2.4 with a t88

[hose101772]

and the only reason he didn't go with more was because of class limitations.

Exactly.

His street strip engines or his all out racing engines and HP record engines....

Look back to pro 5.0 and most of the top contenders all had-suprise!-stroker turbo motors.
http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/features/0306MM_turbine/

Meaney said, "this is a GM DRCE-based turbo engine that'll rev almost 10,000 rpm--you figure it out."

Yea yea-its a short stroke pro stock motor that only makes a few hundred more hp than normal but w/25lbs of boost...oooh wow.Its ..magic.


Anyway,the boost solutions evo write up I have says its running a 102 mil compressor t51r-the biggest hks makes they say.
Wasnt there some guys from england that has a one with the t88?

 

[hose101772]

Crap,found it soon as I submited.

http://superstreetonline.com/featuredvehicles/130_0410_evo/

 

[MNGSX]

It's still 440 cubic inches, and the only reason he didn't go with more was because of class limitations. Using more bore than stroke in that situation makes sense because a 4.625" bore with a 3.3" stroke means the head is flowing a whole load more air than it would at say a 4" bore and a 4.4" stroke. Look at NMRA pro-5.0 guys, you don't see them running a 3.3" stroke because they can only take a SBF to about a 4.185" bore, but most of the competitive cars are running 400+ cubic inches and a 4+ inch stroke. You can't paste a general statement that destroking/shorter strokes are great for turbos across all engine platforms.

THAT IS AN OLDS DRCE block... A 440 cu inch DRCE block is like making a 283 with a 400 block..... I do like how you agree that a short stroke breaths better

It does depend a bit on the engine platform. Some dont need to be destroked due to a good bore/stroke/rod/head design combination already.

Look at the limits of the 4g63/64 bore options and its comparitively small bore as compaired to other engines. I dont think stroking is the all out racing answer on a 4g63. I agree it makes for a funner street car. 87mm x 100mm is in the same boat as the 4"bore and the 4.4" stroke example you gave.

Yea yea-its a short stroke pro stock motor that only makes a few hundred more hp than normal but w/25lbs of boost...oooh wow.Its ..magic.

2,105hp... Hmm you are right they are sissies.... I mean the around 3000hp they got after the article after swaping turbine housings and uping boost was just a few hundred more too...

Hmm and the ford 351's bore size is what.... Divide the bore by stroke on that one, a 4g63 and a 4g64 and get back to me.

Once again its about the engine platform... Stroking a 87mm max bore to 100mm is just too undersquare a Bore/Stroke ratio for high rpm volumetric efficiency. Alot of swept volume as compaired to little room for large enough valves to fill a breath that deep at hight RPM.

http://superstreetonline.com/featuredvehicles/130_0410_evo/

WOW Spend $186,000 over and above the base cost of an evo and you too can have a 2.4 motor that still cant keep up with J-sheps 2.0 liter and will wear out faster.... :laugh:

Hmm so they think the 2.4 will make ~ 1200 on methanol and the 2.0 in question makes around 1000hp on race gas I wonder what happens when you run methanol in a 2.0 built like that... I know..... I mean if I got about a 25% increase on 85% ethanol... I'm with the 98% ethanol results untill I get a special 11:1 CR block on an engine dyno to back it up.. Then consider 100% methanol is more potent... hmmm I wonder...

I mean I must be like on crack or something to run E85 I mean bob norwood did that to the lowly 60valve V12 F50 ferrari with twin turbos and twin air to water intercoolers to make completely absurd powerlevels yet still pass strict emissions laws. . Must be a fluke or something.

So they rev it to 8,900 huh... Based on the average piston speed of the 2.4 at that rpm you'd need to rev a 2.0 to about 11,000 rpm to match the piston speed... Even then the 2.4 is placing more stress on many parts.

