2.3L 2.4L Stroker Questions

[Turblown]

So I've done some of research on stroker rebuilds and the various options that interest me:

- 2.4L Crankshaft in the 2.0 Block = 2.3L

OR

- 2.4L Crankshaft in the 2.0 Block Bored out = 2.4L

I would rather not have to completely remove the engine to get the job done, which you obviously have to do if you have the block bored. So my questions are:

Is it possible to remove the crankshaft with the engine in the car?

If you have done this before (removed the crankshaft while the engine was in the car) would you do it again or recommend to remove the engine completely?​

Thanks for all the help!!

-Turblown

 

[97GS-TSpyder]

ive never tried...but judging the cranskaft is all of like 2 feet....im gonna say no....just put it on a lift and drop the motor from the bottom.....

but if it were me id do the 2.3l
just my 2c if you wanna know why let me know...i have a huge email from a guy that might build mt stroker motor ....but the 2.3 puts more stress on parts than the 2.0 a huge amount of it apparently

 

[Turblown]

Anything you could send me would be great! Thanks.

 

[Tatanko]

What kind of stress exactly? Could things be upgraded to compensate for this? I assume you mean like the valvetrain and stuff.

 

[97GS-TSpyder]

apparently the way it was explained to me is that with the longer bore and stroke with the 2.4 stuff there is more shearing stress making it a higher likelyhood of throing up a piston nor rod. and it multiplies at higher rpms....he reccomended that for an actuall drag setup to go with a built 2.0 bored like 20 over because the tolerances of higher RPM is better .....even with forged parts you sitll will run into this over time. im workin on tryign to find the emails man....i saved em somewhere
but hte motor im looking to build is near 8 or 9 thousand dollars....its a few year project

 

[97GS-TSpyder]

After taking time to think things through pretty thoroughly for your
drag motor project, weighing the pros and cons of both the 2.0L and the
2.4 L engines, I have come to see the 2.4 platform as a better choice
for this project.

With the intended goals for the project of 10 second or lower passes, I
feel the extra torque of the 2.4 platform will be a better choice in
making that a reality, while operating at a decreased stress level on
the equipment itself, compared to the 4g63 2.0L engine.

For a 4g63 capable of cutting the times your after, the engine will need
a rev capability of 9000 + RPM with a tranny capable of handling shifts
at this RPM level also.

My thoughts are that the 2.4 hybrid assy. will get us to the necessary
level of HP production, with an increased torque capability, yet at a
lower overall RPM requirement, more on the order of 8000-8500 RPM.

This decrease in overall top end revs required, even at only 500-1000
RPM less, will save a lot of stresses on the valve train and
transmission, making this a more dependable package overall.

While it's quite an achievement to have a car capable of the times your
after, it's even better when it does so with better overall
dependability, leading to decreased operating expenses and a heightened
joy in owning / running such a vehicle :>)

To achieve this goal with a 2.4 platform engine, the only extra
considerations necessary within the engine build itself will be the use
of custom length longer rods and requisitely shortened pistons, which
will help with the higher piston acceleration speeds the 2.4s longer
crank stroke incur when compared to the 2.0 motors. It may also mean a
clearancing operation within the blocks interior to accomodate the
longer rods, but this is certainly nothing major, or out of the
ordinary, and will in no way decrease the engines strength. This is a
common operation in many custom engine builds.

The other consideration necessary will be in the tranny build, where my
nod will be in using the straight cut "Dog Box" gear sets Magnus, and
several other top notch tranny builders have begun offering.

This gear set will handle the chores of managing the heightened torque
output the 2.4 engine platform is so well known for producing. This
tranny set up will also allow for improved 1320 times, since it's
designed for totally clutchless shifts once you launch off the line !

Below is a list of the basic build parameters for the shortblock
assembly that will be needed as a starting point for this program.

G4CS 6-bolt 2.4L block (balance shaftless)

G4CS lightened and recontoured forged steel crankshaft : eliminating
8lbs. of the cranks reciprocating mass which allows for quicker revving
/ boost production. The recontouring operation will consist of
modifying the crank throws lead and trailing edges to allow for smoother
passage of the crank through the oil in the bottom end.

Custom crank scraper : this simple old school $50 device helps decrease
the parasitic windage losses of the cranks rotation in / through the oil
in the oil pan.

Custom length Pauter forged rods

Custom height Wiseco 9:1 forged and ceramic coated pistons : the ceramic
heat barrier coating applied to the piston domes adds both efficiency to
the combustion process by contaning more of the heat energy produced in
the combustion process, which serves to keep the exhaust gas temperature
higher, while also helping keep the exhaust gas velocity higher, leading
to improved turbo spool up.

A secondary benefit of the ceramic heat barrier coating is its
heightened level of detonation protection when compared to an uncoated
piston of the same construction. Ceramic coated pistons are capable of
on the order of 10X the detonation protection, which can be extremely
beneficial during the tuning in process.

A secondary ceramic oil receptive coating is also applied to the pistons
skirt areas to assist in the pistons ability to retain a protective oil
barrier layer between the piston skirts and cylinder bores, again adding
a slight margin of additional protection, which is always a plus!

Clevite oil receptive ceramic coated rod and main bearings

ARP main studs

ARP head studs

Toga high volume oil pump assembly : helps keep a higher volume of oil
flowing over the engines internal parts, while reducing the excessive
oil pressures commonly found when running balance shaftless with the
stock Mitsu oil pump in the higher RPM ranges your engine will be
spending the majority of its time at.

GNB water pump

6-bolt oil pan with -12 or 16 AN male bulkhead fitting for easy
attachment of a custom -12 or-16 AN turbo oil return hose assembly
(depending upon the turbo used), and easing turbo removal or
installation operations.

Custom lightened front balance shaft drive sprocket : eliminates
1-1/2lbs. of excess rotating crank mass when not using balance shalves
in an engine, again accentuating revability and turbo spool up.

We can talk more after you have a look at the above build list and then
can proceed on to the head assy components and necessary supporting
hardware.

this is one of the emails....basicalle some of the parts and stuff he reccomends for a good build....my goal is to build a motor and not have to break it open for broken parts...i want a "reliable" i.e. 6 or 7 month no break down sub 11 second car for the track....im shooting for near 550 ot 600 horsepower. im going with the 2.4 only because i want to do it....but you can make the same power with the 2.0 he told me its just a little more fine tuning and bogger turbos and stuff

 

[97GS-TSpyder]

After taking time to think things through pretty thoroughly for your
drag motor project, weighing the pros and cons of both the 2.0L and the
2.4 L engines, I have come to see the 2.4 platform as a better choice
for this project.

With the intended goals for the project of 10 second or lower passes, I
feel the extra torque of the 2.4 platform will be a better choice in
making that a reality, while operating at a decreased stress level on
the equipment itself, compared to the 4g63 2.0L engine.

when he says decreased stress levels...the 2.0 will have to have a higher compression and other parts to make it make the power.... not the same problem that 2.4 would have over time with the shearing stress

 

[Just Nasty]

From my understanding a built 2.0 will hit RPMs much higher than a stroked 2.3 or 2.4, so that makes it true that the inertial loads for the 2.0 will be far higher than a stroked 2.3. Making the 2.0 more applicable for wear and tear/engine stress.