2.0L vs. 2.2L

[rstare]

So, Im deciding, 2.0L (rebuilding my engine with forged internals) or 2.2L. I want to hear your guys positives and negatives on both.
Obviously your going to get more power out of the 2.2L but I hear strokers dont rev as high. Also relilibilty, will the 2.2L hold up over time? And cost, is the 2.2L really worth the extra amounts you pay for it?
Either way it would be 8.8:1 compression forged internals, stock crank (since I hear the things a beast). And it will be running a turbo.
My reason for asking is that I am deciding whether I should just rebuild my block or get a stroker, and I want to hear your guys opinions.

 

[FLASH1970]

I think it all depends on what your plans for the car are. What size turbo you plan to run? How high do you plan to rev it? If you just want a quick car with a 16g, 20g... I'd say just stick with a 2.0 and spend the money on other mods. If you plan to build a track monster running a 35R or bigger turbo, go with a 2.3 stroker. Also, if you were to autocross the car, I'd say go with a stroker.

 

[erald01]

You also have to count the transimission when you building a stroker because the trans will take a beating.

 

[99RedGs]

So, Im deciding, 2.0L (rebuilding my engine with forged internals) or 2.2L. I want to hear your guys positives and negatives on both.
Obviously your going to get more power out of the 2.2L but I hear strokers dont rev as high. Also relilibilty, will the 2.2L hold up over time? And cost, is the 2.2L really worth the extra amounts you pay for it?
Either way it would be 8.8:1 compression forged internals, stock crank (since I hear the things a beast). And it will be running a turbo.
My reason for asking is that I am deciding whether I should just rebuild my block or get a stroker, and I want to hear your guys opinions.

Good question. I have been contemplating this same thing. I want to do this one time and I want to do it right so I look forward to these answers

 

[rstare]

You also have to count the transimission when you building a stroker because the trans will take a beating.

Our trannies can take just about any beating we can throw at them as far as I hear. Mark says the only problem he has is speed shifting above 7.5k.

Any transmission shop can rebuild your transmission. There's nothing particularly special or upgradeable about the NV-T350.

Get a Quaife if you're worried about the differential exploding, and you can install that yourself.

The main complaint seems to be (at bigger power levels) there is a nylon bushing that wears down and there is some talk about fixing that situation. But again, that is high rpm shifting (8k and above).

MB

At bigger he was referring to 400+whp, (I was asking him in another thread)
--->http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/420a-drivetrain-tech/306314-rebuildin-tranny.html#post151599241
Theres the thread if you want it

So, I would say with a few minor mods to the tranny it will be fine.

 

[rstare]

I think it all depends on what your plans for the car are. What size turbo you plan to run? How high do you plan to rev it? If you just want a quick car with a 16g, 20g... I'd say just stick with a 2.0 and spend the money on other mods. If you plan to build a track monster running a 35R or bigger turbo, go with a 2.3 stroker. Also, if you were to autocross the car, I'd say go with a stroker.

I dont know if you noticed, but this is a 420a forum, fyi. So the stroker is 2.2L not 2.3L. (I dont know what the stroker size is for the 4g63)
Most people with high power 420a's use a t3/t4 or something with a external wastegate. I dont think I have every heard of anyone using a 35R on a 420a.
If anyone has, I want to see!
But you did make one very good point, that I previously made, which was the money part.
How much more power are you going to get by getting 2.2L more?

 

[FLASH1970]

I dont know if you noticed, but this is a 420a forum, fyi. So the stroker is 2.2L not 2.3L. (I dont know what the stroker size is for the 4g63)
Most people with high power 420a's use a t3/t4 or something with a external wastegate. I dont think I have every heard of anyone using a 35R on a 420a.
If anyone has, I want to see!
But you did make one very good point, that I previously made, which was the money part.
How much more power are you going to get by getting 2.2L more?

My bad. I missed the whole 420A part. I think the biggest advantage will be spool up time seeing that the 2.2 has 10% more displacement. I'd go with a forged 2.0 and spend the money elsewhere on injectors, fuel management, fuel pump, cams, valve springs, maybe a little nitrous... Getting a stroker kit and getting it machined can easily cost you a grand more than building a 2.0 engine. T3/ T4 refers to the exhaust housing on the turbo. Not necessarily the size of it. What is your hp goal?

 

[99RedGs]

I dont know if you noticed, but this is a 420a forum, fyi. So the stroker is 2.2L not 2.3L. (I dont know what the stroker size is for the 4g63)
Most people with high power 420a's use a t3/t4 or something with a external wastegate. I dont think I have every heard of anyone using a 35R on a 420a.
If anyone has, I want to see!
But you did make one very good point, that I previously made, which was the money part.
How much more power are you going to get by getting 2.2L more?