The greddy T88 snore zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Well it was pretty cool but garret GT wheel combinations can beat it. Keep in mind they are feeding a much bigger engine.

http://forcedinductions.com/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=6&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

 

[hose101772]

I do like how you agree that a short stroke breaths better

How is it you fail to realize that only applies to a limited displacement?Short stroke does not breath better,the larger bore and corresponding room to have larger valves breathes better.Nothing to do with stroke.

Hmm and the ford 351's bore size is what.... Divide the bore by stroke on that one, a 4g63 and a 4g64 and get back to me.

It wont get much past 4"s.Which means,yes they go beyond stock stroke to reach the displacement they run.And if you're referring to the bore/stroke of a 63/64,just quit.The limitations are there and if you can figure out how to make a 4" hole in 3.75" space,then go for it.


Noone here would disagree that given a displacement limit that the largest bore would lend it self to the best flowing situation but we dont have this imposed limit.

Does the added displacement of the stroker reduce efficiency-yes,to the point the stroker would make less power per given instance--NO.


This arguement goes back forever.Think back to the idiots that swore up and down how a the 327 was such a better setup"you can wind to the moon" when a 350 always made more power given all else equal.Even if the peak was the same the 350 will always beat out a 327 under the curve.

The greddy T88 snore zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Well it was pretty cool but garret GT wheel combinations can beat it. Keep in mind they are feeding a much bigger engine.

Exactly,the greddy would not be anyone heres choice in a turbo.You bring up Shepherd,whats he making these days-1000 1100hp?Does he run some POS greddy?Noo.These guys made 930 with no 100 or so shot of nitrous and on a not so state of the art turbo.I dont see apples to apples here.

 

[MNGSX]

How is it you fail to realize that only applies to a limited displacement?Short stroke does not breath better,the larger bore and corresponding room to have larger valves breathes better.Nothing to do with stroke.

Ok

If a piston moves another 12mm at the same rpm at a higher speed in feet per second dont you think that as RPMs increase there will be a point at which there simply is'nt enough available time to actually make use of the displacement... I wont even go into g-forces and friction loses...

It wont get much past 4"s.Which means,yes they go beyond stock stroke to reach the displacement they run.And if you're referring to the bore/stroke of a 63/64,just quit.The limitations are there and if you can figure out how to make a 4" hole in 3.75" space,then go for it..

Ha Ha... WTF is that supposed to mean.... I was asking you to look at the ratio of stroke to bore.. Past 4" what .. You should be telling me a ratio... Like almost 1:1 in the case of 87mm by 88mm... That is a "square" : bore to stroke ratio... Under square like .75:1 will be a better low end tq engine and OVER square like 1 : .75 will be a high rpm powerhouse.

Noone here would disagree that given a displacement limit that the largest bore would lend it self to the best flowing situation but we dont have this imposed limit.

Does the added displacement of the stroker reduce efficiency-yes,to the point the stroker would make less power per given instance--NO...

You will make MORE LOW rpm power... and LESS high rpm power...

We have a bore limit which also limits valve size..... Stroke limits the rpm at which you can rev... So you cant rev it and you cant increase the valve size 20% to match the displacement increase... Those sound like pretty solid limitations to me.

This arguement goes back forever.Think back to the idiots that swore up and down how a the 327 was such a better setup"you can wind to the moon" when a 350 always made more power given all else equal.Even if the peak was the same the 350 will always beat out a 327 under the curve..

In reality we are discussing is more like a 383 which has LESS stroke than a 2.4 and a 377 which has a 350 stroke (close to G63)..

I'll build my "tall deck long rod mitsu 377 equivelent" (G64 block, G63 crank, G63 87mm overbore stroker pistons, ~6.4" rods)

You run your (mitsu 383 equivelent the 2.4) in the other drag strip lane (of your choice...)....

That would be racing not bench racing...

I am just providing the scientific analysis of the pros and cons of each engine... The replacement for displacement is efficiency.

Maybe look at piston speed jerk at BDC on a 2.4.... That will be in the article.... If you cant wait dowload the EAPro demo and learn how to use it...

