2.3 stroker or 2.0? Pros-Cons

[dsm_ftw]

So I have read several articles and debates on whether or not to stroke an engine. Most of the arguements seem to be based on the breathability of the stroker engines. I want to create a list of pros and cons between the 2.0 and the stroked 2.3.

2.3L Stroker Pros
1. More Displacement. Almost 18% more displacement.
2. More low/mid range torque.
3. More tolerant of aggressive cams.
4. Faster spool up.
5. Higher effective compression ratio.
6. More tolerant of timing advance and lower octane fuel.

2.3L Stroker Cons
1. Higher native harmonic imbalance.
2. More sensitive to engine balance.
3. Lower RPM potential from higher piston friction from side loading and velocity.
4. Higher tension loads on rods, both in tension and bending.
5. Volumetric Efficiency drops off at lower RPM’s than 2.0L

If there is anything else you can think of please list them.

Sources:

http://www.kidzuku.com/StrokeOrNot.pdf
and TunaTalon for giving me the link.
The PDF has a whole list of sources to back this information and instead of listing those I decided to link the PDF.

 

[TunaTalon]

Yes the velocity profiles of the 2.3L and 2.0L are different. Yes the piston speed going down from TDC is higher for a stroker, (and that is a good thing in a NA engine for pulling air in).

But the total time in milliseconds, that the intake valves are open are the same for each version. With forced induction both versions have the same time per cycle to flow air.

Another negative about air flow for a stroker is that there is less valve area per cylinder volume. With the stock 2.0L the sonic choking wall will come at a higher RPM and will hit more gradually.

But what do I care? My Talon is a DD street car, and if the valves ever experience sonic flow it will probably be on the last day of my life. Last minute?

 

[mitsu-luver]

if torque is whats wanted then there are plenty of ls1 powered vehicles out there. i think the 2.0 should be appreciated for its top end power and not modified to make a little more torque in the low end. be happy for the power thats gonna hit you higher in the rpm range. all the guys running 2.0l are the winners. my personal pick would be the 2.1 destroker that would be the bomb. keep those crank angles down and rev to the moon.

 

[dsm_ftw]

Another thing to think about, is a stroker is harder on a tranny to take due to the higher torque if im not correct???

Pretty sure any mod you do to your car will have adverse effects on your tranny. Just something else to think about when you are upgrading. The same can be said for tires, drive shafts, and differentials too.

my personal pick would be the 2.1 destroker that would be the bomb. keep those crank angles down and rev to the moon.

Is that a destroked 2.4?

 

[phunny]

if torque is whats wanted then there are plenty of ls1 powered vehicles out there. i think the 2.0 should be appreciated for its top end power and not modified to make a little more torque in the low end. be happy for the power thats gonna hit you higher in the rpm range. all the guys running 2.0l are the winners. my personal pick would be the 2.1 destroker that would be the bomb. keep those crank angles down and rev to the moon.

With this logic we should build my 1L metro so we can rev sued uber duper fast :/. Buy a RWD LS1 instead of stroking the 2L???, no thanks. Most things said in this post are correct when it comes to airflow is correct, but considering none of these cars are going to the NASCAR track to be ran at 180mph for hundreds of miles I'm sure we'll never notice any negative effects of stroking. Except maybe when the tranny decides to eat itself . After having 6 un-stroked dsm's and switching a a 2.3 stoker I'll tell you I'm never looking back. The power and availability is unmatched by the 2.0.

 

[crusada]

Another thing to think about, is a stroker is harder on a tranny to take due to the higher torque if im not correct???

You are correct ive seen stroker motors the 2.3s blow a shep stage 3 apart. So a Tranny is a big deal with the strokers you gotta put a decent amount of money in it.

