Come on man we both know you can't compare two dynos from two diffrent cars with two diffrent setups and prove anything.

Rick@AP said:

There is a very good reason that AMS is putting 2.x in the EVO's and making 988whp as opposed to trying to do the same with the 2.0l engine.

Click to expand...

And that is more of a street car then shep how???? If you want to say that shep isn't a good exapmke don't use a evo with a turbo setup where the turbo poits out the front bumper like a drag car with no filter. With that car stone chips = destroyed $2k turbo

Slippi needs to learn how to read compressor maps. My experience: 34 lb/min @ 21psi on a 2.0 and 38 lb/min @ 18psi on a 2.4. On the 2.0 the airflow climbed and peaked at 33 lb/min by 7.1k rpms. I see 38 lb/min from 5.5-7k rpms on the 2.4. The power delivery is more linear and less peaky.

And please stop the "400rpms" faster statements; you havent been there. My turbo doesnt just "spool faster", it also flows more air at lower boost settings.

A turbos "sweet spot" has nothing to do you RPMs. At a given pressure ratio and flow rate, a turbo operates at a certain efficiency. Larger turbos operate more efficiently with larger motors and vice versa (at a given pressure ratio). A 50 trim is know as the "pump king" because it stays in a very efficient portion of the compressor map for a 2.0. If you graph a 2.4 on a 50 trim compressor map, the line shifts to the right (more airflow) and away from higher efficiency islands. This is the reason I plan on getting a larger turbo.

http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/march05/nerds/
http://www.lovehorsepower.com/MR2_Docs/compressor_flow_maps.htm
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/dis...ommonProtege&sectionParameter=session2&bhcp=1

My "sweet spot" is 3,300-7,000 rpms. When I reach 7,000 RPMs and shift into the next gear, Im IN my sweet spot. The power delivery is more linear and less peaky.

I agree that 0.4L is not much to gain, but when you only have 2.0L to start with the extra displacement is significant.

No, you cant just slap on a 2.4/2.3 and expect huge gains, but the gains will be there.


Any 2.3/2.4 owners out there unhappy with their power delivery?

Turbocharged said:

Swapping to a 2.4/2.3 shifts the power band up (more power) and to the left (lower rpms).

Click to expand...

you totally lost me what do you mean to the left ?

STECARS said:

you totally lost me what do you mean to the left ?

Click to expand...

He means instead of having a powerband of 4k-8k it is now 3k-7k it moves your power band lower in the rpm range but what he just doesnt seem to want to grasp is that no matter what he says it still comes down to rpms.


As long as your turbo setup a 2.0l will be able to rev to areas where a stroker won't safely. I can get a race trans build and change some valve train parts and spinn to 9k I would love to see someone try that in a stroker. On a more realistic note the average guy makin real power with a dsm is spinnin to 8-8.5k with a 2.0l the average stroker guy doesn't go past the stock rev limiter. I'm happy you made more power with your stroker *clap clap clap* that doesn't mean that a stroker is better for everyone. A true tuner sees the benefits and downsides of every option not just the options he chose. I have a love my 2.0l that doesn't mean I think strokers are a waste or aren't useful, but when you say strokers make better street engines that's your opinion not fact. What makes a good street car to you might not be a good street car to the next guy. Why can't we all just boost and focus on beating other kinds of cars instead of arguing over .3 liters.

Slippi84 said:

He means instead of having a powerband of 4k-8k it is now 3k-7k

Click to expand...

if this is so It cant help me I need/want the most power/torque around 2k-6k rpms or even better 1k-6k

Slippi84 said:

it moves your power band lower in the rpm range but what he just doesnt seem to want to grasp is that no matter what he says it still comes down to rpms.









I have a love my 2.0l that doesn't mean I think strokers are a waste or aren't useful, but when you say strokers make better street engines that's your opinion not fact. What makes a good street car to you might not be a good street car to the next guy. Why can't we all just boost and focus on beating other kinds of cars instead of arguing over .3 liters.

Click to expand...

