Alright, both of you two, read this:

Stroker Motor (def.)
A motor that has greater than stock displacement due to an increase in the factory crank throw. An increase in crank throw increases stroke (the difference between the piston's top dead center and bottom dead center position).

A 2.4 is not a stroker. It came from the factory with that crank and a taller deck. So Spawned, it is not a stroker. As much as you like to pretend it is, IT ISN"T. If it was that would mean every engine made with a longer stroker than the 4G63 is a stroker (according to your logic). It is wrong.

And why do you guys keep bringing up the rods, the rods don't determine the stroke. The crankshaft does.

haha yeah i dont see why anyone would say dont drop money into your car, save it.. well drop it all in the car! itll be worth it! you could do so much with 6k

SpawnedX said:

Keep trying.


maybe no one will notice that you tried to claim that more displacement from a 4G64 reacts different from more displacement from a 63 with a 64 crank. Because in magicland, where you live, science and physics changes with the direction of the wind.

Click to expand...

Dude it will. When .1L of displacement is from bore alone that is pretty significant. Can not call those motors similar idc a stock block 2.4 will not react the same as a stroked 2.0. same rod length or not

rlacasse1 said:

Alright, both of you two, read this:

Stroker Motor (def.)
A motor that has greater than stock displacement due to an increase in the factory crank throw. An increase in crank throw increases stroke (the difference between the piston's top dead center and bottom dead center position).

A 2.4 is not a stroker. It came from the factory with that crank and a taller deck. So Spawned, it is not a stroker. As much as you like to pretend it is, IT ISN"T. If it was that would mean every engine made with a longer stroker than the 4G63 is a stroker (according to your logic). It is wrong.

And why do you guys keep bringing up the rods, the rods don't determine the stroke. The crankshaft does.

Click to expand...

It's considered a stroked design by Mitsubishi, but hey, what do they know about their own motors?

If displacement was achieved by increasing stroke, it's a stroker, the bore and block height does not give the engine most of it's extra displacement, the stroke does and that qualifies it as a "stroker." A car can come from the factory stroked, despite what you may want to think.

Maybe you need to brush up on your Sirius design facts.

dsmarmy777gst said:

haha yeah i dont see why anyone would say dont drop money into your car, save it.. well drop it all in the car! itll be worth it! you could do so much with 6k

Click to expand...

Hell yea its totally worth it, as long as it is within your means. Not student loan money . Nothing more gratifying then see your hard work payoff with quicker et or faster lap time or whatever your into.

Just dont get in over your head, take it slow. Dont be another "full race partout" haha.

91stocker said:

Dude it will. When .1L of displacement is from bore alone that is pretty significant. Can not call those motors similar idc a stock block 2.4 will not react the same as a stroked 2.0. same rod length or not

Click to expand...

What type of a stupid statement is that?

I didn't realize that four stroke theory was displacement dependent. Instead of coming in here and posting your useless thoughts, why don't you explain to these people how a 2.4L is so different from a 2.3L? I would love to hear this. A higher displacement engine is higher displacement, until you can somehow prove that higher displacement is not higher displacement. Please feel free to exist stage left anytime. At least rlaclasse1 has a viable argument, though in the end his and my thoughts will just be written off as opinion.

So Spawned. What you are saying is that everyone with a 95-99 Eclipse with a 2.4 has a stroker engine? That is pretty sweet.

And yeah, of course the stroke gives it most of its extra displacement. But, they also added 6mm to the deck height. That makes it completely different then 4G63. When one uses the term "Stroker" it is used to say that a block has a longer stroke than it did when it left the factory. A 2.4 does not. It has the same stroke. It is not a 4G63, so stop comparing them as being the same. They are completely different blocks. It is just a higher displacement engine, not a stroker.

rlacasse1 said:

So Spawned. What you are saying is that everyone with a 95-99 Eclipse with a 2.4 has a stroker engine? That is pretty sweet.

And yeah, of course the stroke gives it most of its extra displacement. But, they also added 6mm to the deck height. That makes it completely different then 4G63. When one uses the term "Stroker" it is used to say that a block has a longer stroke than it did when it left the factory. A 2.4 does not. It has the same stroke. It is not a 4G63, so stop comparing them as being the same. They are completely different blocks. It is just a higher displacement engine, not a stroker.

