Ok guys, I'm on my way to a build up. I cant decide which one to build 2.0 or 2.3

Here are things i expect of the car:
1.) Able to decently spool and make use of an FP3065
2.) Daily driven for atleast 60-80k miles (ie long term reliability)
3.) Able to be driven on long 400+ mile commutes
4.) I'm more of a mountain/track day guy.. not a straight line kind of guy..

Along with that here are the mods i will have on the car
- FP3065 setup
- DSMLink with 3bar map sensor, maf-t, and aem wideband
- cams(depending on which motor) cam gears
- pulleys
- radiator
- mounts
- FMIC
- 1000cc injectors with walbro pump and regulator.

so basically i have the setup planned but i just don't knwo which engine will be more beneficial to what i want.

also, this car will be living 95% of it's life on pump gas. I will take it to the strip just for kicks and giggles, and tuning. i'm expecting maybe 450 + AWHP?? and maybe to break the 550 one day?

thanks for any advice you guys can give me about torque, revving higher etc.
I have searched the forums but i haven't read about people who roadrace getting these stroker motors.

thanks for helping out a newb

I would go 2.3L if I were you. You won't regret going 2.3L based on your goals. You want a quck spooling big turbo street car and won't drag it much. 2.3L for sure. I have first hand experience, the stroker on the street and the car off boost feels much more a "fun". The extra grunt and torque of a stroker is great if you want to run through the twisties, whereas a 2.0l is great for a high revving track monster that spends the majority of its track dutties high in rpm band to make power.

2.0 man, and I'm not even bs'ing you on this

Street Surgeon said:

2.0 man, and I'm not even bs'ing you on this

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate on this? I can't see any reason why a 2.0 would be better for him than a 2.3 with his needs/ wants.

He wants a quick spooling DD reliable car that he wants to have fun with on the twisties or auto-x. He's not going to drag it much. A great turbo like a 3065 on a stroker will spool will be nothing but a bad ass street car. And I'm not even bs'ing you.

i am really heavily leaning towards the 2.3 liter stroker. but i mean does anyone know first had what i can expect out of the motor in terms of life? i mean of course i do my oil changes every 3k miles. never really drive it hard on a daily basis.. mountains 1x/month and track day every 2-3 months or so. i just want to make sure it will last for atleast another 2 years without causing any failure to itself of other drivetrain parts... until the skyline comes out.. then i can get that car or comletely redo the dsm

Andy Moraitis was in contact with a few people regarding stroker longevity. Keeping the revs under 7500ish, and proper maintenence, etc, will easily yield you 75,000+ miles.

I am currently building a 2.3L stroker and know of several guys in my area that have build them and put big turbos on them.

They all love the cars and the power they produce is comparable to a torquier( I think its spelled right ) V6, I6 or a small V8 but they all have that one significant problem they don't like life in the high revs.

You say you are not a straight line guy and you want a reliable DD.

The best thing for you in my opinion would be to build the 2.3L because the torque and power is SOOOO much better than a regular 2.0L, BUT build it with a smaller turbo, like a ball bearing 50 trim or something that has a smaller wheel and smaller housings.

If you build the car like that you will have a car that still have a decent amount of top end, but will also spool much quicker than putting something like a GT30R or GT35R.

That will make a killer track/autocross car as you will have boost on demand, yet be able to keep the revs down instead of having to live around 6000rpm where those turbos really shine. You have to remember that the biggest reason that people are afraid to rev the Strokers higher is because of the less than favorable rod ratio. If you live at high RPM for a good part of the engines life, you run the risk of ovaling out the cylinders.

Although you can make Gobs of power at the higher RPMs with the strokers, you do sacrifice longetivity. If you want to have a "reliable" DD yet still track the car every weekend, than stroker plus smaller turbo is the way to go.

Talk to Andy Moraitis about quick spool on a 2.3L. He had an EVO III 16G on his, I think I remember him calling it insta-spool.

Cams are a great options and with the stroker you dont NEED upgraded springs because you dont need big cams to rev high with. 272/272 are perfect. Power throughout the rpm band.

Remember that people on here will always tell you to go big or go home, but you dont need to.