Very well put Simply depends on what everyones goals are
Also I bet I can build a 2.0 better than a 2.3 and 2.4 and 2.3 better than a 2.4 and 2.4 bettr than a 2.3 etc...............
All This talk is a waste becuase it all depends on the internals . Cylinder head transmision. and turbo not just the block or crank

It would be great when one of the Vendors or popular DSM shops come and say something here. Maybe shep could tell as why he went 2.0l insted of stroker... I know, I would appriciate it a lot...

Probably has something to do with gearing. A 2.3/2.4L would make the same power on his car at lower rpms and he needs to pull to 10k in 4th to be able to hit his trap speeds.

mirkoelek said:

It would be great when one of the Vendors or popular DSM shops come and say something here. Maybe shep could tell as why he went 2.0l insted of stroker... I know, I would appriciate it a lot...

Click to expand...

Sorry man, I don't think anyone really wants to give away formulas.

So I guess it comes down to:

"My motor can rev to infinity"
vs
"Mine is bigger than yours"

Turbocharged said:

So I guess it comes down to:

"My motor can rev to infinity"
vs
"Mine is bigger than yours"

Click to expand...

I think the best comparisson would be if we would put two same cars one with 2.0l and 2.4l both with dynoed 500whp to race ..... What do you think who would win the race

mirkoelek said:

I think the best comparisson would be if we would put two same cars one with 2.0l and 2.4l both with dynoed 500whp to race ..... What do you think who would win the race

Click to expand...

Irrelevant even if its same driver for both cars. What are the chances you can pull 2 identical back to back runs with the same car .......

The problem is not many people max out their setup and then jump to the next one everyone just keeps adding and changing parts before they get a feel for what their car can really do with it's present mods. With that said 90% of the people that will come on and say that they like strokers better have never run the same setup with same attention to tuning as they did with their old 2.0l setups. Hell most guys throw a bigger turbo on as soon as they get a stroker and then it's not even close to compariable

You can tune your 2.0 to perfection.It will never have the hp or torque of the 2.3 or 2.4 and off boost will always be lousy.You can improve the 2.0 a bit with higher compression.the 2g are a bit better off boost then the 1gs due to the higher compression.

In the end the 2.3 or 2.4 are better street turbos and many cars have gone very fast with them.So what if Shep likes 2.0s? Shep is one example of a very very fast stip car.And yes he might drive it around but betting its massively laggy on the street.

With the new eagle forged crank taking care of a last possible weak link in the strokers there is no reason to not build one. Wanted to rev your motor to the moon is likely not a very good reason unless you prefer a dirt bike powerband.

I will very likely never go back to 2.0s.Had two of them and not very impressed around town. I am not a track star so my cars go to the track very very rarely. But I drive thru traffic and around town everyday.I can't still say from personal experience if I will like my new 2.4 .It should be fired up today or next few days. I am quite confident though that it will impress me in every area..on boost, off boost,etc. Of course not expected it to impress like my twin turbo trans am likely will with its monster 7.0 litres.

Ok, i think this would help... When i was on the phone with Shep couple months ago i was curious and asked how big is his turbo and where he can see the full spoolup. I dont remember exactly the size of the turbo, but the full spoolup is around 7K . So, I think this would clear a lot of stuff in this tread. We know that street driven car wont like to see full spool up at 7k, which means turbo that Shep has on his car is not what most of us looking for. If you gonna build car just for the track, then that would be way to go. I know its sound funny, bigger turbo smaller engine: Like most of here agreed that 2.3/2.4 cant rev to high. Lets say with 2.4 that turbo would spool around 6500rpms, but he has to shift around 7500. So in the car with that much power you wouldnt have time to shift, regardless if you have a dogbox. To make this stuff look better, put 2.0l rev from 7-11K and problem solved. As Turbocharged said you have to match engine size with size of the turbo, this only apply for street driven cars.

AL92 said:

You can tune your 2.0 to perfection.It will never have the hp or torque of the 2.3 or 2.4 and off boost will always be lousy.You can improve the 2.0 a bit with higher compression.the 2g are a bit better off boost then the 1gs due to the higher compression.

In the end the 2.3 or 2.4 are better street turbos and many cars have gone very fast with them.So what if Shep likes 2.0s? Shep is one example of a very very fast stip car.And yes he might drive it around but betting its massively laggy on the street.