Exactly,the greddy would not be anyone heres choice in a turbo.You bring up Shepherd,whats he making these days-1000 1100hp?Does he run some POS greddy?Noo.These guys made 930 with no 100 or so shot of nitrous and on a not so state of the art turbo.I dont see apples to apples here.

Yes and I am sure he has a fraction of the $186k evo price tag wrapped up in his car and would spank the freeking crap out of it on the track....

So far the car has had only one outing on the dragstrip, when it was throwing down 600 hp, and it ran the quarter-mile in 10.9 seconds.

Then they are like.... But we are making like 900 something spent enough money to make a C6 run 7's and we did not show you a dyno sheet... :laugh:

Benchracers in a magazine article... If they can keep a 2.4 together at 8.9k rpm on alcohol fuel and keep the evo's problematic driveline together at that power level while running an ET faster than JS I will microwave dog crap, eat it with a spoon and upload the video. Keep in mind I have a lab, a husky and my brothers huge Mastif here.

I will talk about the power output of my 2.1 on alcohol fuel after I unbolt it from a water brake engine dyno and have real dyno results...

 

[Billios996]

good thread

On a slight aside:
http://superstreetonline.com/featuredvehicles/130_0410_evo_01_s.jpg
look in the glovebox of the Evo. Are they tuning 930hp with an AFC???

Bill

 

[MNGSX]

http://superstreetonline.com/featuredvehicles/130_0410_evo_01_z.jpg

Bigger pic...

 

[CanadianTalon]

You can see an Apex'I Power FC mounted on the very safe and well designed cusco roll cage.

 

[martyboss]

boost solution=crap,I know their cars non make that power,BTW in turbo magazine a lot was just lays about that evo ,than t78 will make 23psi before 5000rpm+there is a big t4 housing I think 1.15ar.my holset hx 40 boostin 24 psi before 4500rpm .

 

[Batty200]

I was never saying that a T88 is the way to go on our cars but I was saying that your facts about the turbo were wrong. Also so far as stroker vs stock motor or long rod motor I have to say this. We can theorize all day but on the street a 2.4 is a better motor. The valve size is the limit on the power our cars can make at xxpsi. Weather a 2.0 is running 20% faster rpm to make up for the displacement the 2.4 is making at lower rpm the head still has to flow the air. A 2.4 will make more power under the curve and make the same or more peak power given the same head and boost pressures. I would rather have a stroker that makes 500whp on pump gas and 23psi than a 2.0l. Also the main reason a 2.) is better for racing is that it can rev higher helping to go faster in 4th gear. Lag is a non issue using nitrous and revving to 11K or whatever, but it makes a crapy street motor.

Later

 

[definitiveno]

I was never saying that a T88 is the way to go on our cars but I was saying that your facts about the turbo were wrong. Also so far as stroker vs stock motor or long rod motor I have to say this. We can theorize all day but on the street a 2.4 is a better motor. The valve size is the limit on the power our cars can make at xxpsi. Weather a 2.0 is running 20% faster rpm to make up for the displacement the 2.4 is making at lower rpm the head still has to flow the air. A 2.4 will make more power under the curve and make the same or more peak power given the same head and boost pressures. I would rather have a stroker that makes 500whp on pump gas and 23psi than a 2.0l. Also the main reason a 2.) is better for racing is that it can rev higher helping to go faster in 4th gear. Lag is a non issue using nitrous and revving to 11K or whatever, but it makes a crapy street motor.

Later

Assuming the car was well maintained and looked after, how many miles could some body expect to get out of a 400-500hp stroker motor? The most I have seen or heard from a stroker (because I haven't heard of it does not make it so) is 30 thousand miles before it popped. There are guys running 400whp on stock 2 liter motors for over 100 thousand miles now. What is the benefit of a stroker motor on the street if it's always on a rack?