One place that extra money spent would pay off would be on your computer system. Every single person that I have talked to that has had DSMLink says that it was great and that they learned a lot from it, but when they switch over to AEM EMS, the difference is night and day. You want your car to serve you breakfast, EMS can make it happen. Joking of course but wouldnt it be cool.

Oh and one more thing I forgot to add about a stroker with a fat turbo and track racing it, Better have deep pockets for tranny's because they dont like high power/high rev shifting.

project_tsi said:

I would go 2.3L if I were you. You won't regret going 2.3L based on your goals. You want a quck spooling big turbo street car and won't drag it much. 2.3L for sure. I have first hand experience, the stroker on the street and the car off boost feels much more a "fun". The extra grunt and torque of a stroker is great if you want to run through the twisties, whereas a 2.0l is great for a high revving track monster that spends the majority of its track dutties high in rpm band to make power.

Click to expand...

Stroker FTW. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'd run something like a Switzer S256 or a similar turbo that can push about 55 lbs/min or more. Even a BB 50 trim would be a fun turbo.

Just for accuracy's sake, I had a Big 16G on mine and it was WAY undersized to the motor and couldn't hold more than 20 psi past 5000 RPM. Go with something that'll make power down low and still breathe up top. I'd consider a 50 trim the minimum.

With respect to longevity, Dan quoted me correctly. I spoke to both Buschur and AMS and they recommended max revs at or below 7500 RPM. Having just logged the car, I made max airflow at 7100 so there's no need for me to even go that high. As long as you don't overrev, the cylinder walls should weather the side loading forces rather well.

Im a hardcore 2.0 high revin fan myself, but even with how much I LOVE my 2.0, you would have to be retarded to recomend the 2.0 to this guy. He basically said, "I want to race my car at the racetrack, and drive on the street, where TORQUE is VERY VERY important, what should I get?"

What this guy should get is not a quesion in any sane person's mind. Go for the 2.3, its leaps and bounds better for what you are going to do.

My mechanic revs his up to and sometimes over 8k. He says the 7 bolt crank can handle higher revs then the 6 bolt which most people have been using to build strokers. I also say go for the stroker, it doesnt really cost much more.

Well i guess what i was really worried about was how long the motor would last. i guess i should down size to an FP3052(The reason i'm going with FP is because of the great experience i had with the Green, quality brings customers back i guess) So now i guess the question is.. 7bolt stroker or 6bolt stroker? also, 1g head or 2g head? i've read that 1g heads have the bigger ports, but the smaller ports on the 2g head increase air velocity, correct me if i'm wrong, but i read those somewhere along my research. and 7 bolt or 6 bolt stroker <- has anyone with a 7bolt stroker have success? or parish the thought as that's a crank walk guarantee? Well thanks again guys, keep'em comin. i'm still a little iffy, but it looks like 6bolt stroker, manley rods/pistons/clevitte 77 bearings, 6bolt '64 crank <- total = somewhere around 1300 + machining.

JayRolla said:

My mechanic revs his up to and sometimes over 8k. He says the 7 bolt crank can handle higher revs then the 6 bolt which most people have been using to build strokers. I also say go for the stroker, it doesnt really cost much more.

Click to expand...

Before you claim that a 7 bolt crank can "handle" higher rpms than a 6 bolt crank, you need to consider your ignition, valve springs, pistons and rods.

Getting into the higher rpms is great for big turbo'ed cars, but with a stroker or 2.4L, those extra 1000 to 1500 rpms are not needed.

My 2.4 was the most amazing difference from the stock 2.0. I would recommend the stroker or 2.4 if you are looking for a decent sized turbo with good spool up time. If you were building more of a race motor, then (based off of the current leaders in the dsm community) a 2.0 or 2.1 destroked motor would more suit those needs. (then again, look at AMS's race evo with a 2.3L )

J.P.

The older 95-97 blocks had flanged bearings that aren't as resistant to walking as the revised split thrust design in the late 98 and all 99 models. I have the revised bearings in mine and I rebuilt it as a 7 bolt. But if you prefer the 6 by all means go for it. Crankwalk is an unlikey occurence anyway. I also think you're making a wise choice by staying with an FP turbo. They make great products and if you were happy with their performance firsthand then you'll be happy the second time around.

Please keep us posted on how everything turns out. It sounds like you have your head wrapped around this very well. After all, knowing what you want is more than half the battle.