With the new eagle forged crank taking care of a last possible weak link in the strokers there is no reason to not build one. Wanted to rev your motor to the moon is likely not a very good reason unless you prefer a dirt bike powerband.

I will very likely never go back to 2.0s.Had two of them and not very impressed around town. I am not a track star so my cars go to the track very very rarely. But I drive thru traffic and around town everyday.I can't still say from personal experience if I will like my new 2.4 .It should be fired up today or next few days. I am quite confident though that it will impress me in every area..on boost, off boost,etc. Of course not expected it to impress like my twin turbo trans am likely will with its monster 7.0 litres.

Click to expand...

I think you mean 2.3l e/t/l's make better street cars and not better turbos

Second like I said before show me one person that has gone fast in a stroker i'll show you three that have gone faster in a 2.0l. Check the top 1/ mile times very few strokers and a lot of 2.0l's. If a stroker was SO much better then why doesn't every swinging dick that builds an engine do it?? It's not like it cost that much more if at all to do a 2.3 build over a built 2.0 build. WHatever slight diffrence in cost there is would be nothing to somoen droppin 2-3k at once anyway. Face it stroker guys your strokers are great and def superior in ways but they are not the end all for all dsm guys.

Slippi84 said:

I think you mean 2.3l e/t/l's make better street cars and not better turbos

Second like I said before show me one person that has gone fast in a stroker i'll show you three that have gone faster in a 2.0l. Check the top 1/ mile times very few strokers and a lot of 2.0l's. If a stroker was SO much better then why doesn't every swinging dick that builds an engine do it?? It's not like it cost that much more if at all to do a 2.3 build over a built 2.0 build. WHatever slight diffrence in cost there is would be nothing to somoen droppin 2-3k at once anyway. Face it stroker guys your strokers are great and def superior in ways but they are not the end all for all dsm guys.

Click to expand...

First off we have been building 2.0's alot longer than 2.3's. Everybody started out with the 2.0 and most people are not going to get rid of there good running 2.0 just to get a 2.4.

Secondly thru the history of building fast cars most people that built/bought strokers wanted them for street use and not the 1/4 mile, because the extra rpms will help a drag car.

So your statement of show me one and I'll show you 3 has no meret.

I do agree with you they are not for everyone. Some people like to brag about the size of there motor while others like to brag about how high it revs.

snox135 said:

First off we have been building 2.0's alot longer than 2.3's. Everybody started out with the 2.0 and most people are not going to get rid of there good running 2.0 just to get a 2.4.

Secondly thru the history of building fast cars most people that built/bought strokers wanted them for street use and not the 1/4 mile, because the extra rpms will help a drag car.

So your statement of show me one and I'll show you 3 has no meret.

I do agree with you they are not for everyone. Some people like to brag about the size of there motor while others like to brag about how high it revs.

Click to expand...

Ok then i'll take what you said. You say we have been building 2.0's for longer and that the only reason people aren't building more is because they're newer. If that's the case why doesn't mitsu put a 2.3 in the new MR's??? I mean they obviously have the money and resources to build it if it's that much a better street car which is the goal of thre evo right to be a econo box ideal street car. Obviously it has to be pretty dam good to stcik with it for 13 years.

Slippi84 said:

Ok then i'll take what you said. You say we have been building 2.0's for longer and that the only reason people aren't building more is because they're newer. If that's the case why doesn't mitsu put a 2.3 in the new MR's??? I mean they obviously have the money and resources to build it if it's that much a better street car which is the goal of thre evo right to be a econo box ideal street car. Obviously it has to be pretty dam good to stcik with it for 13 years.

Click to expand...

I think you should cool down bro....

mirkoelek said:

I think you should cool down bro....

Click to expand...

"Bro" I'm cool trust me. All I asked is if the stroker is such a hands down better street engine why isn't in the ideal performance street car?

You asked why mitsu doesn't put a 2.3 in the Evo. The fact that the wrist pin protrudes into the oil ring land on the 2.3 piston probably makes it a crappy production piston. It might use more oil and possibly end up with worse emissions, both unacceptable in production cars.

