2.4 g4cs block HP limits

[Dstarperformance01]

What are the HP limits of the actual blocks themselves (not short blocks).
Or can link the thread as I’m not coming across anything.

 

[steve]

Not sure what you're looking for (or that the question makes sense) but the 4g63 has put out over 1000HP. Since most people don't have the budget for this level does it matter?

https://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/tips-on-1000hp-build.521596/

https://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/1-000hp-full-engine-build-discussion.507097/https://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/delis-1000hp-2g-boostin-performance-built-and-tuned.500063/

AMS Top Shop Engine build..the quest for 1000hp on 100octane! - AMS Performance

A few months ago we announced our entry into the Castrol Syntec Top shop engine challenge. This event pits 7 of the top shops in the country against each

www.amsperformance.com

How do you build a 1000hp 4G63? | NZ Performance Car

We asked STM’s Andre Simon, who built Michael’s engine, how you actually build a Mitsubishi 4G63 capable of 745kW/1000hp, and why Michael’s previous forged engine isn’t up to the task. He says: “The main difference between the two engines is the internals, particularly the strength of the con...

themotorhood.com

 

[Dstarperformance01]

Not sure what you're looking for (or that the question makes sense) but the 4g63 has put out over 1000HP. Since most people don't have the budget for this level does it matter?

That’s why I changed the title of the post to 2.4 block limits. It’s the 2.4 block I’m wanting to know about.

 

[BoostJunkie17]

That’s why I changed the title of the post to 2.4 block limits. It’s the 2.4 block I’m wanting to know about.

As far as the 4G63, I know it is about 1200hp which is the limit of how high you can go before needing to upgrade to a billet block or something along those lines.

Not sure how much the 64 can take but it should be higher than that if the 63 can get up to 1200hp at 2.0L size which is super impressive and mighty strong. so the 2.4L should be able to do more unless someone can prove otherwise.

 

[steve]

That’s why I changed the title of the post to 2.4 block limits. It’s the 2.4 block I’m wanting to know about.

Hopefully somebody with g4cs experience will pop in. Is this academic or do you have money burning a hole in your pocket?

 

[Dstarperformance01]

Hopefully somebody with g4cs experience will pop in. Is this academic or do you have money burning a hole in your pocket?

Steve, it’s an academic question. Which will go first, the block or my I beams when I lite the wick

As far as the 4G63, I know it is about 1200hp which is the limit of how high you can go before needing to upgrade to a billet block or something along those lines.

Not sure how much the 64 can take but it should be higher than that if the 63 can get up to 1200hp at 2.0L size which is super impressive and mighty strong. so the 2.4L should be able to do more unless someone can prove otherwise.

I would think it would be the opposite.
The 2.4 would be weaker due to less meat between the cylinders (same thing as on the ecoboost platform)

 

[agentorange313]

I would think it would be the opposite.
The 2.4 would be weaker due to less meat between the cylinders (same thing as on the ecoboost platform)

I think the added displacement is also due to the fact that the block/deck is taller than the 4g63 and the stroke of the
2.0 deck height 229mm
2.4 deck height 235mm

I cant verify if the walls are thinner but I know the block is taller. I would assume it would have the same limitations as the 4g63, with the right tune with supporting components.

 

[steve]

From the little reading I did yesterday it sounds like the crank is the critical part before the block.

What are you running with those rods.

 

[Dstarperformance01]

From the little reading I did yesterday it sounds like the crank is the critical part before the block.

What are you running with those rods.

Not sure what crank shaft is in it (bought the car as it sits). It’s got Wiseco pistons, O-ring head studs. So not sure what you mean exactly when you ask what I’m running with those rods. Everything I know about the car is in the build profile

 

[TWOpointFORliter]

The walls are thinner and have been reported to crack at high (40+) boost levels. This is not always the case and I’m sure there are many factors involved but have seen some discussion about it in the past. Obviously there is a rod angle issue so if building a 2.4 go with a long rod setup especially if you are planning on taking it past 7500rpms. I opted for a bullet crank as well for piece of mind when pushing it past 8k. Disregard that last part if you are destroking the block and building something like a 2.2. In which case I have little knowledge about but I’ve ran a 2.4 since 2008 in my 2g.

 

[Dstarperformance01]

The walls are thinner and have been reported to crack at high (40+) boost levels. This is not always the case and I’m sure there are many factors involved but have seen some discussion about it in the past. Obviously there is a rod angle issue so if building a 2.4 go with a long rod setup especially if you are planning on taking it past 7500rpms. I opted for a bullet crank as well for piece of mind when pushing it past 8k. Disregard that last part if you are destroking the block and building something like a 2.2. In which case I have little knowledge about but I’ve ran a 2.4 since 2008 in my 2g.

