2.0L Advantages?

[krummel21]

I guess everyone keeps talking about all the advantages of a stroker. My question is is there any real advantages to the 2.0l other than cost? It can rev higher more safely but doesn't this hurt the transmission (not sure) and whats the advantage to that? What are some advantages.

 

[90laserRSfwd]

Are you trying to get answers to why the 2.0L is better then the stroker? I'm a little confused...

 

[krummel21]

Yea thats it. Just wondering if there was any.

 

[TunaTalon]

Stroking or de-stroking the 4G63 changes the nature of the beast. Whether the changes are advantages or disadvantages depends on your viewpoint.

I have documented my research into the Stroke Or Not decision. For more than you really want to know about the technical aspects of 4G6X piston dynamics please see http://www.kidzuku.com/StrokeOrNot.pdf.

 

[krummel21]

Yea I've read that a couple times. Really good stuff. Just wanted peoples opinions on why they would chose a 2.0L or stroked.

 

[dsm-onster]

at the same piston speed, the stroker draws about 10% more volume flow. See Displacement for various combinations of bore and stroke. What that means that when the internals of each are pushed, the stroker at it's rpm limit still has enough volume to flow more than the non-stroker at its rpm limit. . . Rpm limit being maximum safe limit for each. Safe limit for 2.0L seems to be around 9K for a built block. And a safe limit for a stroker seems to be around 7.8K for a built block.

 

[GS-T_Newboost]

for my setup i am not going to stroke just because i like the idea of shifting at 9k and killer 3 gear pulls. strokers build more power off of less amounts of boost but generaly known to not have the lifespan of a nonstroked motor

 

[TunaTalon]

My stroker design made all compromises in favor of low end/ mid range torque. I even installed a 4200 RPM stall torque converter. I am enjoying the immediate punch when the light goes green.

However, to answer your question; I miss the rambunctious nature of the 2.0L when it finally came on a boil. While the 2.3L builds power all the way to red line, and even more power than the T-25 could ever push out, there is no hard rush to reward winding it up. Immediate reward is not bad though.

My car suits me fine. You have the opportunity to build your car to suit you. Go for it no matter what other people may think is "better".

 

[krummel21]

When I rebuild my bottom end I'm pretty munch leaning for the stroker and I have been for a while as you can see in my parts wish list. I just wanted a thread where people with 2.0L could explain why they stayed 2.0 after a major rebuild and/or what the people that have strokers miss about the 2.0. All the other threads just talk about the stroker and why they chose that route.

Krummel21

 

[Defiant]

for my setup i am not going to stroke just because i like the idea of shifting at 9k and killer 3 gear pulls. strokers build more power off of less amounts of boost but generaly known to not have the lifespan of a nonstroked motor

God, please stop doing that to your engine. There's no payoff in revving that high..... unless you consider wiping the babbitt off your bearing surfaces a payoff.

 

[90laserRSfwd]

I would recommend the stroker set up. I like the idea of a little more torque a little sooner in the power band. There's not really going to be a lot of real world info out there showing why one is better then the other. They are pretty close. You can rev the stroker to 10K and the 2.0L to 10K also. It just depends how long you want the motor to live. How much power do you want to make?

 

[erald01]

well the stroker engines do tend to kill transmissions unless you have a build one. so if you are considering of stroking your engine you better consider your trans and a better clutch.

 

[90laserRSfwd]

^^^ thats some good advice right there!

 

[TunaTalon]

well the stroker engines do tend to kill transmissions unless you have a build one. so if you are considering of stroking your engine you better consider your trans and a better clutch.

Good point.
Too often the stroke or not threads are limited to the engine only. However, the DSM is more like a complex system.

More torque needs a stronger transmission and clutch (or torque converter)
With the transmission handling more power, a bigger A/T cooler is needed.
You’re surely not going to leave that olde doggy oil pump on the new stroker, are you?
The stock cams for the 2.0L were never meant for a 2.3L stroker, what’s another $600?
To make more power you will need bigger injectors.
With bigger injectors you will need some sort of fuel control to handle the extra flow.
If you really want the extra fuel flow for the injectors you will need a bigger fuel pump.
Some air for the bigger injectors would help, so get a bigger turbo,.
That big turbo can’t flow through the stock pipes, but that’s ok Dejon has bigger pipes.
Those big I/C pipes don’t like dead ending at the old doggy SMIC, so buy a bigger intercooler.
Now that the engine is making more power it’s rejecting more heat so get a radiator upgrade.
Are you worried about the tune on your pride and Joy? More gauges and a bezel.

Tune? Who’s going to tune this thing anyway.

Enjoy. It’s all good.

 

[outkastracing]

very well put so what i got out of that is get a second job and better be able to do it all your self..