 

[Batty200]

Assuming the car was well maintained and looked after, how many miles could some body expect to get out of a 400-500hp stroker motor? The most I have seen or heard from a stroker (because I haven't heard of it does not make it so) is 30 thousand miles before it popped. There are guys running 400whp on stock 2 liter motors for over 100 thousand miles now. What is the benefit of a stroker motor on the street if it's always on a rack?

Well anyone who beats the crap out of a car cant expect it to last forever. If you run them at the same boost and drive them the same I would expect them to last the same while the 2.4 makes more power and torque.


Later

 

[hose101772]

If a piston moves another 12mm at the same rpm at a higher speed in feet per second dont you think that as RPMs increase there will be a point at which there simply is'nt enough available time to actually make use of the displacement... I wont even go into g-forces and friction loses...

Goes without saying,as will any B/S/R combo per given fuel.

Ha Ha... WTF is that supposed to mean.... I was asking you to look at the ratio of stroke to bore.. Past 4" what

Bore of a 351w.Exactly what you asked.

Here

Hmm and the ford 351's bore size is what.... Divide the bore by stroke on that one, a 4g63 and a 4g64 and get back to me.

And then I stated in response-

It wont get much past 4"s.Which means,yes they go beyond stock stroke to reach the displacement they run.

This was in reference to a 351w bore and to the fact the pro5.0 guys,as spoke of earlier, arent running short stroke engines.

And if you're referring to the bore/stroke of a 63/64,just quit.The limitations are there and if you can figure out how to make a 4" hole in 3.75" space,then go for it.

I was making a joke out of your rationale of how B/S soley determines the output of a specific engine.You know-bore out the 63 to 4" .NM.

I will talk about the power output of my 2.1 on alcohol fuel after I unbolt it from a water brake engine dyno and have real dyno result

How can you criticize the guys with the evo about what they spent when you're talking about the money eatenest machine you could imagine.A very high rpm turbo'd 4cyl with lots of dewell time.Would like to hear about that sealing solution.
So just how high is thing gona turn?12000?Even if its just 11000,how you gona shift it,keep valve springs in it,lifters?That trick stuff is always pretty expensive.Probably alot more than my whole car cost.

You know-you could get a crank from a late turbo mirage.They have less stroke than a 2.0.That should make even more power.Since displacement no longer has any bearing on actual output,only ratios and rpms make power.Why not just get a custom crank ground with some crazy 25 mil throws and have some 7" rods.That should make for serious power.

That'd give you like a 1.74 B/S and 3.5 R/S .Why didnt mitsu catch on to this,or any manufacturer for that matter?WOW.
If you wana carry this on start a different thread so we can air it out.


The original question here was would a stroker spool a t88.If it was in reference to a greddy t88 the answer is yes,it will spool it some time or another.Without nitrous.

 

[definitiveno]

Well anyone who beats the crap out of a car cant expect it to last forever. If you run them at the same boost and drive them the same I would expect them to last the same while the 2.4 makes more power and torque.


Later

Ever hear of rod to stroke ratio? Not saying any thing like it means it is the end all to reliability but it is a disadvantage and wearing on a motor. Not many v8's have that ratio.

 

[MNGSX]

I was never saying that a T88 is the way to go on our cars but I was saying that your facts about the turbo were wrong. Also so far as stroker vs stock motor or long rod motor I have to say this. We can theorize all day but on the street a 2.4 is a better motor. The valve size is the limit on the power our cars can make at xxpsi. Weather a 2.0 is running 20% faster rpm to make up for the displacement the 2.4 is making at lower rpm the head still has to flow the air. A 2.4 will make more power under the curve and make the same or more peak power given the same head and boost pressures. I would rather have a stroker that makes 500whp on pump gas and 23psi than a 2.0l. Also the main reason a 2.) is better for racing is that it can rev higher helping to go faster in 4th gear. Lag is a non issue using nitrous and revving to 11K or whatever, but it makes a crapy street motor.