Actually we can have a 2.4 stroker, and I believe at one point Howell made a 2.7, but it had some pretty bad rod ratios. Read up on 2gnt to find out more about it.

People have run a 35r on the 420a. The 420a is the same displacement as a 4g63 and can spool the 35r just like it.

 

[rstare]

Actually we can have a 2.4 stroker, and I believe at one point Howell made a 2.7, but it had some pretty bad rod ratios. Read up on 2gnt to find out more about it.

People have run a 35r on the 420a. The 420a is the same displacement as a 4g63 and can spool the 35r just like it.

Holy crap, I had heard of the 2.4L a while back, but a 2.7L?? Geeze... I'll check out Howell's site.
I realize the engines are the same displacment, and I didnt say it couldnt be done I just havent ever seen it. This is pretty much the only site I go for dsm's at all, so I dont get the knowledge from everywhere (which would be more benefical) but I do have a 2gnt account. Ill look around somemore, cause I want to see this 35r on a 420a.

My bad. I missed the whole 420A part. I think the biggest advantage will be spool up time seeing that the 2.2 has 10% more displacement. I'd go with a forged 2.0 and spend the money elsewhere on injectors, fuel management, fuel pump, cams, valve springs, maybe a little nitrous... Getting a stroker kit and getting it machined can easily cost you a grand more than building a 2.0 engine. T3/ T4 refers to the exhaust housing on the turbo. Not necessarily the size of it. What is your hp goal?

I know t3/t4 referes to the turbine housing, but I was using it just to give you the idea that most people dont use 16/20g's on 420a. The only t3 16g I know is hahns. So, sorry to confuse you.
Im planning on running a gt3076r or something similar once I get the bottom end built.
400+hp for the final goals.
Spool up time, is a very good point, especially when running a turbo like a 35r. I'm not planning on going that big, so spool up time will still be pretty good on the 2L.

I started this thread with the idea on using a built 2L and wanted to see if I would be conviced otherwise and now I am leaning even more towards the 2L.

 

[99RedGs]

I honestly don't think anyone runs a 2.7 anymore, or maybe no one ever wanted to deal with running it, but here is a link I found with a quick search.

Team 2GNT Forum - Viewing topic #64911 - How does the 2.4 attain the the extra .3 litres for the 2.7

My end goal was somewhere around 400whp, but the thing that sucks is I keep reading about how hard it is to get there. Im hoping it is one of those things where it is personal opinion. What is hard for one person may not be for another. Im not being cheap with my build, but I am hoping this platform can DD 350+ without a million problems. From the sounds of it we have just about the same idea as far as set up goes. I just don't want to dump 7k into this motor and then find out I'm only going to run 300 whp.

 

[rstare]

Thanks for the link, and I know exactly what you mean. I have already pumped too much into it to not keep going. Im practically turbo, I have all the parts and its 50% installed, working on it about every other day. And now im looking into Msns to deal with the timing issue....More money...
But in the end it will be pretty awesome.
I pulled up to a "meet" or w/e you want to call it. (Bunch of people with imports getting together to hang out) and instantly everyone saw the fmic. First question to me was.. gst or gsx? It felt pretty awesome saying gs honestly. Because its not common, especially to be putting down 350+whp.
-Off topic and now back on (Sorry)

 

[all_motor_mike]

typically when u stroke a motor u shorten the rod and increase the stroke and in some stroker kits the wrist pin on the piston will be moved a little further up on the skirt. when all that happens it changes ## engine dynamics......... the rod/stroke ratio gets lower meaning u put more load on the cylinder walls, espically under boost and high rpm usagae and ## pitston speeds get higher which can cause rod bolts to let go and cause catastrophic engine failure. a 2.4 already has a 4" stroke so at 7000 rpms piston speeds are way the hell up there. im f the opinon to build the stock motor with its very good rod to stroke ratio and small strok which will allow u to rev really high and be pretty safe. and a 35r would be an awesome turbo on a 2.0.


mike

 

[Locke]

Here is Maurice's (TunaTalon) white paper on the differences between various 4g63/4g64 configurations. The engines are different, but the principles are the same.

http://www.kidzuku.com/StrokeOrNot.pdf

Everybody should memorize it.

 

[all_motor_mike]

Here is Maurice's (TunaTalon) white paper on the differences between various 4g63/4g64 configurations. The engines are different, but the principles are the same.

http://www.kidzuku.com/StrokeOrNot.pdf

Everybody should memorize it.

damn tht guy should have made a book and sold it like the chevy gen 3 books or the honda go fast books u know.............. i didnt read it but i skimmed through real quick and right in thst first few paragraphs it basically says what i said above............... brilliant! props to that guy for being as smart as he is and laying it all down on paper for everyone to learn from.


mike

 

[Locke]

Yeah - it goes over the common sense stuff, such as how rod angle, and piston acceleration effect maximum rpm, but also gets into more esoteric subjetcs such as second order harmonics, and their effects.