 

[turboglenn]

God, please stop doing that to your engine. There's no payoff in revving that high..... unless you consider wiping the babbitt off your bearing surfaces a payoff.

I tried to prove this same point to a degree when i made a thread about revving past peak power band (a.k.a to 9k RPM)

And yet my thread on the same topic, only came back with replies of "if you've driven a fast DSM with a huge turbo you see the benefits" And i have driven a LOT of fast DSms with huge turbos (much bigger than what i run) But according to the dyno sheets i've seen no one has made their peak power above 8k Best i've seen is high 7's for peak power,

I say stoke it! The 1200 RPM you gain by staying 2.0 , IMO wouldn't match the benefits of a broader and higher over all power curve. The only reason i'm 2.0 is when i built my last block, stroker kits were still very expensive and only 2 people made them (magnus and FFWD i believe)

 

[TunaTalon]

8000 RPM is a magic number for the 2.0L 4G63. That's where the velocity through the valves reaches .51 mach. Above that number volumetric efficiency drops off fast until the hard wall of sonic chocking is hit at about .6 mach.

Once the flow through the valves hits about 60% of the speed of sound it's chocked. Raising the boost will spend more energy making shock waves but does not increase the air flow. Any engine is ultimately limited by the air velocity through the valves.

For the 2.3L stroker the .51 mach number is reached at 7000 RPM but that's ok that's where my A/T shifts anyway.

 

[JOEY A]

well the stroker engines do tend to kill transmissions unless you have a build one. so if you are considering of stroking your engine you better consider your trans and a better clutch.

Thats a bunch of stroker hating bullshit right there


Strokers are the way to go for a street car, and if you have the extra cash its a great idea


Makes the car more drivable with a better power ban, everyone seems to think since they own a DSM they are going to build some race car out of it and become shep

 

[turboglenn]

very good info TunaTalon, I knew i wasn't crazy or missing anything relevant to engine theory, i was just still waiting on some one to prove they made peak power over 8k RPM (without nitrous either, but not sure if even that can be accomplished.)

 

[TunaTalon]

Whoa there turboglenn. You still have a chance to be crazy even if you were right about that point. At least you can keep trying. Mental stability is not all it's cracked up to be.

And yes nitrous changes the math. All of the calculations in my http://www.kidzuku.com/StrokeOrNot.pdf document are based on air and good old gasoline. Nitrous allows more energy to pass through the valves at the same velocity.

However if nitrous was injected before 9000 RPM the wall would come at the same RPM but at a higher HP.

 

[krummel21]

I guess this may be a noob question but by reving to 8 grand is that not hard on the tranny? If so could a stock tranny do this no problem?

 

[T is for TURBO]

If your reving 8k on a stroker, destroker or stock stroke, you will want to build the trans. more torque=more stress, same goes for revs, more revs=more stress.

One more thing people haven't mentioned about strokers is that the more agressive crank angle is harder on bearings. I'm not saying this to scare you away from the stroker, as many people have proven the stroker time and time again, but it is something the think about.

-Shawn

 

[neoviper]

God, please stop doing that to your engine. There's no payoff in revving that high..... unless you consider wiping the babbitt off your bearing surfaces a payoff.

Than I think you need to let John Shepherd know that because apparently he's doing something wrong revving it passed 9k.

Just Kidding

Seriously though, please don't hurt me

 

[dsm-onster]

Tuna, this is good info. Have your mach calcultions take into consideration temperature? Since a boosted car commonly exhibits higher intake charge temp, the speed of sound in the intake manifold is faster. This is one reason why boosted systems do well with shorter runner intakes.

The c of an intake charge at 60*F is 1117.974 ft/sec. The c of an intake charge at 160*F is 1220.81 ft/sec. Of course, pressure has no effect on c, but that is almost a 10% increase in c.

Also, I think a wet shot would drastically lower that "wall" because c would drastically drop. But, a few around here have added a wet kit a seen a rise in power all the way to 8K. No head work .

Bigger valves seam to help greatly with 8500+ rev limits. Of course then, that's not stock 4g63.

 

[delta448]

If your reving 8k on a stroker, destroker or stock stroke, you will want to build the trans. more torque=more stress, same goes for revs, more revs=more stress.

Definately.

One more thing people haven't mentioned about strokers is that the more agressive crank angle is harder on bearings. I'm not saying this to scare you away from the stroker, as many people have proven the stroker time and time again, but it is something the think about.

Yes it is much harder on bearings than a 2.0 if you rev it to 8k. Unless you are planning on doing that pretty often however, I think the bearings will be fine. Stock 4G64 (2.4L) uses the same length stroke crankshaft and same rod length as the 2.3L, 4G64s seem to hold up well enough when they aren't rediculously abused. My 4G64 had ~143K on it when it was pulled from a totalled '03 Galant. Upon teardown and inspection, the bearings all looked pretty damn good.