2.3l better than 2.4l?

[Strm Trpr]

I'll start by saying all of these kits will only work in 7-bolt blocks.

The 2.4L Stroker Kit is used in a 4G63 block with a 102mm stroke crankshaft, 150mm rods and pistons that have the wrist pin pushed up 7mm well into and above the oil ring land.
Rod to stroke ratio is 1.47.

The 2.5L Stroker Kit is used in a 4G64 only!
It uses the 102mm stroke crankshaft, 156mm rods and pistons that have the wrist pin pushed up 7mm well into and above the oil ring land.
Rod to stroke ratio is 1.53.

The 2.6L Stroker Kit is used in a 4G64 only!
It uses the 106mm stroke crankshaft, 156mm rods and piston that have the wrist pin pushed up 9mm, well into and above the oil ring land, and possibly into the second ring land.
Rod to stroke ratio is 1.47.

I have read that BC Stroker Kits are made in China.
I have also read, in numerous different occasions, that BC Camshafts have to be degreed in 2* - 3* just to get them straight up.

If that's any indication of what kind of machining tolerance and QC they have, I'd stay away.

You can gather parts for a 2.3L stroker for less than $1200 shipped to your house.

7-bolt 4G64 crankshaft, 100mm stroke - $150 + shipping.
I have a virgin 4G64 crankshaft sitting in my garage right now that I do not plan to use.
Came out of a wrecked, but running 99 Spyder.
Absolutely no scoring on any journals what so ever.
Have a great machine shop give the journals a polish and drop it right in with standard ACL Race Bearings and go.

ACL Race Bearings, both Main and Rods - ~$100 shipped.

7-bolt Scat Rods - $250, on sale now at Race Engineering.

JE Pistons, new Asymmetrical 2.3L stroker pistons - $500.
New asymmetrical design decreases weight and friction from side loading, which we all know 2.3L strokers could use a little help with in that area.

I called Adam at MAP and he told me $500 shipped for 85.5mm 2.0L pistons.
2.3L pistons should be about the same price, or very close.

Less than half the price of anyone of the BC Stroker Kits, and you know it works.

Even if you built a big bad azz 2.6L Stroker out of a 4G64, there isn't a DSM transmission in the world that will be able to handle that kind of torque.
Maybe a Shep Dog Box, but that's copious amount of money, like $8k just for the gear set from PPG.

$1200 2.3L stroker, and never look back!

 

[dacowgod]

The only person I know that has ever tried a BC 2.6 stroker kit is Ebrahim Al.Gattan.. (MR-Beast) on ECMLink forums...he had 4 of them for his four race cars....I believe he used them all of a month or so..he kept cracking cylinder walls and having crazy stuff happen.... granted he is running 9.5x's on a FWD 2g...

 

[Strm Trpr]

^^^ That's right, I couldn't for the life of me remember who has ran these kits.
Damn, 4 of them, that's an easy $14k in rotating assemblies.

 

[dacowgod]

Oh... one more thing...

I spin my 2.4 w/ standard off the shelf Wiseco's and eagle rods to 8500 all the time.... i have over 20K miles on the engine..and have dropped the bearings twice to check for wear and they look brand new so i just put them back in!... I'm making north of 600 AWHP and 550+ Ft lb/tq...


The advantage of the 2.3 is the lighter pistons... therefore a lighter rotating assembly and a slightly higher red-line & quicker rev.... the downfall is they wear out quicker due to the shorter skirts..


The disadvantage to both 2.3 & 2.4 is the added torque takes its toll MUCH quicker on the transmission... I have gone through 3 fully built transmissions in the last 7,000 miles...

 

[Strm Trpr]

Hey Ricky, you ever get that beast back on the road?
Has the 2.4L lost its appetite for DSM Transmissions yet?

 

[dacowgod]

.... Still waiting on that special 4th gear from Shep...so no it is not on the road....honestly...its looking like my black car will never be on the road again... I just picked up Shawn Newswangers(ForcedFour.com) Shell that has been lightened like crazy and has a 10 point cage in it on Tuesday...so I'm going to start swapping parts from mine to it next weekend...