 

[dsm_ftw]

With this logic we should build my 1L metro so we can rev sued uber duper fast :/. Buy a RWD LS1 instead of stroking the 2L???, no thanks. Most things said in this post are correct when it comes to airflow is correct, but considering none of these cars are going to the NASCAR track to be ran at 180mph for hundreds of miles I'm sure we'll never notice any negative effects of stroking. Except maybe when the tranny decides to eat itself . After having 6 un-stroked dsm's and switching a a 2.3 stoker I'll tell you I'm never looking back. The power and availability is unmatched by the 2.0.

Most people here are not going to be on a nascar track, however, I am looking to build my car right the first time. I dont want to have to rebuild the bottom end again and honestly am a little scared of the adverse affects of the stroker. I have read about them in many places, but find no time frame of when said effects occur. Just seems more logical for me to build the 2.0 and not worry about the problems.

 

[cliffkemp]

Yes the velocity profiles of the 2.3L and 2.0L are different. Yes the piston speed going down from TDC is higher for a stroker, (and that is a good thing in a NA engine for pulling air in).

But the total time in milliseconds, that the intake valves are open are the same for each version. With forced induction both versions have the same time per cycle to flow air.

Another negative about air flow for a stroker is that there is less valve area per cylinder volume. With the stock 2.0L the sonic choking wall will come at a higher RPM and will hit more gradually.

But what do I care? My Talon is a DD street car, and if the valves ever experience sonic flow it will probably be on the last day of my life. Last minute?

true. very true.

It's really the reciprocating forces that are greater on a stroker, not the rotational forces. In any event the greater stress on components don't cause a loss of power. Until they break, then there's a lot less power.




Yep, yep, right you are.



The stroker's tolerance of lower octane fuel is due to the different velocity profile of a lower rod ratio engine. With the lower rod ratio of the 2.3L the piston is farther down from TDC and already moving faster than for a stock 2.0L at the same crank angle. With the piston farther down and moving faster, detonation is less likely.



Yep, yep, right you are.

It is both forces due to one being dependant on the other. The piston is going at a greater speed and has more kenetic energy to over come with each direction change. This in turn makes the stroker less efficient due to how hard the engine has to use energy to keep turning at a specific speed.

There is so much that could be tried on this and any engine though.

 

[phunny]

Your car and completely up to you, but I think you may be basing your decision off information that will never affect you. My car has been up to 204 mph so if it's top end you think you are losing... Mine does agave a taller 5th gear also.

 

[Calan]

Where in the world did you get your car up to 204mph?

 

[phunny]

Where in the world did you get your car up to 204mph?

That would be Jeff Bush, my testies aren't that large :/

 

[Calan]

ahhh... gotcha.

 

[mitsu-luver]

With this logic we should build my 1L metro so we can rev sued uber duper fast :/. Buy a RWD LS1 instead of stroking the 2L???, no thanks. Most things said in this post are correct when it comes to airflow is correct, but considering none of these cars are going to the NASCAR track to be ran at 180mph for hundreds of miles I'm sure we'll never notice any negative effects of stroking. Except maybe when the tranny decides to eat itself . After having 6 un-stroked dsm's and switching a a 2.3 stoker I'll tell you I'm never looking back. The power and availability is unmatched by the 2.0.

like i said if your torque hungry get a v8. i think its the thrill of being put in your seat instantly is what everyone wants. The 4g63 was made a 2.0l therefore it will perform its best at its designed displacement. This is just my opinion, and this has been proven numinous times by the fastest dsms out there. high power is what i am after not a jolt till 5k then the car falls flat on its face and its time for the next gear. higher rpm the faster the car will go in any gear. i just say this because i do not want to be that guy complaining because i launched on some one thought i had the race in a bag because i got a big bad stroker kit then that guy comes screaming past me half way down track. the truth is the way your engine is going to perform has everything to do with how fast it can move air. the more air you can bring in and move out the higher your engine will rev and the more power it will make. your internals need to be strong and light as possible. thats my 2 cents.

