2.0 vs 2.3

[1glaserfwd]

I would like some opinions on the 2.3 and reliability, I've just lost my 3rd stroker to another early life failure. I feel like maybe the 2.3 just isn't meant to work as well as the 2.0. Granted all 3 strokers I've had were previously built and I ran them as is, they were all fresh never ran. This most recent failure was 800 miles in. Car made 600whp and ran a few 10.8@133 passes and a ton 11.0-11.2's. I'm just considering going back to the good ole 2.0. The center main bearing spun, everything else looks fine with all the other bearings. Upon pulling it apart Pistons look like shit as well as the cylinder walls.

Just looking for people's input on if a 2.3 can be as reliable as a 2.0 if assembled correctly. Thanks guys

 

[donniekak]

What kind of rpms? Stock 6-bolt 100mm crank? The stock cranks aren't heavy enough for high rpms and tend to tear up the mains from flopping around.

In my experience, the stroker engines are better for a 400-500hp street car with killer torque. Spinning them up over the stock redline of the 2.0 starts tearing up the Pistons, and cylinder walls. I know others have made them work at much higher power and rpm, I just don't usually see it working out like that.

 

[spoolin ddub]

A engine not abused to shit should not fail in 800 miles. Sounds more like a machine shop issue or a terrible tuner. just saying.