Later

Greddy's turbo name system blows goats. I dont care what a turbo is called name wise or peak CFM or LB/MIN written down.. I want comp & turbine wheel maps long with housing a/r...


A PTE T88 is really a 88mm wheel ETC makes sense. Greddy is all over the place. Also for a turbo that "never made over 700" the FP3065 sure has alot of representation in the top 20 or so fastest cars!
Wow you keep saying the 2.4 was a good street motor.. I think I just said everything you did like a long time ago.

Except...

2.4 will make more power under the curve and make the same or more peak power given the same head and boost pressures.

Wrong where the letters are red in color.

Nasty little things like friction lower its mechnical efficiency.. I'm done for now...

Hose... I give up on you... :thumbdown Learn how to use the spacebar and a spell checker and maybe we will talk again....

The first is a cropped and shrunk screen shot of EAPro graph... This is a 2.1 vs 2.4 piston G forces at 5,500 rpm Blue is the 2.4 green the 2.1. The next two the colors are reversed. The second is of 10,000 rpm...

When you rev your 2.4 to 10k

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

let me know if a piston goes out the oil pan or thru the valve cover.

See the BDC double bump?


The last is HP lost to friction this does not include VE differences just internal friction losses EDIT Both engines here are running very low tension rings and a vaccum pump.. Less friction and windage for either one than almost 100% of 4g6X motors ever built.

 

[Batty200]

Well MNGSX you can theorize all you want but I have been to the dyno then on the street with 2 very powerful cars. ON was a 2.4Liter Pauter/ross magnus motor at 31psi with a GT40/t350 .82 standard bearing turbo and one was a 2.0Liter with Eagle wiseco, SP63 turbo with a .81 turbine housing and 31psi as well. The 2.0Liter made as much as 150less lbs of torque and 50 less peak hp power. The 2.4 Stomped all over the 2.0 with a smaller turbo and the same boost. Both had all supporting mods and both are very well known cars. That day showed me the awesomeness of the 2.4. Also on that day the 2.4 had a boost controller malfunction and pegged a 35psi guage and it made ~500whp by 4900rpm!!!! It started to run a little lean at that point so the owner left out of it. 533wtq.

If the motor cant spin to 9000 so what!!! It makes insane power for 4500rpm or more (3500-8000) and that is over 60% of the useable rpm range (1000-8000). If that isnt the ultimate street motor I dont know what is.

Later

 

[Batty200]

Also according to your graph a 2.4 loses about 6whp more due to internal friction but should make approx 20% more power so umless it is only making 30whp then the friction will overcome the power gains. I for sure hope that I never have a DSM making so little power that a little friction negates my power.

Also the RPM argument is lame since the 2.0 has to rev to 10K to make the same power a 2.4 can at 8K. So compare the losses at those rpm levels and also ompare the Piston speeds and the g forces. Also a longer rod motor will have HIGHER peak piston speeds if the dwell time is increased and the motor is reved higher to acheive the same total displacement. Sure I could rev a 1liter to 20K and move the same air as a 2liter but why?


Later

 

[MNGSX]

Well MNGSX you can theorize all you want

Dont confuse theory with a scientific anaylisis.

If the motor cant spin to 9000 so what!!! It makes insane power for 4500rpm or more (3500-8000) and that is over 60% of the useable rpm range (1000-8000). If that isnt the ultimate street motor I dont know what is.

Later

Search this thread for the phrase good street engine... I may have called a 2.4 that a while back! :laugh:

Also according to your graph a 2.4 loses about 6whp more due to internal friction but should make approx 20% more power so umless it is only making 30whp then the friction will overcome the power gains. I for sure hope that I never have a DSM making so little power that a little friction negates my power.