 

[phunny]

like i said if your torque hungry get a v8. i think its the thrill of being put in your seat instantly is what everyone wants. The 4g63 was made a 2.0l therefore it will perform its best at its designed displacement. This is just my opinion, and this has been proven numinous times by the fastest dsms out there. high power is what i am after not a jolt till 5k then the car falls flat on its face and its time for the next gear. higher rpm the faster the car will go in any gear. i just say this because i do not want to be that guy complaining because i launched on some one thought i had the race in a bag because i got a big bad stroker kit then that guy comes screaming past me half way down track. the truth is the way your engine is going to perform has everything to do with how fast it can move air. the more air you can bring in and move out the higher your engine will rev and the more power it will make. your internals need to be strong and light as possible. thats my 2 cents.

No really sure what you're wanting to say. Why get a v8? And I'd venter to say that the 2.3 will throw you back in you seat much harder than the 2.0. I'm really not sure how you are coming up with the strokers are not going to to be able to move enough air...

 

[TSIMonsteR]

like i said if your torque hungry get a v8. i think its the thrill of being put in your seat instantly is what everyone wants. The 4g63 was made a 2.0l therefore it will perform its best at its designed displacement. This is just my opinion, and this has been proven numinous times by the fastest dsms out there. high power is what i am after not a jolt till 5k then the car falls flat on its face and its time for the next gear. higher rpm the faster the car will go in any gear. i just say this because i do not want to be that guy complaining because i launched on some one thought i had the race in a bag because i got a big bad stroker kit then that guy comes screaming past me half way down track. the truth is the way your engine is going to perform has everything to do with how fast it can move air. the more air you can bring in and move out the higher your engine will rev and the more power it will make. your internals need to be strong and light as possible. thats my 2 cents.

You sir, have never ridden in a properly set up stroker,

 

[phunny]

You sir, have never ridden in a properly set up stroker,

Exaclty. Clearly the cars that rev higher always win . Well except for the diesal in the le mans...

Diesel Wins Respect | Popular Science

 

[TunaTalon]

You sir, have never ridden in a properly set up stroker,

Right you are sir.

DSM's are like dogs. They can be cross bred for many different purposes.

If you want to pull under a fresh green light like a high displacement NA car and still have the hard hit off the corner when canyon carving there are several things that can change the car from the original designers vision.
For example:

Bigger exhaust for faster spool.
Smaller turbo for faster spool.
Upgraded intercooler and piping.
Longer stroke for more displacement and torque.
Higher compression ratio for more off boost power.
Cams optimized for low/mid range for more off boost power. (264/264)
Higher stall (4300 RPM) torque converter for less time spent at low RPM.
Adjustable cams gears set to move the torque curve down.

My Talon has all of the above and drives like a Good Olde V8 chugging around town and still acts like a modified DSM with double the OE horsepower when driven hard.

Happy tuning.

 

[D's GS-T]

I think Kiggly has a 2.3 and has one of the fastest DSMs out there. They won't fall on their face after 5000 RPMs or anywhere near that unless you have something wrong, and a 2.3l will put you in your seat, I don't know why you think a 2.0 would be at that . The 2.0 is better at alot of things, and the stroker is better at others. Both have went crazy fast, and faster than 95% of people will ever go. Both motors will go through trannies if your putting down power.

 

[ricericebaby]

I think Kiggly has a 2.3 and has one of the fastest DSMs out there.

I was just going to say that. Kiggly runs a stroker in his fwd auto that is knocking on 7's...

He also revs higher then most do in their 2.0's

 

[mitsu-luver]

No really sure what you're wanting to say. Why get a v8? And I'd venter to say that the 2.3 will throw you back in you seat much harder than the 2.0. I'm really not sure how you are coming up with the strokers are not going to to be able to move enough air...