Click to expand...

The deck height though only accounts for 6 mm of the extra 12 mm that the crank has over the 4G63 crank. That still leaves 6 mm of stroke. That is the definition of a stroker to me.

You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mott-toe. It doesn't change that the guy seems to think that the science behind the motors is different.

Dude, it is not a stroker because of the block. Sure when comparing the throw of the crankshaft it can be considered a stroker, but you have to take into account that the block was changed specifically for that increased stroke.

Alot of people do consider them strokers, I know. I however, do not. Although, I have still considered a 2.4 build just for the extra displacement.

Does it seem alot more torquey than the 2.0? And how high have you been revving yours?

SpawnedX said:

Sorry that I don't tolerate misinformation. Considering I haven't been able to post anything from the the 7th to the 14th and it's only the 16th, that makes it pretty difficult for you to have read 2 posts in the last 2 days from me that turn into an argument. In the meantime, whether you like my delivery or not, at least my post puts some information on the board...where as yours put up none.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I mean. Lots is not misinformation just a different opinion or difference deciosion. Or maybe even a different budget or HP range as what YOU are looking for. Just because you dont agree on something, doesnt mean you have to IMMEDIATLY BASH them as you just did above.

You know what, your RIGHT, my posts dont do much for the board, other than ask questions, but I LOVE this board and i get alot of VERY VERY useful information from it and I put it to use every time I work on my car. And I LOVE my dsm, and woulndt trade it for anything in the world. Am as mechanically inclined as YOU?! probably not, But I am inclined enough to put together a 400whp car. That may not be up to YOUR standards, but for me its enough.

Above you immediatly bashed me and put down another user on this board, just because im not as 'good as you' so it seems.

Im honestly not here to argue, just to try and make you see what you are doing. If I posted a question, I would not like it if someone just cluttered it up with their dis respect for other peoples opinions.

I dont even wanna bother responding anymore because I know that theres NO WAY I will win no matter what evidence I prove or what I tell you.

And I say knock of the damn arguing. It is completely off topic and has nothing to do with this thread. Anyone who continues it will be given a warning.

rlacasse1 said:

Dude, it is not a stroker because of the block. Sure when comparing the throw of the crankshaft it can be considered a stroker, but you have to take into account that the block was changed specifically for that increased stroke.

Alot of people do consider them strokers, I know. I however, do not. Although, I have still considered a 2.4 build just for the extra displacement.

Does it seem alot more torquey than the 2.0? And how high have you been revving yours?

Click to expand...

That's fine, we agree to disagree on that, but my point is you make up for the 6mm in the piston, they use the same rods and crank, so therefore how do they "react" differently in the words of 91stocker. Because according to him my posts are irrelevant because I did a 4G64 build rather than "stroke" a 4G63 and because of this they are radically different, so I am wondering what magical difference makes anyone with the understanding of basic 4 stroke theory and engine size knowledge not qualified to post about the 2.3L unless that is the specific route they went.

--

It's definitely more torque-y and a lot more fun in the low gears. When my GST had a 2.0 at 15 psi and that Spyder above has a 2.4 on 10 psi, his car obviously, visually pulled harder 1 to 3, by 3rd gear I started to reign him in and passed him deep into 4th.

We have seen 8200~ RPMs on his stock 64 with a hybrid turbo (GT2860 compressor and cartridge in a T25 housing so we could bolt it to a 2G manifold) and no issues. Car runs like a champ still.

The real difference you notice is power isn't dropping off on higher RPMs. It actually makes more sense for your typical build to go deeper in the RPM bands.

Well now that we can't talk about the strokers.

OP, if you seriously only want around 400 then just build a stock OEM bottom end. It will handle that amount of power just fine. Then you will have alot more money to focus on other areas. Like tuning, fuel, exhuast, transmission, turbo, suspension......... Get what I'm saying.

There is no point in building an engine that can handle 50trillion HP if you are only going to go for 400.

yay problem solved

The OP asked about a stroker build. We certainly can discuss strokers in that case and there is much information for him to extract from this post regarding it.