It’s already built

 

[DSMPT]

If simply comparing between both 4g63 and 4g64 block as wet, the 4g63 would probably be a bit more durable due to thicker cylinder wall between cylinders. If it's for drag racing you can fill the block and it wouldn't be a concern.

But you meant 2.4L, which means a 4g64 block + a 100mm stroke crank, if that's the case and if you would make some good power, probably you would break rod journal on the crank before braking the block. A 100mm stroke crank is weaker than a 88mm stroke crank. Some people go with a 4g64 block it's not because it's more durable than a 4g63 block, it's because they want to destroke it.

 

[Dstarperformance01]

If simply comparing between both 4g63 and 4g64 block as wet, the 4g63 would probably be a bit more durable due to thicker cylinder wall between cylinders. If it's for drag racing you can fill the block and it wouldn't be a concern.
But you meant 2.4L, which means a 4g64 block + a 100mm stroke crank, if that's the case and if you would make some good power, probably you would break rod journal on the crank before braking the block. A 100mm stroke crank is weaker than a 88mm stroke crank. Some people go with a 4g64 block it's not because it's more durable than a 4g63 block, it's because they want to destroke it.

My goals are to be able to make 700whp on kill f
It’s going to be my weekend warrior

 

[schafer240]

I wanted to bump this thread for more information and add some as well.

The limits I've found is a bad bore/stroke ratio which limits the 2.4 to a safe 8500rpm limit. The other weakness I found in research is the factory 4g64 crank likes to crack at around 700 wheel, block wise I haven't found or heard anything concrete just hear say, anyone else have any input on the durability of a gc4s 6 bolt 4g64?

 

[TWOpointFORliter]

I put mine on buschurs dyno the Thursday before the shootout. My car had only been remote tuned at 35psi up to that point. First pull was 740/650 with the tires spinning. I had been driving the car around like this doing street pulls for a couple years now but never any track days. Tuner ended up turning it down to 707/630 because he said the cylinder walls were at their limits for the 2.4 block. Car trapped 144 that weekend on its first pass down the 1/4. Second pass I had a oil pump failure so it’s getting torn down to be cleaned and new bearings but while it’s apart I’m sending the block off to Buschur to be sleeved so I don’t have to worry about the cylinder walls. After all I want to use all the HP I paid for.

 

[schafer240]

I put mine on buschurs dyno the Thursday before the shootout. My car had only been remote tuned at 35psi up to that point. First pull was 740/650 with the tires spinning. I had been driving the car around like this doing street pulls for a couple years now but never any track days. Tuner ended up turning it down to 707/630 because he said the cylinder walls were at their limits for the 2.4 block. Car trapped 144 that weekend on its first pass down the 1/4. Second pass I had a oil pump failure so it’s getting torn down to be cleaned and new bearings but while it’s apart I’m sending the block off to Buschur to be sleeved so I don’t have to worry about the cylinder walls. After all I want to use all the HP I paid for.

Thanks for the information. Thats Interesting, what indication would he have to say that?

 

[TWOpointFORliter]

Thanks for the information. Thats Interesting, what indication would he have to say that?

Not sure to be honest. I’ve read about the evo guys having issues with 2.4 cylinder walls cracking in the past but I’d bet there are a lot more evo’s that run a 2.4 than there are dsms so they would have a bigger sample size. So maybe that’s what he was worried?

 

[biglady112]

We seem to run into head gasket issues before block issues with 2.4L blocks. And frequently. I have never personally seen a failed or cracked 2.4L block. I have seen my fair share of failed head gaskets though.

However, I have seen more broken crankshafts than blown head gaskets. This is first hand experience. I steer everyone I can away from the 87mm bore stuff and 100mm stroke stuff that I can.

.4L of displacement literally gains you nothing. I have never got out of a 2.4L car after tuning or riding in one and thought wow, that thing runs so great and has so much more power and torque. No, they act the same and feel the same. Small displacement is small displacement.

 

[TWOpointFORliter]

We seem to run into head gasket issues before block issues with 2.4L blocks. And frequently. I have never personally seen a failed or cracked 2.4L block. I have seen my fair share of failed head gaskets though.

However, I have seen more broken crankshafts than blown head gaskets. This is first hand experience. I steer everyone I can away from the 87mm bore stuff and 100mm stroke stuff that I can.

.4L of displacement literally gains you nothing. I have never got out of a 2.4L car after tuning or riding in one and thought wow, that thing runs so great and has so much more power and torque. No, they act the same and feel the same. Small displacement is small displacement.

