f*ck a stroker lets build a frankinstein?

Awoler · May 20, 2005

how do you think this engine would act?
2.4l 6 bolt blk 87.5mm bore/ .40 overbore
1.6l crank 75 mm stroke with the crank butcherd by ffwd would weigh about24lbs
156mm rods?
9.0 compression maybe dome top to account for the shorter stroke
by my figures it would displace 121.6 cu. in. and have a 1.88 rod ratio...
i have put the crank inside a 2.4 blk with the stock 1g rod with the stock 4g64 piston and the piston at top dead center is 12.86 mm down from the deck surface if anyone needs to know this.the crank counter weights barely go below the bottom block surface which is great for stablily at high rpm. and with the crank butcherd and a 12lb flywheel with lightweight pistons and rods the rocipacating weight would be less that 50lbs! but would it be a slug till it gets on up in rpms? what do you guys think? im looking at building a 74 colt which weights 2100 lbs with a starion trans and a ford 9 inch rear with a 4.30 rear gear and im looking at some possible engine combos..

badbu68 · May 20, 2005

Since I don't know what the crank throw is, I'll assume it is pretty over square motor. It'll want rpms so make sure you get it balanced, use forged pistons and rods, arp bolts. It will be a dog around town, you'll probably get spanked by hondas off the line. Throw some big ass turbo on it like a gt40R.

peregrine · May 22, 2005

Awoler said:
how do you think this engine would act?
2.4l 6 bolt blk 87.5mm bore/ .40 overbore
1.6l crank 75 mm stroke with the crank butcherd by ffwd would weigh about24lbs
156mm rods?
9.0 compression maybe dome top to account for the shorter stroke
by my figures it would displace 121.6 cu. in. and have a 1.88 rod ratio...
i have put the crank inside a 2.4 blk with the stock 1g rod with the stock 4g64 piston and the piston at top dead center is 12.86 mm down from the deck surface if anyone needs to know this.the crank counter weights barely go below the bottom block surface which is great for stablily at high rpm. and with the crank butcherd and a 12lb flywheel with lightweight pistons and rods the rocipacating weight would be less that 50lbs! but would it be a slug till it gets on up in rpms? what do you guys think? im looking at building a 74 colt which weights 2100 lbs with a starion trans and a ford 9 inch rear with a 4.30 rear gear and im looking at some possible engine combos..

id say its a waste of a good 2.4. its interesting that you would want to put such a high revving motor in such a light car when a regular 2.0 with a 20g would run 10s in it. step up to a well tuned 50 trim and go REAL fast.

nanokpsi · May 22, 2005

Awoler said:
how do you think this engine would act?
2.4l 6 bolt blk 87.5mm bore/ .40 overbore
1.6l crank 75 mm stroke with the crank butcherd by ffwd would weigh about24lbs
156mm rods?
9.0 compression maybe dome top to account for the shorter stroke
by my figures it would displace 121.6 cu. in. and have a 1.88 rod ratio...
i have put the crank inside a 2.4 blk with the stock 1g rod with the stock 4g64 piston and the piston at top dead center is 12.86 mm down from the deck surface if anyone needs to know this.the crank counter weights barely go below the bottom block surface which is great for stablily at high rpm. and with the crank butcherd and a 12lb flywheel with lightweight pistons and rods the rocipacating weight would be less that 50lbs! but would it be a slug till it gets on up in rpms? what do you guys think? im looking at building a 74 colt which weights 2100 lbs with a starion trans and a ford 9 inch rear with a 4.30 rear gear and im looking at some possible engine combos..

If you wanted to use sucj a short stroke then why wouldn't you want to run a much longer rod? The 2.1 destroked 2.4 usus 162mm rods and you have 13mm less stroke. Where do you get this 1.6 crank also...

Awoler · May 23, 2005

i got the crank from a 1.6 hyundai that someone has been using in a turbo awd parts car i bought.yes someone blew the 2l and just swap over all the turbo stuff ,hell it even had the 2l head. the block said g4cr on it which cam in a 92-92 elantra the werid thing is its a 6 bolt crank and dropped right off in the 2.4l block, thanks for the info about using 162mm rods. as for primgrne i already have a full 2.4l assembled i'm just collecting parts for the colt like susp.and drivetrain. i havent found a clean reasonably rust free one here in alabama yet ,but i am tracing down rumors of these guys down around dothan who were the sh*t in the early 80's with hemi colts but so far i've run into dead ends but dave fribuger from hot rod mag. says he has a land speed buddy down here who should be able to find out somthing for me...the 2 i have foundhave been rusted though the roof!

peregrine · May 23, 2005

what year colt? please tell me its a rwd. i know where theres a 77 2 door colt in great shape for $300 running. i think about picking it up all the time but i can use that money towards my current colt project.

nanokpsi · May 24, 2005

So the 1.6 crank bolts into the 2.4 block? That is crazy. I wonder how much power that will be able to handle. With suck a short stroke you should be able to also throw some really long rods in there and build a motor that loves to rev. However, I don't know how high you want to take the hydraulic valvetrain.

Awoler · May 24, 2005

of corse im looking for a rwd peregine why would i want to do the fwd thing thing again? i went down that road once before to the tune of 14.11 at 116.9mph...pm me about the car....or just email me

CanadianTalon · May 24, 2005

A motor with a high rod-to-stroke ratio is more prone to detonation and doesn't have as good of cylinder filling as a motor with a small rod/stroke ratio. A huge rod isn't all good. Why build a motor like that, that will want to make power to 10K when you could run a 2.0 or a 2.4 crank and make more average power, and do it as lower RPM's with less boost. It'll make a faster race car.

nanokpsi · May 24, 2005

CanadianTalon said:
A motor with a high rod-to-stroke ratio is more prone to detonation and doesn't have as good of cylinder filling as a motor with a small rod/stroke ratio. A huge rod isn't all good. Why build a motor like that, that will want to make power to 10K when you could run a 2.0 or a 2.4 crank and make more average power, and do it as lower RPM's with less boost. It'll make a faster race car.

Motors with high rod ratios aren't really prone to detonation, they just require less timing advance because of the slower piston speed..etc. That is why strokers like more timing advance (the converse is also true). The better rod ratio has plenty of good effects, most importanly the ability to rev higher reliably and the increased VE from better cylinder filling. It might not be the most fun street car, but the larger displacement motors aren't setting 1/4 mile records either. Stroking the motor hurts its high end breating and destroking will only let it breathe better. I think using the 1.6 crank may eb going a little too far, but if you could get some solid lifters and a rowdy 11krpm cam, I am sure the performance would still be subatantial. Not to mention you cut down on that ever bothersome torque fiqure that likes to eat awd trannies for lunch. IN the end a 2.1l destroked 2.4 would be the best drag motor. I wouldn't min putting one of these together

blueman803 · May 27, 2005

And what transmission are you going to use to shift at 11k?

swordfish · May 27, 2005

Slush-0-matic.

I have seriously pondered doing another odd ball project car with a high reving engine and an auto. Maybe I should start.

jeff

RiceKiller_TSi · May 28, 2005

Awoler, what part of Bama you in?

Awoler · May 29, 2005

montgomery

The Top DSM Community on the Web

f*ck a stroker lets build a frankinstein?

Awoler

badbu68

peregrine

nanokpsi

Awoler

peregrine

nanokpsi

Awoler

CanadianTalon

nanokpsi

blueman803

swordfish

RiceKiller_TSi

Awoler

Similar threads

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds