I'm confused on what block you have, but a 4g63 block can be stroked out as high as a 2.3 and the 4g64 being a 2.4 can be stroked to a 2.6 which is very uncommon. First question is which transmission you going with cause with all that added torque you'll be dumping a lot of money on trannies.

Hope he has the W5M33 manual tranny - should hold the torque pretty well.

I doubt the oil passages on the 4g64 block would match the 4g63 head. i think they are narrower. If Your stuck on a stroker..I would keep the 4g63 block, put a 100 mm crank in it and be done with it. Dont get me wrong I like the torque from my 2.3 but ive already been through a tranny within 3k miles of my build. Id probably build a 2.0 if i could do it over. Just my 2cents

Taylon said:

I'm looking for answers from people with direct experience with a high hp 4g64 block/4g63 head setup. Thanks

Click to expand...

My old 97 Talon had a 2.4 4g64 block & a 63 head. Ran that setup with a old school 35r.

The torque made the car a very fun DD, & the displacement helped spool the 35r to 32psi by 4,900. If I could build it again I would in a heart beat. Never got the car on a dyno but the logs where showing 66lbs/min consistently at WOT.

The car never left me stranded & never gave me any problems in the reliability part. The only reason my car isn't running is because during a pull my oil filter basically came off & I lost all pressure. The head is seized but the block still spins as smooth as butter, the timing belt had the lower teeth sheered off. I am deployed now so I will update you on what I find out when I return.

If you aren't trying to spin past 8,000RPM's I'd recommended a 4g64/63 setup any day

Taylon said:

I'm looking for answers from people with direct experience with a high hp 4g64 block/4g63 head setup. Thanks

Click to expand...

Racejunkie05 said:

I doubt the oil passages on the 4g64 block would match the 4g63 head. i think they are narrower. If Your stuck on a stroker..I would keep the 4g63 block, put a 100 mm crank in it and be done with it. Dont get me wrong I like the torque from my 2.3 but ive already been through a tranny within 3k miles of my build. Id probably build a 2.0 if i could do it over. Just my 2cents

Click to expand...

Do you have any experence with the 4G63/4G64? What is exactly wrong with the oil passages? Can you quote a post here to help the OP out? People on the site need real info, just not guesses. And a 2.0 can trash a transmission just as good as a 2.3 or 2.4. A stock transmission on a higher HP engine combined with hard driving is not going to last with any engine.

I have had a 2.3 and now have a 2.4. I bolted the 4G63 head to the 4GCS block with no changes. Both are good engines and can be made reliable. As for the 2.6 you are going to have to ask around or step up and test it out yourself. Search the fourms for 2.6 owners and ask them.

I agree^

I hate when people just blurt out random things about info they know nothing about...

Like I said OP if you aren't trying to rev to the moon & want a good DD/Weekend setup a 2.4 is the way to go

11Banger you're awesome sir, thank you.

No matter the setup, it will be properly built. And if I'm putting this much effort into the engine, why would I use a stock tranny? It too will be fully built, probably an auto so I don't blow through clutches and rears prematurely.

I'm going to do the 2.6 build. I just had to hear that someone had success with that little hybrid 4G64/4G63 combo. This sets me back a bit, but I guess I'll have some parts for sale on here soon, haha.

Taylon said:

11Banger you're awesome sir, thank you.

No matter the setup, it will be properly built. And if I'm putting this much effort into the engine, why would I use a stock tranny? It too will be fully built, probably an auto so I don't blow through clutches and rears prematurely.

I'm going to do the 2.6 build. I just had to hear that someone had success with that little hybrid 4G64/4G63 combo. This sets me back a bit, but I guess I'll have some parts for sale on here soon, haha.

Click to expand...

No prob man.

& I would honestly do a 4g64/63 head 2.4

You will enjoy it. I have heard of only a hand full or ppl running 2.6's.

I don't hear much about 2.6Ls. Seems like the consensus is that the bore is large and the rod angles are extreme and the BC kit is the only one I've even heard of.

If an auto can be built stronger then a typical manual, then a 2.6 auto would be nasty. Good luck with the build.

Taylon said:

I'm going to do the 2.6 build.

Click to expand...

Poor transmission

You can't back out now man, you have to do this for all of us!!!
Good luck, and this should be pretty epic man. Make sure to get plenty of videos and pics with the whole process.

I've never even heard of doing a 2.6! I can't wait to see it.

T is for TURBO said:

Poor transmission

Click to expand...

Haha, indeed. I believe the auto will be more gentle on the drivetrain, therefore breaking less often. Things break, we fix them, then continue. Plus, I've heard DSM'ers don't lose boost using the auto. Though a manual would be REALLY fun to drive!!

You say bulletproof at first and now you are looking at a 2.6 build?

Those two things don't appear to reconcile.

Long rod 2.4 would be the option I would go with in this case. Displacement of the 2.4 with a better rod angle. Or a 2.1..

Nope you don't. It pegs the needle on your boost gauge and stays there. An auto turbo car to me feels like a rocket taking off. Barely any letup in power once you hit the joy pedal

LandSpeed-DSM said:

You say bulletproof at first and now you are looking at a 2.6 build?

Those two things don't appear to reconcile.

Long rod 2.4 would be the option I would go with in this case. Displacement of the 2.4 with a better rod angle. Or a 2.1..

Click to expand...

Or just go with a long rod 2.1

We built a 2.4 long rod in our shop Evo 8 there is a couple different things that you have to do to make it work.. other then that it will bolt right in.. The torque on a stock 16g is insane. We will be getting our numbers on this setup in a couple of weeks once our new dyno is installed. So far this engine by far is my favorite and we have yet to have a problem with it.

The basic premise for doing the 2.6 is to get the maximum natural power from the engine to back up the turbo, instead of the other way around. Think of a 1.6L vs a 5.7L as a drastic example. The larger displacement engine will not have to work as hard to get the rewards from the turbo. 'Efficiency' may be the best word to describe it. I disagree with the idea of putting LARGE turbos on small engines. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm working with a Precision Turbo SC61. So it's kinda big for my liking, but with the increased displacement, it should spool the way want. I've not built a DSM yet, or any 4cyl for that matter, so I'm excited to push the limit a lil bit.

Even if it blows apart the first time, it'll be fun Once I get the parts collected I'll start the build journal.

Taylon said:

The basic premise for doing the 2.6 is to get the maximum natural power from the engine to back up the turbo, instead of the other way around. Think of a 1.6L vs a 5.7L as a drastic example. The larger displacement engine will not have to work as hard to get the rewards from the turbo. 'Efficiency' may be the best word to describe it. I disagree with the idea of putting LARGE turbos on small engines. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm working with a Precision Turbo SC61. So it's kinda big for my liking, but with the increased displacement, it should spool the way want. I've not built a DSM yet, or any 4cyl for that matter, so I'm excited to push the limit a lil bit.

Even if it blows apart the first time, it'll be fun Once I get the parts collected I'll start the build journal.

Click to expand...

Yes, most of us understand how displacement affects things. But you seem to be neglecting many other aspects.. like the added stroke required, how that affects piston speed, dwell and bearing wear, what rod angle that leaves you with.. the proper cam in terms of ramp, lift, duration, LSA, etc. because a 2.6 stroker will "soak" up more of a given 2.0 oriented cam than even a 2.3 stroker would.

The 2.6 is going to have different turbine wheel/housing needs as well as how much sooner that greater engine demand flow will catch up with what the turbo can move at a given PR.

The list goes on. If your stuck on displacement.. go LR2.4

2.6 liter four cylinder sounds awesome! That is more cubic inches than some v6s I have seen im interested to see this.

LandSpeed-DSM said:

Yes, most of us understand how displacement affects things. But you seem to be neglecting many other aspects.. like the added stroke required, how that affects piston speed, dwell and bearing wear, what rod angle that leaves you with.. the proper cam in terms of ramp, lift, duration, LSA, etc. because a 2.6 stroker will "soak" up more of a given 2.0 oriented cam than even a 2.3 stroker would.

Click to expand...

I understand this, and I didn't explain that for the people who already knew, but to enlighten everyone WHY I want to do this build. But you just raised a point I honestly hadn't realized I over looked. All the aftermarket performance parts are based of the 2.0L. Hmm... well this WILL be an adventure after all! That's pretty heavy now that you helped me see that. Thank you sir.

The 2.4 will give you more than enough torque to have a great summer time toy. Trust me I run one and will never go back to a 2.0

The only way I would ever consider stroking the 64 out would be if someone would make a good billet crank for it. I wouldn't trust any of the cranks in the 2.6 "kits" I've seen on the market.

Jmonet1620 said:

The only way I would ever consider stroking the 64 out would be if someone would make a good billet crank for it. I wouldn't trust any of the cranks in the 2.6 "kits" I've seen on the market.

Click to expand...

The crank in the BC kit is billet. And I must ask, why wouldn't you trust them? It's the rods I worry about...

I guess I just believe in quality parts and BC doesn't meet my standards.