Street Surgeon said:

2.0 man, and I'm not even bs'ing you on this

Click to expand...

Is there any backing or validity to this?

talontsiturbo20 said:

Is there any backing or validity to this?

Click to expand...

Sounds like a lot of bs'ing wouldn't you say?

OT, I was wondering how your 57 trim keeps up with the 2.4? I know my 2.3 is very greedy when it comes to wanting more air. I can't imagine how your 2.4 is.

andymoraitis said:

The older 95-97 blocks had flanged bearings that aren't as resistant to walking as the revised split thrust design in the late 98 and all 99 models. I have the revised bearings in mine and I rebuilt it as a 7 bolt. But if you prefer the 6 by all means go for it. Crankwalk is an unlikey occurence anyway. I also think you're making a wise choice by staying with an FP turbo. They make great products and if you were happy with their performance firsthand then you'll be happy the second time around.

Please keep us posted on how everything turns out. It sounds like you have your head wrapped around this very well. After all, knowing what you want is more than half the battle.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Also, on the same hand, there should'nt be any issues for a 6 bolt if the motor is built oorrectly with good bearings, assembly, balanced, etc.

J.P.

andymoraitis said:

Sounds like a lot of bs'ing wouldn't you say?

OT, I was wondering how your 57 trim keeps up with the 2.4? I know my 2.3 is very greedy when it comes to wanting more air. I can't imagine how your 2.4 is.

Click to expand...

Its nice, gets into boost quick, and is still potent up top. I am changing to a GT3082R next season though. I would go with a 35R, but being up here at 5000-6000 ft, air is a little hard to come by, some turbos boost well up here, and some dont. Its funny, the 57 trim pulled harder than the 60-1 with our altitude What size are you running on your 2.3?

J.P.

Thanks for the info J.P. It sounds like you have a VERY fun combination. I originally had a 16G on the stroker when I built it and while it was a blast from 2000-5000 RPM, it wouldn't hold crap for boost to 7000. A few months ago, I got a great deal on a T04B Bullseye 50 trim and slapped that on. It's a night and day difference. I run it at 25-26 psi daily on pump and it's a very responsive and fun turbo that mates up to the stroker nicely. I wish it flowed closer to 55 lbs/min , but overall it suits my needs and I'm happy with it for now. Although I usually shift at 7100, I've taken it to 7500 a couple of times and she held boost rock solid and kept flowing without missing a beat.

I think I'll be looking into something larger within the next year but for now it's a ton of fun on the street (it has yet to see the track).

Thanks for the kind words gents, so then let's get this started... Stroker people specifically.

The man mentioned he wants a reliable motor and also requires longevity of the motor. So how many miles do you have on your setups and lets be honest and to the point here I don't need any speculation on how long you "think" it's going to run, just how many miles you currently have.

2.0's are DIE HARD motors with proven records of holding and standing up to the harshest abuse! The 2.3's in comparison don't have such a great record. Broken cranks, flywheel bolts backing themselves out even WITH tons of loctite on new ARP flywheel bolts torqued down nice and snug leading to insta-boom etc. Now blame can be placed on the driver, machine shop, whatever. I'm aware you can twist statistics however you like but 2.0's are hands-down proven to be more reliable!

Revving for me isn't that big of an issue, it's nice to have a bit more torque down low but the trade-off's can be... A bit disheartening. I've done many things to fight what ailments 2.3's have like add a brace/girdle for a 6-bolt, grooved acl bearings that allow higher revving (though I will be very careful not to anyway), fluidampr crank pulley to absorb the extra vibrations that supposedly have something to do with the flywheel bolts backing out etc.

After all is said and done I question my decision to go 2.3 quite often as a 2.0 would have been MUCH simpler and a bit cheaper to build right IMO. They can be great motors but don't be so quick to tout them as the end-all be all of 4G's for street use. There are PLENTY of quick 2.0's out there that perform juuuuuuuust fine.

Once again, the requirements:
1.) Able to decently spool and make use of an FP3065
2.0s can do this!!!

2.) Daily driven for atleast 60-80k miles (ie long term reliability)
2.0s are known for their reliability!

3.) Able to be driven on long 400+ mile commutes
Do you need a 2.3 for this?