I didn't say it wouldn't move enough air. i said thats what makes power. The highest performing engines in Motorsports have a high rev capability thus producing more power correct? or am i wrong? please tell me. how come a honda 1.8l engine can produce 190 horespower at 10,000 rpm and a turbo charged 2.0 can only produce 210 at about 7,000? thats because the honda engine has a much high rev limit. its all about personal preference. almost every tuner is going to turn towards the stroker motor due to its capability to produce more torque and bring you on boost faster (this is what makes you say "HOLY COW" big deal....)
My theory is that there are many other ways and methods to reducing turbo lag and increasing torque. it is a fact! that the increased angle that the connecting rod and crankshaft experience in a STROKER motor will DECREASE the limit at which the engine can rev SAFELY. These drag cars taking stroker motors to a high rev are doing so because the engine only runs for 8 SECONDS! they will do anything to make the vehicle move faster even if it means doing something that is not reliable.... I have proved a point, now you can either be a follower and make everything bigger to make your car go faster. or you can use technology and science to make your car perform better.

 

[D's GS-T]

The cars are proven to perform great either way. Just pick what you like best.

 

[phunny]

I didn't say it wouldn't move enough air. i said thats what makes power. The highest performing engines in Motorsports have a high rev capability thus producing more power correct? or am i wrong? please tell me. how come a honda 1.8l engine can produce 190 horespower at 10,000 rpm and a turbo charged 2.0 can only produce 210 at about 7,000? thats because the honda engine has a much high rev limit. its all about personal preference. almost every tuner is going to turn towards the stroker motor due to its capability to produce more torque and bring you on boost faster (this is what makes you say "HOLY COW" big deal....)
My theory is that there are many other ways and methods to reducing turbo lag and increasing torque. it is a fact! that the increased angle that the connecting rod and crankshaft experience in a STROKER motor will DECREASE the limit at which the engine can rev SAFELY. These drag cars taking stroker motors to a high rev are doing so because the engine only runs for 8 SECONDS! they will do anything to make the vehicle move faster even if it means doing something that is not reliable.... I have proved a point, now you can either be a follower and make everything bigger to make your car go faster. or you can use technology and science to make your car perform better.

Is there a reason you keep bringing "race cars" into this thread?

 

[ricericebaby]

O and did anyone notice kiggly pulled a better 60ft then shep did? Just pointing that out...

 

[sprmotohooligan]

My theory is that there are many other ways and methods to reducing turbo lag and increasing torque. it is a fact!

*edit*

I have proved a point, now you can either be a follower and make everything bigger to make your car go faster. or you can use technology and science to make your car perform better.

Please enlighten us on this technology and science you speak of AND I would love to here this THEORY of yours that also happens to be a FACT .

Using the argument that horsepower increases with rpm's all else constant really is neither science nor technology, its merely presenting restating the relation between horsepower and torque.

Also, what is this point you have so cunningly proved? That racing cars have a lot of horsepower due to their high rev limits?? Congratulations Sherlock, you have solved the internal combustion era mystery that has been nagging engineers for decades. High rev counts by definition produce more power, doesn't mean that it is necessarily better.

For instance, ever ride a Ducati/V-twin sport bike?? How is it that despite their lack of horsepower but slightly increased displacement, they are still competitive with what-by your argument-is a much more superior 1000cc inline four screaming along at 14K rpms?

 

[mitsu-luver]

Please enlighten us on this technology and science you speak of AND I would love to here this THEORY of yours that also happens to be a FACT .

Using the argument that horsepower increases with rpm's all else constant really is neither science nor technology, its merely presenting restating the relation between horsepower and torque.

Also, what is this point you have so cunningly proved? That racing cars have a lot of horsepower due to their high rev limits?? Congratulations Sherlock, you have solved the internal combustion era mystery that has been nagging engineers for decades. High rev counts by definition produce more power, doesn't mean that it is necessarily better.

For instance, ever ride a Ducati/V-twin sport bike?? How is it that despite their lack of horsepower but slightly increased displacement, they are still competitive with what-by your argument-is a much more superior 1000cc inline four screaming along at 14K rpms?

you must be the "situation" i also stated that this is my opinion everyone has different methods to making horse power. by the way Ducati's v-twin cant compete with honda or yahmaha 4 cyl bikes. This is fun

 

[gyd23]

+1 on the 2.3 stroker
IMO there's more available options and a wider range of power available with it.
in the end its all up to you and what your looking for.