ALSO ...i think I mentioned this to you before...but I got in on that group buy on ECMLink forums w/ the R&R Aluminum long rods....i'm building a long rod 2.0 to try to get some of the torque down and give me some more RPM so I can get off of this HX40..I need something bigger and need a higher rev limit .....

That being said... Anybody interested in fully built 2.4 G4CS block that has proven to hold over 600 AWHP and still strong (188 PSI compression across the board) Kidding for now..but it will be for sale by end of summer I think..

 

[2gmummy]

2.6l! damn thats crazy ^^how often are you at the track? do you lanch a lot or..? i want 2.4l but i definely dont have 4 built tranny money haha

 

[snowborder714]

That being said... Anybody interested in fully built 2.4 G4CS block that has proven to hold over 600 AWHP and still strong (188 PSI compression across the board) Kidding for now..but it will be for sale by end of summer I think..

 

[shleppy]

According to Dave Buschur, "Once the 4g63 block reaches approximately 800 flywheel horsepower, cylinder pressures can split the cylinder wall. The 4g64 block has thicker cylinder walls and once destroked with a 4g63 crankshaft results in a better rod ratio." He now uses a destroked 2.4 motor in his car bad bish. So I guess its not just the mains that are beefier in the 2.4 blocks.

 

[Strm Trpr]

According to Dave Buschur, "Once the 4g63 block reaches approximately 800 flywheel horsepower, cylinder pressures can split the cylinder wall. The 4g64 block has thicker cylinder walls and once destroked with a 4g63 crankshaft results in a better rod ratio." He now uses a destroked 2.4 motor in his car bad bish. So I guess its not just the mains that are beefier in the 2.4 blocks.

Almost all of this post is not accurate.
I can not comment on the cylinder pressures at 800 whp, but I do know this.
The 4G64 and the 4G63 are cast from the same mold.
The 4G64 is 6mm taller.
The 4G64 has 86.5mm bore stock vs the 4G63 at 85mm stock.
4G64's have thinner cylinders walls, not thicker.

David Buschur is now running a Billet 100mm Manley crankshaft, Manley Turbo Tuff 150mm rods and the new asymmetrical JE 2.3L Stroker Pistons.
He is running a 4G63 block.
Bad Bish, episode XXX, picture and new build thread - Page 16 - evolutionm.net

Post 229 has his new untuned dyno plot.

 

[dsm-onster]

I wonder why no one has mentioned reciprocating mass. The 2.3 pistons are smaller in diameter and shorter (which is a negative to turbomonk3y). But because those drastically reduce mass, both of those differences give rise to MUCH less tensile stress on the actual rod bolts, the chief limiter to block revving. Weight and speed kills a motor at high rpms. Lower one and you can get away with more of the other.

 

[SpawnedX]

I wonder why no one has mentioned reciprocating mass. The 2.3 pistons are smaller in diameter and shorter (which is a negative to turbomonk3y). But because those drastically reduce mass, both of those differences give rise to MUCH less tensile stress on the actual rod bolts, the chief limiter to block revving. Weight and speed kills a motor at high rpms. Lower one and you can get away with more of the other.

The rod angularity is what actually limits a block to rev, and the angularity is the same on both the 2.3L and 2.4L if standard rods are utilized. There really isn't any reason to go 2.3 over 2.4 in that instance.

In theory you are correct on the mass of the piston, and according to Magnus that should allow you to rev 500 RPMs over what the 2.4L can do. I highly doubt that, I bet both motors can rev safely to the same levels. The real route one should be going is a 2.4L long rod setup.

 

[shleppy]

Actually Dave did run a destroked 2.1 a year ago-and is now running a 2.3 stroker for increased tq. The quote stands as something he did say while he was experementing with the 2.4 block. He also posted on the high boost forum about bad bish in 09 that he went with the 2.4 block "the ONLY reason I went with the 2.1 this time around was the supposed added strength of the 4g64 block". He goes on from there but I quoted correctly but was wrong about the current motor in bad bish.

 

[dsm-onster]

The rod angularity is what actually limits a block to rev, and the angularity is the same on both the 2.3L and 2.4L if standard rods are utilized. There really isn't any reason to go 2.3 over 2.4 in that instance.

