2.0 LR vs 2.1

[dsmornothing]

Alright, there is hardly anything to be found on here about the 2.1 and what I could find was very poor information. Now I understand the 2.1 has better rod angles and a better ratio which improves its higher RPM durability. Now I was also reading on the 2.0 Long rod. This motor seems to have some of the same benefits to the 2.1 but cheaper to build. Just wondering if anyone on here actually runs either of these motors and how they perform face to face.

 

[dsmtun3r98gst]

What???? from what car??? if your reffering to a factory 2.1L stock dsm engine... there ain't..

 

[snowborder714]

You get a 2.1 by using a 2.4 block with a 4g63 crank.

I can't say I've ever heard of someone running either of these.

 

[dsmornothing]

You get a 2.1 by using a 2.4 block with a 4g63 crank.

I can't say I've ever heard of someone running either of these.

Wow, I wonder what the reasoning behind this is. They seem like they have great potential. They are a bit pricey to build but still.

 

[PieEyedPiper]

The only reason that all of us aren't running a LR 2.0 or something more exotic is just that. It's exotic, therefore, expensive. Besides, a stock bottom end can see 450+ so why bother, right? At least that's the mentality. That and people just weren't aware of these things 5 years ago when the majority of us built our cars. It seems DSMTuners peaked in 2005-6ish and likely, the cars themselves as an enthusiast vehicle also had peaked by that time.

If I ever have to do it a LR 2.0 will be on the table.

 

[delta448]

There are a few guys with the 2.0 LR who post here. I've not come across anyone running the 2.1L yet. The 2.0 LR is so much cheaper because it's a completely off-the-shelf setup; stroker pistons and 156mm rods.

The 2.1L requires custom order extra long rods, and with the purpose of a 2.1L being what it is, anyone building one is probably going to use the lightest weight rods and pistons they can afford. The cost of that build will soon escalate to the point where you'll ask yourself, can I get by with a little less optimized and more general setup? (And that's where the LR 2.0 comes into mind.) Another issue with a 2.1 destroker is the increased bore of the 2.4 block used, which adds more of the ultimate enemy of this exotic engine: additional rotating assembly mass.

Both of these engines are capable of making big power in an elevated rpm band. Not many build a 2.1L simply because it's not really necessary to completely maximize their setup in order to reach their goal. The extra cost is hard to justify when the other cheaper option does the same things you'd ask of it almost as well. The money could be better spent on a spare built trans to swap in the first time you miss-shift at 9500+ rpm, or when that huge turbo boost spikes and strips all the teeth off of 4th gear. Or even a spare race head for when you find out what valve float is all about.

 

[phunny]

^^^great reply . My favorite was the 3rd half of the 2nd paragraph rofl

 

[ViciousLord]

If only longer rods were available for the 6 bolt, i'd build a LR 2.0.

 

[Ppayer38]

I was just talking with a friend about these as he was saying a LR 2.0 and 2.1 and I was like HUH???

I am getting ready for a built right now and this really has me intrested in doing a LR 2.0.
Any more info on these things as far as internals or block work go would be great!

 

[91stocker]

Personally id go 2.3 for ease of build, price, and added displacement for base % of more airflow and to help spool larger turbos off the line.

Pushing the powerband higher in the rpm range just makes the car peaky and less street-able. Besides kiggly spins his 2.3 to 9k+. He also pulls a better 60ft then shep...

 

[phunny]

Personally id go 2.3 for ease of build, price, and added displacement for base % of more airflow and to help spool larger turbos off the line.

Pushing the powerband higher in the rpm range just makes the car peaky and less street-able. Besides kiggly spins his 2.3 to 9k+. He also pulls a better 60ft then shep...

I promise if you 2.3 you'll never go back

 

[1990AWD]

Just to clarify, the 2.0LR uses 2.3 stroker pistons, 4g63 crank, and what length of rod? I'd love to do this build.

 

[dsmornothing]

Just to clarify, the 2.0LR uses 2.3 stroker pistons, 4g63 crank, and what length of rod? I'd love to do this build.

156mm Rods where as the 2.1 uses 162mm rods.

Alright, this thread is getting kind of good. But say someone like me who really was not concerned about spooling a huge turbo since its only a gt35r. The benefits of the 2.2 2.3 or 2.4 really do not help me at all. I can imagine that a well setup LR 2.0 or 2.1 could put out some massive torque and HP numbers. On a 10:1 build a high strung motor like these would be insane.

 

[delta448]

Any more info on these things as far as internals or block work go would be great!

I'd recommend against a 2.1 unless you have a specific reason you don't want either a LR 2.0, 2.2, stroker, or 2.4. If you use the car as a track car only, you are planning on using a very large turbo and you are willing to dump copious amounts of cash into the car as a whole, particularly valve train and drive line, then by all means. Who am I to tell you how to best blow your money? While you're at it, why not drop in a chromoly crank and titanium rods.

I'd recommend a 2.2 or LR 2.4 over a really serious LR 2.0 build as well, depending on application. The only reason to do a LR 2.0 is budget. If you're rebuilding your 2.0 already and don't really feel compelled to spring for a bigger crankshaft, source a 2.4 block, etc., then a LR 2.0 makes some sense. Lighter pistons meant for a 2.3 stroker and a set of 156mm rods and you're good to go.