To do a proper 2.4 they'd have to go with a 4g64 block. That will entail a few changes like new timing belts, cam gears (I guess these are already in their parts bin), might not fit great in the engine bay cause of the extra height, etc. Do they have the resources to pull it off? Yes. But I think the main reason is that on a production engine they'd have to lower the redline to keep reliability in check for the lifetime of the car. Customers might look upon this negatively (like many of you do), even though it would be more drivable and/or make more power. Look at the redline on an SRT4. Just because some guys wind strokers to 9k+ doesn't mean the engines will do that happily for 1-200k miles in a production application.

So yeah, it might not be the best way to go in a production car, but that doesn't mean it's no good for our purposes.

Slippi84 said:

"Bro" I'm cool trust me. All I asked is if the stroker is such a hands down better street engine why isn't in the ideal performance street car?

Click to expand...

No you do need to calm down a bit. We get it YOU don't think strokers are that great, but you have gone from making good arguments to just throwing all kinds of crap out there. Let people take what you have said and make a decision on there own. If you keep ranting your credibilty in this thread will fall and people reading might not look at your other points.

Mitsu also doesn't put 50 trims on EVO's and they have the resources to do that as well so should we all just run 16G's variants and be done. What mass produced cars do for Joe Shcmoe is VERY different that what we as enthusiast do. Just like the Shep argument the "what mitsu does" argument is just as lame and pointless.

Slippi84 said:

Ok then i'll take what you said. You say we have been building 2.0's for longer and that the only reason people aren't building more is because they're newer. If that's the case why doesn't mitsu put a 2.3 in the new MR's??? I mean they obviously have the money and resources to build it if it's that much a better street car which is the goal of thre evo right to be a econo box ideal street car. Obviously it has to be pretty dam good to stcik with it for 13 years.

Click to expand...

The Evo's are built for one reason rally racing. The WRC mandates a 2.0l engine.

boostedinaz said:

No you do need to calm down a bit. We get it YOU don't think strokers are that great, but you have gone from making good arguments to just throwing all kinds of crap out there. Let people take what you have said and make a decision on there own. If you keep ranting your credibilty in this thread will fall and people reading might not look at your other points.

Mitsu also doesn't put 50 trims on EVO's and they have the resources to do that as well so should we all just run 16G's variants and be done. What mass produced cars do for Joe Shcmoe is VERY different that what we as enthusiast do. Just like the Shep argument the "what mitsu does" argument is just as lame and pointless.

Click to expand...

My statments are no more opinionated than the guys that think strokers are the end to all for everyone. I have not called names nor have I disrespected anyone I have stated that I think strokers are great and that I have even considered builing one before. As long as I am posting within the rules and being cool I see no reason why I can post my opinion just like others are posting there's on the topic. You guys are takin my comments in the wrong light I respect and ecknwoledge your side I'm just trying to bring up topic related points that will make other people think and decide for themselfs. If people don't speak up then these forums turn into group buys

Simply put... Strokers are worthless for AWD guys for one reason. if you are really into drag you will have tons of drivetrain problems with 2.3l engines. They cause too much power down below. There are several guys who either are here or on newengdsm who have switched back because they were sick of blowing out axles and xfer cases.

That plus the fact that 2.3l engines limit the power band. For anyone looking to run a strait drag car high revs is where you want to be which the 2.0 engine allows you to do better.

A 2.3l engine will give you higher HP but give you the problems that come with that power. I mean it probably make a nice street or road race car but for the drag which most of us concentrate on. Its not the top choice.

And yes as it is said the 2.0l engine is a mandatory for certain ammount produced to be in the WRC. The 2.5 STi was only released in the US when it came out and now is in europe. In Japan the STi is still a 2.0l engine car to meet WRC requirements. The 2.5l engines are also crap from what I understand. There have been several people with blown blocks from upgraded turbos. Since 2.5l STi aren't using forged internals.

Edit: If that is true I retract my statement but I have heard about various STis blowing their blocks on upgrading to a bigger turbo. If you had an explaination for that that would be great.

As for 2.5l engines. If you can prove that there are 2.5l Stis that have run anything better than the 2.0l Japanese STi or any 2.0l turbo that would be great. Define capable? Capable compared to what we do or capable for that engine? There are tons of STi owners out there and very few that run compared to the EVOs or DSMs. Its another 2.0 vs 2.3. In drag its been proven that the 2.0 is more proven