FUNWHEELDRIVE said:

This is exactly what I mean. Lots is not misinformation just a different opinion or difference deciosion. Or maybe even a different budget or HP range as what YOU are looking for. Just because you dont agree on something, doesnt mean you have to IMMEDIATLY BASH them as you just did above.

You know what, your RIGHT, my posts dont do much for the board, other than ask questions, but I LOVE this board and i get alot of VERY VERY useful information from it and I put it to use every time I work on my car. And I LOVE my dsm, and woulndt trade it for anything in the world. Am as mechanically inclined as YOU?! probably not, But I am inclined enough to put together a 400whp car. That may not be up to YOUR standards, but for me its enough.

Above you immediatly bashed me and put down another user on this board, just because im not as 'good as you' so it seems.

Im honestly not here to argue, just to try and make you see what you are doing. If I posted a question, I would not like it if someone just cluttered it up with their dis respect for other peoples opinions.

I dont even wanna bother responding anymore because I know that theres NO WAY I will win no matter what evidence I prove or what I tell you.

Click to expand...

The OP asked about strokers, and everyone told him not to go that route based on absolutely nothing but what a couple of guys in a whole different league than us do. Opinions are useless, use some facts and some rationale as to why he should or should not do something. Because I don't recall his question asking for vague and useless responses.

In fact, what is great, in your diatribe on my responses to DSMTyson, is he already PM'd me and gave me his input and I respected it and moved on. You did not. In fact you picked at the scab because you felt you had something to input, which really makes your post no better than mine, you are doing everything you claim to be against. In fact you are still doing it. Put up a useful response, rather than your personal outlook on my posts. It's who I am and I am not going to change. I do not look the other way when bad information or no information is given, because I understand that's a bad thing to let be a record on the internet where someone may read it and make a bad decision based on it. You can feel free to dislike my methods, a lot do, and a lot do not.

As stated, the OP discussed strokers in his original post. He can dislike some of the posts, if he chooses, but he also can learn a lot from them.

Stroker Motor (def.)
A motor that has greater than stock displacement due to an increase in the factory crank throw. An increase in crank throw increases stroke (the difference between the piston's top dead center and bottom dead center position).

The illustrations below show the difference between a stock and a stroked rotating assembly. Study the differences and you can see what makes up a typical stroker motor. Though a bit exaggerated for effect, the stroked cross section in Figure 2 incorporates:

Increased Crank Throw (distance between C and D)
Increased Rod Length (distance between B and C)
Decreased Piston Compression Height (distance between A and B)

Keep in mind that rod length does not affect the displacement of the engine, it is common to have a stroker motor that uses an increased crank throw, decreased piston compression height, and stock rod length to achieve additional stroke.

DSMTyson said:

+1000

John Shepard and Brent Rau use a 2.0L for a reason.

And for a piston/rod combo. I would go Ross/Eagle. Stick with an OEM crank.

Click to expand...

Yes they do because they Race and can rev higher get more hp out of a 2.0. but what if you want torque in a DD or street car? Whats wrong with a 2.3 setup for that?

DSMTyson said:

A 2.3 is more torqey and will be better as a daily driver(wont have to get into the boost as much) IMO. Do whatever you want to do, it is your car.

I was misinformed and SpawnedX re-educated me.

Click to expand...

Oops didn't see this post! my bad guess i should have kept reading before making a post.

99vipereater said:

Oops didn't see this post! my bad guess i should have kept reading before making a post.

Click to expand...

No worries man

Anywho, what you do with your engine largely is based on what you want to do with the car.

I plan on turning mine into a 2.3L that will net around 400whp myself, but I'm going for fast as hell spool and hopefully long term reliability, so I'm gonna spend around 6 grand on the engine itself, not including other things I'll need to get there, such as a new clutch, injectors, turbo, fuel pump, yada yada yada.

My recommendation is to just have your engine freshly rebuilt, and spread the leftover across the rest of the car (clutch, turbo, injectors, etc). Maybe look into DSMGraveyard, as they've got a Evo Piston/Frankenstein rod combo that would likely do the trick for you.