The only reason to need to spin at really high rpm levels is to move a certifiable shitload of air by using a basketball sized turbo that doesn't want to spool until sometime tomorrow afternoon so that you can still salvage any resemblance of a normal powerband. If your 42R spools at 5500 and you don't have to shift until 10k, you still have a 4500 rpm width to your powerband. That's like having the same size powerband as a turbo that spools at 3500 if you always shift it at 8000. And that's probably a smaller example of the turbo size you should be looking at to make a 2.1L necessary.

 

[ViciousLord]

On a 10:1 build a high strung motor like these would be insane.

this!

with Evos I've seen it done on 93, granted it's not safe but it is doable, on E85 i'd go higher on the compression... I have a spare 6 bolt block with a 2g head sitting on my porch, i'm dieing to do a LR with 9.5:1 pistons... But like I said before no one makes longer rods for a 6 bolt, unless you're willing to go with aluminum rods.

 

[white92talontsi]

You can spin a 2.0 with a good valvetrain and good bottom end parts to near 10,000 anyway.
Why waste money in a Long Rod Setup?

 

[RvlutionMtrsprt]

If only longer rods were available for the 6 bolt, i'd build a LR 2.0.

They are. I've sold plenty of them. 156mm and 162mm. Aluminum and steel.

 

[dsmornothing]

It seems as though im getting many bias opinions. What if I were to say I have no budget, and already have the trans to back it up? And even if this trans goes my next plan is a dogbox. This car will mostly be on the street. And before you all go bashing a dogbox saying its not streetable, thats not true. In all honesty I could build this motor for around 3-4g which right now to me is no big deal. I want good reasons as to why the 2.1 is not a good setup. Sure you might not beable to wind out 11k on the street for the majority, but even so It wouldnt need that kind of RPM to make the power.

 

[white92talontsi]

If the car is going to be a street car go stroker. If the car is destined for track use only then either stay 2 liter or go 2.1.

 

[dsmornothing]

Again, Everyone is giving me opinions with no facts to back it up. Why are so many evo's making big numbers running long rod motors? I understand the whole stroker thing to help spool the turbo. But im not running a big enough turbo to have alot of trouble spooling it.

 

[RvlutionMtrsprt]

You can make big numbers on any 4g63 setup if it's built and tuned properly. Build whatever you want to build. My beefs with high revving setups are 1) stock oiling system is subject to much higher failure rates when run above 8,000rpm and 2) the transmission just doesn't like to shift at those rpm's either. I guess if budget isn't a big deal you should get a dry sump setup and a dogbox then build whatever motor you want and rev it as far as it'll allow you.

 

[ViciousLord]

You can spin a 2.0 with a good valvetrain and good bottom end parts to near 10,000 anyway.
Why waste money in a Long Rod Setup?

A Long Rod setup is faster at BDC range and slower at TDC range

They are. I've sold plenty of them. 156mm and 162mm.

link. Now!

 

[dsm_ftw]

A Long Rod setup is faster at BDC range and slower at TDC range



link. Now!

meaning, there is less internal friction allowing you to rev at 10k rpms with more peace of mind.

 

[bastarddsm]

The long rod motor will be able to rev higher and make more top end with proper cams/intake. It will also make less torque, meaning you can make more power on a mitsu gear set. But it won't want to shift, so you'll need a faceplated gear set like the one dogbox racing sells.

The stroker will build way more torque than the LR motor. To make big power with this you'll need a Magnus or shep dogbox, or else you'll be replaceing 3rd gear, intermediate shafts, and center diffs quite often.

The stock gearbox hates life above 450 lb*ft. Since hp =torque*rpm/5252, there are two ways to get big power. Big torque, or big RPM. One way kills gears, the other kills synchros. Take your pick.

 

[delta448]

It seems as though im getting many bias opinions. What if I were to say I have no budget, and already have the trans to back it up? And even if this trans goes my next plan is a dogbox.

That's great that you have the money. And you'll need a dogbox to shift consistently at over 10k rpm. But why do you need to go with a 2.1 when a LR 2.0 does as much with less?

This car will mostly be on the street. And before you all go bashing a dogbox saying its not streetable, thats not true.

If you can put up with a dogbox on the street, then I imagine you'll be fine with the other headaches.

In all honesty I could build this motor for around 3-4g which right now to me is no big deal.

I seriously doubt you can truly build it the right way for very much less than $5-6k. It will demand precision beyond all else, especially in balancing. Not all machine shops have equipment to precision balance to over 11k rpm. And that's just the shortblock. If you can, more power to you and good luck.

I want good reasons as to why the 2.1 is not a good setup. Sure you might not beable to wind out 11k on the street for the majority, but even so It wouldnt need that kind of RPM to make the power.

Nobody said it wasn't a good setup, in fact it's a very good setup, but really it's optimized for something most will never use it for. You could build a different engine that would meet most people's goals better, and probably yours too. Especialy for something you're going to see stoplights with.