You really ought to read it through, Mike.

 

[rstare]

Thanks Locke and Mike, thats a big help

 

[all_motor_mike]

Yeah - it goes over the common sense stuff, such as how rod angle, and piston acceleration effect maximum rpm, but also gets into more esoteric subjetcs such as second order harmonics, and their effects.

You really ought to read it through, Mike.

oh im going to i just skimmed through it last night real quick before i got off work.



mike

 

[barza21]

I dont know if you noticed, but this is a 420a forum, fyi. So the stroker is 2.2L not 2.3L. (I dont know what the stroker size is for the 4g63)
Most people with high power 420a's use a t3/t4 or something with a external wastegate. I dont think I have every heard of anyone using a 35R on a 420a.
If anyone has, I want to see!
But you did make one very good point, that I previously made, which was the money part.
How much more power are you going to get by getting 2.2L more?

ask me in about 8 more months and I will tell you what a 35r feels on a 2.0...

I already build my engine, and am dropping it into the car in the following 2 weeks.

the 2.2L idea came to my head also, but I came to the conclusion that the extra money is not worth the extra grand (approximation), I just went with a long rod set up and a fully ported head...

think about 400 whp on a fwd, we already have traction issues with 200 whp, so the lag that will come with the 35r should help you with the times down the quarter mile.

 

[dsm-onster]

So far off topic. . . but not really. This is about the changes brought on with running a longer stroke which was mentioned. There may not be as much difference in the forces exerted on the rods as calculated in that otherwise excellent article. And thus, a stroker could get away with much more rpms than suggested, assuming you have the properly 'opened up' head for the task.

Why? Now, I really like the article Maurice wrote! Thorough and concise. I just had one question after I read it but I forgot to bring it up (it was so long ago). If you change the piston weight to what the real stroker motor has (which is around 300g), isn't the margin of difference in tension for the rods between the 2.0L and stroker greatly reduced? The difference in the tension force is the main reason folks stick with a 2.0L motor. Kiggly, the stroker expert IMHO, mentiones the stroker piston weighing in at 300g and the 2.0L piston weighing in at 345g, because of the difference in height of the piston. He says when the right number is put in for the stroker piston the offset in rpms for a stroker goes down where the stroker motor and 2.0 motor have the same tension force on the rods/rodbolts. He says that at 9K for the 2.0L motor, the same tension force is exhibited as the stroker at over 8600rpms. That's less than 400rpms difference between the two motors for that aspect, which I think is the primary reason why guys are so indecisive when looking at the stroker option. Of course, you'll want larger valves for the stroker at that rpm.

 

[chris712vt]

damn those are some heavy pistons! four pistons weigh almost as much as the entire car!!! 300Kg is like 650lbs

 

[dsm-onster]

A$$! . . . Joking . Yes, I really mean grams not kilos

 

[TunaTalon]

... If you change the piston weight to what the real stroker motor has (which is around 300g), isn't the margin of difference in tension for the rods between the 2.0L and stroker greatly reduced?

Sure enough when I was researching for the StrokeOrNot document Wiseco did not have the weights specified for all of their pistons. I have not changed the document because there are many possible pistons weights available. Out of rational design or lazy rationalization the piston weights were left the same for stroked or not so that the calculations would show the difference due to the stroke not due to the weight.

Lighter pistons are always better until they break.

 

[1slow97]

I'm running the stroker setup and love it....

 

[Slippi84]

The only people I have ever talked to that didn't like strokers or changed from them were making 700whp or over and said it was because they were unreliable...of course whn you make that much power shit happens. If you can afford to stroke a motordo it. If you can't don't skimp and get a crapy stroke motor just stick with stock 2.0 but if you can go for it Matter of fact I would go long rod 2.2

 

[dsm-onster]

Sure enough when I was researching for the StrokeOrNot document Wiseco did not have the weights specified for all of their pistons. I have not changed the document because there are many possible pistons weights available. Out of rational design or lazy rationalization the piston weights were left the same for stroked or not so that the calculations would show the difference due to the stroke not due to the weight.

Lighter pistons are always better until they break.

That's fine and totally understandable. The document is great. It's still a very fair and indepth comparison. I was wondering if you had another reason for quoting the same weight. That's all. I am tossing around the 2.4 stroker or swapping in an entire 4g64. So another thing to note here is with any brand piston you choose, the stroker version is lighter. The 2.4 piston is NOT. The stroker 4g63 is a better option. So it looks like stroker for me.