If I Had 6k I would build a 2.3 6bolt with a GT35 setup but that's me not you. It really depends on what you want to do with the car Street, Race, DD ect.
First look up the pro's and con's of the 2.0 vs 2.3 and decide whats best for you. Like somone else said if you only want 400HP build a stock motor and save money for other parts because you'll be surprised at how fast u can spend 6k when buying aftermarket motor parts.

Must haves:
Good Tuning system (ECM Link)

Upgraded Fuel System: DO THE CALCULATIONS for sizing requirements
Walbro high capacity pump 255lph
Larger fuel lines (Stainless if running E-85)
Bigger Injectors
AFPR

99vipereater said:

If I Had 6k I would build a 2.3 6bolt with a GT35 setup but that's me not you. It really depends on what you want to do with the car Street, Race, DD ect.
First look up the pro's and con's of the 2.0 vs 2.3 and decide whats best for you. Like somone else said if you only want 400HP build a stock motor and save money for other parts because you'll be surprised at how fast u can spend 6k when buying aftermarket motor parts.

Must haves:
Good Tuning system (ECM Link)

Upgraded Fuel System: DO THE CALCULATIONS for sizing requirements
Walbro high capacity pump 255lph
Larger fuel lines (Stainless if running E-85)
Bigger Injectors
AFPR

Click to expand...

you dont need bigger stainless fuel lines to run E85, really only time you need to upgrade lines if you going over 600hp. Stock lines are fine. Im running E85 and dont have a problem at all.

2GFWDbeast said:

you dont need bigger stainless fuel lines to run E85, really only time you need to upgrade lines if you going over 600hp. Stock lines are fine. Im running E85 and dont have a problem at all.

Click to expand...

No reason to putting in 1000+ cc injectors on a stock fuel line or upgrading to a higher Pressure fuel pump if your lines are not adequate you may have higher presure but those 3/16 steel lines can only flow so much.
Visual Frequently Answered Questions - Home Page Look under fuel/ fuel system upgrade.

You don't want rubber lines with E-85 as the ethanol will eat at it. Steel (stock, or aftermarket SS) lines are ok for E-85. You should also urgrade your O-rings in the fuel system to viton if possible.

"There are three major general use grades of Viton® fluoroelastomer: A, B and F. They differ primarily in their resistance to fluids, and in particular aggressive lubricating oils and oxygenated fuels, such as methanol and ethanol automotive fuel blends."-http://www.pspglobal.com/nfvitongrades.html

Hows your compression going by the way?

99vipereater said:

No reason to putting in 1000+ cc injectors on a stock fuel line or upgrading to a higher Pressure fuel pump if your lines are not adequate you may have higher presure but those 3/16 steel lines can only flow so much.
Visual Frequently Answered Questions - Home Page Look under fuel/ fuel system upgrade.

You don't want rubber lines with E-85 as the ethanol will eat at it. Steel (stock, or aftermarket SS) lines are ok for E-85. You should also urgrade your O-rings in the fuel system to viton if possible.

"There are three major general use grades of Viton® fluoroelastomer: A, B and F. They differ primarily in their resistance to fluids, and in particular aggressive lubricating oils and oxygenated fuels, such as methanol and ethanol automotive fuel blends."-http://www.pspglobal.com/nfvitongrades.html

Hows your compression going by the way?

Click to expand...

well i know from experience and from others in my town and around who use e85 with stock lines. Todays cars are built to be compatible with ethanol-blended fuels. When ethanol was first introduced in the 1980s, some cars experienced deterioration of some elastomers (rubber-like parts) and metal fuel system components. Very quickly, manufacturers upgraded their fuel systems so that today, they are now all compatible with ethanol fuels.

My compress ehh it went up a little bit. 168-150-150-168 which still worries me since service limit it 14psi which im over already. Im thinking the shop forgot to re tighten my head studs down.

And then I read spawns final post.


Anyways. 6000$. I say build An engine with 2000/2500. Get a nice turbo and wastegate. Take the change and buy some mcdonalds.

Wobet said:

And then I read spawns final post.


Anyways. 6000$. I say build An engine with 2000/2500. Get a nice turbo and wastegate. Take the change and buy some mcdonalds.

Click to expand...

If there's any left over for McDonalds Lol.