Guess what.. That on that friction graph both engines are running extremely low tension rings and a vaccum pump. Windage and ring friction in those engines dwarfs how people usually build either stroke length 4G6X.. I saved the most "incriminating" graph for my tech article. That is friction with both engines running STD rings and sumps. The split between the two gets wider. The graph posted is still a level playing field since they share the same ring type and windage reduction. Wait untill a std ring and sump 2.4 is plotted against a 2.0(1) with a vaccum pump and the low tension rings... There is a really big hp difference between them... Another interesting plot is total mechincal efficiency in percent. Wait untill you see that?

Also a longer rod motor will have HIGHER peak piston speeds if the dwell time is increased and the motor is reved higher to acheive the same total displacement.

Wrong...

1. it delays the peak piston speed to lower down in the stroke and lowers it. Shorter rods have more BDC dwell longer rods have more TDC dwell.....

2. The effects of long vs short rods are so minor as compaired to stroke length changes. A 5.9" rod 2.1 only differs from a 6.4" rod 2.1 by a minimal amount in most areas. There is room to use more length in what I'm building so I do.. I would'nt go too far out of my way to add more rod length to an engine. If it's easy to do on a given build and you are buying rods anyway why not.. Long rods allow slipper pistons for less friction since the skirt does'nt need to be as long with the lower compressin height. There are alot of other things it changes. None of which really make as big as difference as stroke length.

In the article I wont throw longer than stock length rods into the mix untill the end. I'll focus on stroke and leave all other things the same. At the end I'll compare two engine builders ways of thinking. My efficiency based design and the longer hammer handle stroker school of thought. My low end just might not be as soggy as you think....

Also the RPM argument is lame since the 2.0 has to rev to 10K to make the same power a 2.4 can at 8K

I think I can prove that built properly that simply is'nt true. The 2.4 will still be a great street engine but my 2.1 will begin pulling on it alot sooner than you think.

 

[Mirage2LTurbo]

Show me a 2.4 making 1000whp, or running 8's or lower, and you have an argument. Otherwise, the 2.0 is greater. Also, please hold your bad comebacks. Thanks

 

[Staytuned]

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

I love this pic.

 

[Dan7040]

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

I love this pic.

This is the first place recently that Ive been able to read technicial and real world experiences about the 2.0 vs. 2.4 rather then someone just asking "how long will my 2.4 last?". Thanks for the info and opinions guys. As far as beating a dead horse I disagree. Im trying to learn as much as I can about the two engines for knowledge sakes. Id like to see these posts carry over into a new thread marked for the topic.

BTW it is a cool pic...

 

[Billios996]

MNGSX-
The 2.1 block you speak of, what is the combination of parts you are testing? Is this the 2.4 4g64 block with 4g64 crank and 4g63 length rods? Or is this a custom rod length you are experimenting with?



Bill

 

[MNGSX]

You can do it a a couple of ways but when looking for 2.1 from a 4G64 block use the oversize (87mm) pistons from a G63 stroker... So you dont need custom pistons... This gets you 6mm more rod, less skirt friction and less piston weight... The block height combined with the shorter stroke gets you total of 12mm more rod.

You can also just bore out a 4G63 to 2.1...

However who cares about rod length. It matters but a 88mm stroke vs a 100mm with the same ~87mm max bore size limit will be so entirely different engines it's not even funny.. Rod length tweeks on the 2.1 are just minor tweeks as compared to that comparison but worth it.

 

[12's]

I thought it was better for people to use a 4g63 crank in the 2.4 blocks?

MNGSX-
The 2.1 block you speak of, what is the combination of parts you are testing? Is this the 2.4 4g64 block with 4g64 crank and 4g63 length rods? Or is this a custom rod length you are experimenting with?



Bill

 

[MNGSX]

I thought it was better for people to use a 4g63 crank in the 2.4 blocks?

IT IS.

There are 3 ways to build 2.1

1. bore out a 2.0

2.0 crank in 2.4

2. Regular G64 pistons custom rods 6mm longer.

3. Stroker G63 pistons custom rods 12mm longer.




#1 is the least expensive.

#2 is a waste because it costs as much as 3

#3 is best due to longest rods and lightest pistons.