In theory you are correct on the mass of the piston, and according to Magnus that should allow you to rev 500 RPMs over what the 2.4L can do. I highly doubt that, I bet both motors can rev safely to the same levels. The real route one should be going is a 2.4L long rod setup.

I take Marco's theory over your fact any day

Further. I know of the magnitude of tensile stress on the rod bolts. And That for one is why I always love the 6bolt over the 7bolt. Jumproping crank and no girdle and all. They stay together because of the massive rod bolts. And even with MUCh heavier rods. That says alot about rod bolts stamina. Now knowing that rod bolt stamina has muc to do with the forces allied to them. I further agree that it's the small 2.0 pistons that have helped keep those jump roping cranks with their bigger rod bolts together. It's simple.

 

[rlacasse1]

Ok, bringing this one back from it's sleep.

Maybe I am really dumb or just not catching on. But are we still calling a 2.4 block a stroker? Is that the 2.4 stroker that everyone has been talking about in this entire thread?

 

[Strm Trpr]

A 2.4L using a 2.4L block and 2.4L crank is just that, a 2.4L.

It does not become a stroker until you put a larger than 100mm stroke crankshaft in it.

And it becomes a De-Stroker when you use a crankshaft that has a smaller than 100mm stroke.

If my surgery goes well, I'll be building a Long Rod 2.4L.

156mm Pauter Rods
100mm stroke 2.4L crankshaft
Custom JE Pistons with a compression height of 29mm

 

[delta448]

Very interested in the build Chris, make sure to post lots of pictures for all of us.

What model are you sourcing your block from?

But are we still calling a 2.4 block a stroker? Is that the 2.4 stroker that everyone has been talking about in this entire thread?

Did you read the whole thread? Or do you just want clarification?

In every application I've ever seen, it's technically only a "stroker" if the crank has a longer stroke than the one originally in the block you're using, personally I wouldn't call a 2.4 a stroker. In my opinion it's like calling a long rod 2.0L a stroker.

A 2.4 block with a 2.4 crank is still a 2.4, no matter what pistons and rods you throw in it.

I suppose you could overbore a 63 block enough and use a 2.4 crank to create more than 2400 cc's of displacement, but most of us that have been around a little while would still refer to that as your basic 2.3 stroker bottom end, and most of us also wouldn't overbore a block that much.

 

[Strm Trpr]

Very interested in the build Chris, make sure to post lots of pictures for all of us.

What model are you sourcing your block from?

I have a 99 Spyder split thrust 7-bolt 4G64 block and crank.

Get this, I found a shop that will machine the block for Evo Oil Squirters too.

Ultimately I want to build a 2.2L using the following components:

156mm Pauter Rods
94mm Manley Billet Crank
Custom JE Pistons with a 32mm compression height.

That will net me a 1.66 rod/stroke ratio and I should be able to safely rev it to 9k if the need ever arose...

 

[bsbllfit7]

2.3 is more easy to build because of the readily available stroker kits as someone else already mentioned and the 2.4 becomes a much bigger hassle tracking down good used blocks. That being said the 2.4l would definitely net better results than an identical 2.3l setup. Better spool and even more torque. Gotta love the 2.4 Or as old muscle people say there is no replacement for displacement. Only downside is the lower redline because of the rod ratio i believe

A 2.4L using a 2.4L block and 2.4L crank is just that, a 2.4L.

It does not become a stroker until you put a larger than 100mm stroke crankshaft in it.

And it becomes a De-Stroker when you use a crankshaft that has a smaller than 100mm stroke.

If my surgery goes well, I'll be building a Long Rod 2.4L.

156mm Pauter Rods
100mm stroke 2.4L crankshaft
Custom JE Pistons with a compression height of 29mm

are there any stroker kits for the 2.4l?? Like a 2.5 or 2.6?

