference does it make what rpm it's at?

For future reference to yourself and to other members...This is the WORST answer I've seen in a LONG time...

rst95eclipse · 04-03-2007, 01:45 AM

The common number that I've seen is 8500rpm. I've heard of few that rev to 9000rpm at the track. Either way, I hope you'll have a girdle if you decide to go the 2.3 route.

definitiveno · 04-03-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1gcrazy

For future reference to yourself and to other members...This is the WORST answer I've seen in a LONG time...

The point, though far less obvious, can be found in snox135's post. What I meant was who cares what rpm you want to shift at when there are other things that should dictate where you actually shift. Maybe it was a lazy way of putting it. Oh well.

definitiveno · 04-03-2007, 04:38 PM

Also I was trying to figure out why I said "they make pump gas power", and reading through the original post he said he was still debating between the 2.0 and 2.3/4. I think for a daily driver car, 2.3/4 will make more pump gas power, so thats why I bothered to mention it.

1gcrazy · 04-03-2007, 06:09 PM

Not trying to pick on anyone just trying to improve answers. I've had a few guys answer questions i've had like that and didn't really appreciate it.
Anyway, You're right. A dyno would be the best way to find out where to shift instead of beating your motor up when you dont need to.

Large displacement motors will make a better street machine because you wont have to rev it out of its mind to get power. Most people only want 0-80 which i'll assume is what you're shooting for. Hell thats what i'm shooting for...

20psimitsu · 04-04-2007, 08:37 AM

I'll end up doing the 2.3 cause I want the torque. But thank yall for the feedback!!!

drivemusicnow · 04-04-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1gcrazy

Not trying to pick on anyone just trying to improve answers. I've had a few guys answer questions i've had like that and didn't really appreciate it.
Anyway, You're right. A dyno would be the best way to find out where to shift instead of beating your motor up when you dont need to.

Large displacement motors will make a better street machine because you wont have to rev it out of its mind to get power. Most people only want 0-80 which i'll assume is what you're shooting for. Hell thats what i'm shooting for...

Heh, since when is 2.3L considered "large displacement"

Here is what the whole debate comes down to:
A 2.3L has a MORE unfavorable rod ratio than a 2.0, which leads to more side loading of the cylinder walls.

Side loading of the cylinder walls happens anyway, which is why you sometimes take apart stock motors and find that the bores are slightly ovaled. just happens faster with 2.3s, what does this mean? when you tear it down to rebuild it you will most likely NOT be able to just re-hone and re-ring, and will have to order the next size up pistons. That's about all it means.

A 2.3L will have higher piston acceleration rates and velocities. To solve this use better rods. A stronger rod will be able to take more compression and tension force, therefor eliminating that fear of breaking a rod.

Other than that, RPM limits is really a matter of how well built your head is, and where your hp/torque curve sits.

oh, and how soon you want to replace your transmission.

Verticaljump1 · 04-19-2007, 02:20 PM

A 2.3L isn't at that much of a disadvantage in rod ratio to the 2.0L. I've never heard of a 2.3 or 2.4L breaking a rod, or anything like that due to excessive revs. My main concern with spinning that high in the RPM range would be the harmonics of the crankshaft. The 88mm crank in the 2.0L block with a stock damper works and dampens perfectly well, however, once you slap in the 100mm stroke crank, the dampening is all out of whack. This is why some of the 100m stroke cranks (and even some 88mm stroke cranks on occasion) have literally split in half. I think you're completely fine spinning up to, and over 8500rpm, but please don't go short on your build and use a stock damper, or an underdrive pulley. Spend the extra dough and get a fluidamper at the least, preferably an ATI damper. Drivemusicnow's comment about more side-load was 100% correct, so if you're shooting for around 600whp or so, I might consider an upgrade to an I-beam rod (manley, crower, oliver, etc.). I'm not saying an h-beam can't take that power, but personally I would upgrade. Good luck, and I didn't mean to burn anybody's 2 cents...

dsm-onster · 04-20-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

I might consider an upgrade to an I-beam rod (manley, crower, oliver, etc.). I'm not saying an h-beam can't take that power, but personally I would upgrade. Good luck, and I didn't mean to burn anybody's 2 cents...

Are you saying this perhaps because h-beem rods usually weigh more than I-beam rods, magnifying the dampening issues; or just becasue of your experience with one and/or the other?

fourreGsixty3 · 04-26-2007, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paper_clip_boy

BTW PM Topstreet, Ask him what he is revving his 2.3L stroker to.

He rev's to 9350rpm, and he has yet to see egg shaped wear in the cyl. wall's. The best advise I heard was to dyno it, and see where your power is being made, if your not making power past a certain RPM set your limiter for that point...or slightly higher so that way when you are at the track you can rev past that point so when you shift your boost won't fall off as much.

drivemusicnow · 04-27-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsm-onster

Are you saying this perhaps because h-beem rods usually weigh more than I-beam rods, magnifying the dampening issues; or just becasue of your experience with one and/or the other?

He's suggesting it because an I beam rod is typically stronger than an H beam rod. when you have a wieght (piston) on the end of a rod (con rod) that is changing direction/accelerating very quickly in opposite directions, this creats a large compression or tension force. Rods are stronger in compression, so you're really looking at the tension force only. A stroker will have a higher Sigma (stress) max at any given rpm, because it is having to accererate that weight back and forth faster (covers a longer distance in the same amount of time)

being lighter sort of helps as it decreases the weight being accelerated, but the overall benefit is coming from it being able to withstand a higher tensile stress before it fails.