I would disagree with the “gains nothing” statement. In fact way back in the day when I first switched from a 2.0 to a 2.4 I gained 50lb/ft of torque on a simple 16g setup changing nothing else. After a few changes that setup eventually made 502lb/ft of torque on boostins mustang dyno. Since then I’ve consistently made more torque than 2.0’s report on every turbo setup I’ve had.

 

[schafer240]

We seem to run into head gasket issues before block issues with 2.4L blocks. And frequently. I have never personally seen a failed or cracked 2.4L block. I have seen my fair share of failed head gaskets though.

What has been the highest hp you've seen on the 2.4 and was it a 6 or 7 bolt?

 

[biglady112]

I would disagree with the “gains nothing” statement. In fact way back in the day when I first switched from a 2.0 to a 2.4 I gained 50lb/ft of torque on a simple 16g setup changing nothing else. After a few changes that setup eventually made 502lb/ft of torque on boostins mustang dyno. Since then I’ve consistently made more torque than 2.0’s report on every turbo setup I’ve had.

Our current 2g makes 765whp 615tq with a 6466 and a basic 2.0L that has been put together. I stand by my statement.

I have built over 275 4g6x’s and built countless cars and tuned even more than that. I speak from real world experience. I have had far more issues consistently with the large bore stuff than not.


I could not keep a head gasket in a 800hp large bore engine. And I have had more crankshafts break(factory cranks) trying to get that far than 2.0L’s. In fact, I have only ever seen one 2.0L crank break. It was a 95 7 bolt that had 120,000 miles of utter abuse in the 300-500whp range. I truly don’t think that one counted as it had nearly 200,000 miles on it when it broke.

I have seen more than my fair share of broken 100mm cranks.

And I refuse to build a 7 bolt. Out of the nearly 300 ground up, freshly machined engines, I bet there is under 10 of those that were 7 bolts.

Most stuff I get into is max effort stuff. And most are in the 500-1000whp range.

 

[TWOpointFORliter]

Our current 2g makes 765whp 615tq with a 6466 and a basic 2.0L that has been put together. I stand by my statement.

I have built over 275 4g6x’s and built countless cars and tuned even more than that. I speak from real world experience. I have had far more issues consistently with the large bore stuff than not.


I could not keep a head gasket in a 800hp large bore engine. And I have had more crankshafts break(factory cranks) trying to get that far than 2.0L’s. In fact, I have only ever seen one 2.0L crank break. It was a 95 7 bolt that had 120,000 miles of utter abuse in the 300-500whp range. I truly don’t think that one counted as it had nearly 200,000 miles on it when it broke.

I have seen more than my fair share of broken 100mm cranks.

And I refuse to build a 7 bolt. Out of the nearly 300 ground up, freshly machined engines, I bet there is under 10 of those that were 7 bolts.

Most stuff I get into is max effort stuff. And most are in the 500-1000whp range.

I am in no way disputing the reliability issues of a 2.4. But I also stand by my statement that there is something to be gained with that extra .4 displacement and that comes from real work experience as well. Wether or not that gain is worth it is another question in itself. My current setup is a 2.4 with a 6062 only running 35psi and it almost matched your HP number on your 2.0/6466 setup before it was turned down and obviously it makes more torque even turned down than the 2.0. I’m sure that my power band comes on faster and drops off sooner as well so it’s all in what you want out of the car but to claim that there is nothing at all to be gained is simply not true.

 

[biglady112]

With only 21 cubic inches more and both being small displacement, most end users will not see or notice the difference. I have never stepped out of a 2.3L or 2.4L car and thought, man, that thing has all the torque.

In 54mm and under cars, there could be an argument to be made possibly. 55-67mm that argument becomes less valid. And max effort 67mm and up cars you are clearly a straight line racer and where the engine needs to live, the 88mm engine will shine. And that is a valid argument.

And 67mm and up is where I spend most of my time in 4g63 land.

 

[schafer240]

With only 21 cubic inches more and both being small displacement, most end users will not see or notice the difference. I have never stepped out of a 2.3L or 2.4L car and thought, man, that thing has all the torque.

In 54mm and under cars, there could be an argument to be made possibly. 55-67mm that argument becomes less valid. And max effort 67mm and up cars you are clearly a straight line racer and where the engine needs to live, the 88mm engine will shine. And that is a valid argument.

And 67mm and up is where I spend most of my time in 4g63 land.

Agreed, I think it also should be mentioned for people doing research in the future that there is also the drawbacks of a small powerband 8500rpm limit with the bore to stroke ratio with the 2.4 and the drive train possibly seeing more torque as well.

Summed up, 2.4 have

Weaker Crank
Thinner walls
Rpm limit of 8500

Unfortunately not alot of pro's, especially with today's Turbo technology for spool up.