 

[Strm Trpr]

2.3 is more easy to build because of the readily available stroker kits as someone else already mentioned and the 2.4 becomes a much bigger hassle tracking down good used blocks. That being said the 2.4l would definitely net better results than an identical 2.3l setup. Better spool and even more torque. Gotta love the 2.4 Or as old muscle people say there is no replacement for displacement. Only downside is the lower redline because of the rod ratio i believe

Well when you take a normal 2.4L with 150mm rods and the 100mm stroke crankshaft, you are dealing with a 86.5-87mm diameter piston that has a compression height of 35mm like an OE 2.0L, just larger diameter, more or less.

The pistons are waaaayyyy heavy, like well over 350 grams alone...
Typical 2.3L stroker pistons for a 4G63 have the wrist pin moved up 6mm to acommodate the 12mm larger stroke, (6mm at TDC, and 6mm at BDC) weigh in at around 300 grams.

So removing 50 grams per cylinder of reciprocating mass is a huge benefit.
Even more so than rod/stroke ratio.

You can do this with the 2.4L as well, just run 156mm rods like I plan to do.
Now if I can find a shop that will resleeve my 4G64 so I can run off the shelf 2.3L stoker pistons with a 85.5mm bore instead of 87mm bore, I'd be very stoked.
Not to mention there is also a better selection of head gaskets for the smaller bored block.
Only HG's that I know of for a 2.4L are Cometic, Felpro Perma Torque or the OE DOHC 94' Galant 4G64 HG, and I think Power Enterprise makes a HG for the 4G64.

Are there any stroker kits for the 2.4l?? Like a 2.5 or 2.6?

Yes there are, but they are being phased out.
Check out Brian Crower's site... if it still exists.

 

[delta448]

Nice Chris.

A tall deck LR 2.2L is a sweet setup, you get the torque of a 2.3 with the rev range of a 2.0. With lighter and stronger forged internals and high precision balancing, a 2.2 will sing at a note about as high as any valve train or transmission available can withstand. The very wide power band is an excellent choice for a moderate to big turbo equipped road racer.

 

[Strm Trpr]

A tall deck LR 2.2L is a sweet setup, you get the torque of a 2.3 with the rev range of a 2.0. With lighter and stronger forged internals and high precision balancing, a 2.2 will sing at a note about as high as any valve train or transmission available can withstand. The very wide power band is an excellent choice for a moderate to big turbo equipped road racer.

Yes Sir!
Only thing that sucks is the $1300 price tag of the 94mm Billet Manley crankshaft.

I could go with a 94mm Eagle crankshaft, but why even mess with Eagle when Manley makes a much better product that is lighter, has much better oiling, is nitrided and knife edged.

I would love to run 159mm rods, but since I have the 156mm Pauters I'll rock them.

Plus the wrist pin only needs to be moved up 3mm instead of 6mm when using 156mm rods.

This will keep the wrist pin out of the oil ring groove so there will be much better oil ring control at higher rpms.

I already have a head that can handle 11k rpms...

 

[phunny]

Nice Chris.

A tall deck LR 2.2L is a sweet setup, you get the torque of a 2.3 with the rev range of a 2.0. With lighter and stronger forged internals and high precision balancing, a 2.2 will sing at a note about as high as any valve train or transmission available can withstand. The very wide power band is an excellent choice for a moderate to big turbo equipped road racer.

How exactly does this setup do that? I'm just trying to understand how/why this works so well.

 

[talonDSMerr]

-You have a crankshaft that has a longer stroke than stock that gives a better lever arm for the connecting rod to transfer combustion pressure into the crankshaft.

-You have a taller deck, which allows you to run longer rods. Longer rods gives a higher rod/stroke ratio, which is good for reducing side loading on the cylinder walls and decreasing mean piston speed. Both these things allows the bottom end to rev to higher rpms.

It's the best of both worlds, really. Clever setup, Chris, it should match up well with your TS T4 manifold and EFR turbo.

 

[rlacasse1]

Yes, I read the entire thread.

I though we cleared up the whole 2.4 stroker thing at the very beginning of the thread, but I still see people referring to their 2.4 block as a storker. When it is not.

I know that it is not.

I was trying to figure out if people were still confused, or if there is some ####ed up little 2.4 stroker out there somewhere.

And I know you can stroke a 2.4 out or destroke it. But doing that doesn't really leave it a 2.4 anymore.