4.) I'm more of a mountain/track day guy.. not a straight line kind of guy..
The 2.3 is a bit more responsive but driving style will play a huge role in the kind of response you get on either setup.

Now I'm not saying that 2.3's are garbage, just that a 2.0 can easily suit his needs. Of course they're definitely the new flavor so I'm sure I'll have a hard time talking anyone out of one. Hell I even went for it myself but this is just my own opinion on the matter.

Your fellow 2.3 owner
-Cory

Street Surgeon said:

Thanks for the kind words gents, so then let's get this started... Stroker people specifically.

The man mentioned he wants a reliable motor and also requires longevity of the motor. So how many miles do you have on your setups and lets be honest and to the point here I don't need any speculation on how long you "think" it's going to run, just how many miles you currently have.

2.0's are DIE HARD motors with proven records of holding and standing up to the harshest abuse! The 2.3's in comparison don't have such a great record. Broken cranks, flywheel bolts backing themselves out even WITH tons of loctite on new ARP flywheel bolts torqued down nice and snug leading to insta-boom etc. Now blame can be placed on the driver, machine shop, whatever. I'm aware you can twist statistics however you like but 2.0's are hands-down proven to be more reliable!

Revving for me isn't that big of an issue, it's nice to have a bit more torque down low but the trade-off's can be... A bit disheartening. I've done many things to fight what ailments 2.3's have like add a brace/girdle for a 6-bolt, grooved acl bearings that allow higher revving (though I will be very careful not to anyway), fluidampr crank pulley to absorb the extra vibrations that supposedly have something to do with the flywheel bolts backing out etc.

After all is said and done I question my decision to go 2.3 quite often as a 2.0 would have been MUCH simpler and a bit cheaper to build right IMO. They can be great motors but don't be so quick to tout them as the end-all be all of 4G's for street use. There are PLENTY of quick 2.0's out there that perform juuuuuuuust fine.

Click to expand...

Hmm, well, I built my 2.4 a year and a half ago and have put close to 10k on it. Now granted, I have'nt had it for 80K, however, I can tell you that there are more 2.0s that break before 80K than 2.3s. Then again, that is a relative statement. Also, your statement of 2.0s being more reliable is relative as well.

The so called "kind" words were not intended to be nice, nor harsh. Your original post said nothing other than a one sentance opinion with no follow.

Also, everyone has the right to his own wrong opinion. He asked what he should go with, you said "2.0", we said stroker. He can make up his own mind. I (to say the least) am not trying to persuade any one in any direction. I am just relaying my thoughts on the matter. I never once said a 2.0 can't spool a good sized turbo, I just said a stroker will spool that turbo quicker. I never said a 2.0 can't perform "juuuuust fine". Just said it depends on what the original poster wants to get out of a new motor build. This would be why I stated that if he wanted more of a race motor, that my opinion stands with the 2.0 or 2.1.

We should probably get back on topic:

Twinkymobile, we can tell you the differences between the performance level of the listed motor combinations, its up to you to decide what you want to do.

Let me know if you have any more questions, thanks

J.P.

andymoraitis said:

The older 95-97 blocks had flanged bearings that aren't as resistant to walking as the revised split thrust design in the late 98 and all 99 models. I have the revised bearings in mine and I rebuilt it as a 7 bolt. But if you prefer the 6 by all means go for it. Crankwalk is an unlikey occurence anyway. I also think you're making a wise choice by staying with an FP turbo. They make great products and if you were happy with their performance firsthand then you'll be happy the second time around.

Please keep us posted on how everything turns out. It sounds like you have your head wrapped around this very well. After all, knowing what you want is more than half the battle.

Click to expand...

ok wait.. so you're rocking a 2.3L stroker 7bolt? or am i trippin? how many miles have you put on yours? man, this has intrigued me, as i'd rather not bother to go through the 6bolt swap.

talontsiturbo20 said:

Hmm, well, I built my 2.4 a year and a half ago and have put close to 10k on it. Now granted, I have'nt had it for 80K, however, I can tell you that there are more 2.0s that break before 80K than 2.3s. Then again, that is a relative statement. Also, your statement of 2.0s being more reliable is relative as well.

The so called "kind" words were not intended to be nice, nor harsh. Your original post said nothing other than a one sentance opinion with no follow.

Also, everyone has the right to his own wrong opinion. He asked what he should go with, you said "2.0", we said stroker. He can make up his own mind. I (to say the least) am not trying to persuade any one in any direction. I am just relaying my thoughts on the matter. I never once said a 2.0 can't spool a good sized turbo, I just said a stroker will spool that turbo quicker. I never said a 2.0 can't perform "juuuuust fine". Just said it depends on what the original poster wants to get out of a new motor build. This would be why I stated that if he wanted more of a race motor, that my opinion stands with the 2.0 or 2.1.

We should probably get back on topic:

Twinkymobile, we can tell you the differences between the performance level of the listed motor combinations, its up to you to decide what you want to do.

Let me know if you have any more questions, thanks

J.P.

Click to expand...

Well you have a 2.4, and though somewhat similar strokers have some unique quirks that the 2.4's don't share. Sure there are infinitely more 2.0's than 2.3's and thus more 2.0's will fail but comparitively speaking you can not deny the fact that the 2.3 is more prone to pop than it's 2.0 counterparts! At any rate, good luck with whatever you choose twinkie.

It sounds like you're willing to put some serious coin into this project if it is going to do what you want.


If this is true, I have a reccomendation for you. Mitch Ruso at Engintecs.

His entire philosophy is building motors that last 100k miles or more. He says "what's the point of a powerful motor if it doesn't last 100k miles" and this is including however it is driven. He has a number of higher mileage engines/customers some of which are putting over 600hp through their motors.

I would also recomend getting a 2.4 liter motor. Reasoning for this is A) a better rod ratio B) SLIGHT increase in displacement over 2.3.. (this alone is not worth much, but being able to use the long rods, and stroker pistons works pretty well)

He will reccomend a 6 bolt over the 7bolt 2.4, however I'm not personally convinced there is a benefit. He has his own preferred, somewhat hard to find 2.4L block. (not sure what vehicles this is out of) The 2.4 will work better with some head work, including machining the ports and bowl, larger valves, springs, guides..etc I think Greg Collier put down almost 400FWHP at 12 psi on an FP 3052.

While I don't personally have experience with Magnus or Buschur, they have good reputations for quality as well.

In reference to the comment about longevity: How many rebuilt 2.0s do you know of with over 80K miles? I don't know of very many at all if ANY. Why is this? Because people do dumb things with high horsepower cars. They blow them up, they crash them, they push them too hard etc. It happens, but any well built motor will last 80K+ miles if properly maintained.

I have considered the idea of a 2.4. However, for a .1 increase in displacement, and a better rod length ratio(that i doubt i will use to it's full potential), it's a lot of more trouble. It's true that i am going to put some serious cash and work behind this, but i just don't have the time to look for a 6 bolt '64 block. and i've already read that i only need to change out the belt, head gasket, and cam gears, but still i've already sourced out the 6 bolt block, and my stock 7bolt is in remarkable condition for having 120k miles on it.

I'd really rather build a 7bolt stroker, but i've gone around the SBR forums and chris said that he has seen and heard of 7bolt strokers walking. So i guess it's back to the 6bolt.

I really want to know if andy is running a 7bolt stroker, because that's what it sounds like from his post, but not to sure on how to go about that split thrust bearing replacement he was talking about.

lastly, i still don't know if i should go with the 2g head or 1g head. there's pros and cons for both but all i've been hearing is theory, anyone have experience? thanks guys

- Jose

Jose,

I do have a 7 bolt with a little over 4K miles on it an no issues. The split thrust design is something that came from the factory. Your 95 block doesn't have it. Keep in mind, any motor with a piston can walk so no one is completely out of the woods. Is the 6 bolt less prone to it? Yes, but it's not immune. I would build whatever you feel the most comfortable with.

I had a budget when I built mine and didn't have the luxury of changing to a 6 bolt block so I retained the 7 bolt, had the machine shop balance the assembly and called it a day. Since there was zero wear on my thrust bearing, they re-used it in the new block with complete confidence. Being a 2G guy, I prefer the 2G head. Mine is unported but with some port work, a better intake and a larger 1G throttle body you'll have a very potent combination. Stock for stock, the 1G head is better but the 2G head really shines when it's ported.

I hope that makes sense.

Andy