4g64 crank clearance?

[interex]

Just curious, I have a 7bolt setup... I have an eagle 100mm crank, and eagle h-beam rods, my buddy is building a 7bolt stroker with an OEM 2.4L crank and eagle h-beam rods.

Is there a clearance issue with the 7 bolt block with either oem/aftermarket crank and eagle h-beam rods?

I looked once before and remember reading something about grinding/cutting down something to make clearance but now I'm not sure where I read it. I'm not quite close enough to putting my engine together yet so I've not even un-packaged the stuff to try and measure it myself.


Also is this a 4g64 crank? I don't see the "64" casting on the counter weight.

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

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

 

[64_Frankenstein]

This is a 6 bolt block. It's a 4G64 OEM knife crank. I hope this image help.

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

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

 

[interex]

See, I've seen that image before, and I've seen people say they never had to grind down, then I've seen people say it was required. Is this a requirement or is it something that just needs to be checked from block to block? Is it the same situation between OEM 64 and eagle 100mm cranks?

 

[IceMinion]

Every stroker motor I have has the grindings, when you have a 64 crank in a 63 block, you are going to have to do some grinding.

That being said, I personally believe it is better to just build a 64 block and crank, the side skirts of the pistons are larger, and from what I understand, it lasts longer.

Good luck.

 

[interex]

There is a reason why to build a 2.3L stroker and not a 2.4L 4g64...

 

[Justin Tyme]

There is a reason why to build a 2.3L stroker and not a 2.4L 4g64...

and that would be?

 

[interex]

My reason... I already have a LOT of money invested and I'm almost matching up with the 2.4L displacement with my 2.3L (100mm stroke with 86mm bore) yes .040 over on my stroker vs 4g64 (100mm stroke and 86.5mm bore)... That's 0.019" difference and still retaining my 2.0 block vs finding a 2.4 block and having it checked out, cleaned up, etc.

 

[Justin Tyme]

My reason... I already have a LOT of money invested and I'm almost matching up with the 2.4L displacement with my 2.3L (100mm stroke with 86mm bore) yes .040 over on my stroker vs 4g64 (100mm stroke and 86.5mm bore)... That's 0.019" difference and still retaining my 2.0 block vs finding a 2.4 block and having it checked out, cleaned up, etc.

Ok, that I can understand then. I thought you were going to come back with how a 2.3 was better than a 2.4. I am not talking about the displacement but refering to rod length, being able to get a better stroke to rod length ratio out a 2.4. The longer the rod the better. Dont get me wrong, a 2.3 is a nice set-up. I just dont know why a lot of people go though all the trouble sometimes when they should just use the complete 2.4 package and maybe even still move the wrist pins up and have even longer rods made.

 

[mikEclipse99]

ive got an eagle 100mm crank in my motor but i dont know if the machine shop had to grind anything down. do you have to grind it for a 2.3L stroker?

 

[IceMinion]

Another thing to consider, the pistions for the 2.3 have shorter skirts, and piston slap is going to be a larger problem over time.

I dont know anyone who builds motors for long-term durability, but that could always a factor

 

[IceMinion]

ive got an eagle 100mm crank in my motor but i dont know if the machine shop had to grind anything down. do you have to grind it for a 2.3L stroker?

To be quite honest, I have not seen anyone do a 2.3 stroker on a 7-bolt, I know it is different then the 6-bolt considerably, having the girdle and everything

What you need to do is assemble the motor, and spin it. wherever the counter weights/rods hit you need to grind down.

The motor obviously needs to spin freely, I do not know the required clearance between rotating parts and the wall, probably minimum 1/8"

 

[DSM-sagacious]

I agree the obvious solution is to install your crank and give it a spin. If the rod is close shave it some. Also a 4g64 stroker is much cheaper than a 4g63 setup. It is most advantageous to go with the 64 and sell the 63. Practically pays for itself

 

[ninesixtwo]

What you need to do is assemble the motor, and spin it. wherever the counter weights/rods hit you need to grind down.

What he said ^^ The amount of grinding required is different depending on the rods mostly, but you would be best off assembling it and checking for yourself. I had to remove material from my crank braces and from the bottom of my cylinders

 

[interex]

None the less the eagle 100mm crank is still $700 weather I use it for my 63 or a 64. The eagle rods and wiseco stroker pistons also cost the same amount as buying standard forged pistons and rods for the 64. I'm not really spending anything more for internals than I would if I had the 64 setup completely.

 

[delta448]

I'm almost matching up with the 2.4L displacement with my 2.3L (100mm stroke with 86mm bore) yes .040 over on my stroker vs 4g64 (100mm stroke and 86.5mm bore)...

About 27cc less than the stock 4G64, 2323 vs 2350.

I'm not really spending anything more for internals than I would if I had the 64 setup completely.

Except for the Eagle crank. Is the OEM 100mm crank really not good enough? How much power are you aiming at making? There are more than a few people running 500+ HP numbers with OEM 64 cranks.

As Justin Tyme mentioned, if you use the 2.4 block, you can use longer rods with pistons that have the same strength as you'd have with stroker pistons in the 2.3, thus a more optimal rod ratio.

Another thing to think of for some people who use their DSM as a daily driver is the price of the build-up block. A good condition 4G63 block is generally much more expensive than a good 4G64 block. Especially for 7 bolt owners, 99+ had split thrust bearings, for 4g63's that's one year DSM and then to the Evo blocks, for 4g64's there are several years of Galant, the 3g, and Dodge applications using the new split thrust.

If I had the kind of money you're spending I'd go a different road. Well, actually I already am. That's all I'm saying or trying to say. What you decide is best for you is up to each individual.

Good luck with the 2.3's fellas, they can be very capable engines.

 

[interex]

Last night my buddy and I started talking and I really started thinking about getting a 2.4L block and selling my 2.0L block and the stroker pistons. I haven't read much about the 2.4L block and how to go about using my 1G SBR head on it.

I do remember reading something about the timing being different, but I can't seem to find that now. I can easily get a 2.4L block cheap but before I were to get a block and pistons for a 2.4L I would have to sell my 2.0L block and pistons as I'm running very short on cash. .

I'm looking at around 625hp with a Holset HX40 or HX50.

 

[interex]

I started a thread in the Cylinder Head and Short Block section... If you could chime in there and help me a little with figuring out the 2.4L hybrid setup, and help answer some questions I have that would be great.

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/cylinder-head-short-block/313201-4g63-4g64-swap.html

 

[64_Frankenstein]

See, I've seen that image before, and I've seen people say they never had to grind down, then I've seen people say it was required. Is this a requirement or is it something that just needs to be checked from block to block? Is it the same situation between OEM 64 and eagle 100mm cranks?

Yeah those are my photos. I never thought about this problem until I ran into it so I decide to take pictures of it. If it's a 4G64 block then it don't require to be grind down. Because it was made to fit the 100mm crank. The 63 block is alot slimer then the 64.

 

[HIGHPSI4]

As for the connecting rod comment, the rods in the 63 and 64 are the same length. I had a 2.3 that rolled an oil ring. I built a 0.040 over 4G64 and used the same rods.

 

[delta448]

As for the connecting rod comment, the rods in the 63 and 64 are the same length. I had a 2.3 that rolled an oil ring. I built a 0.040 over 4G64 and used the same rods.

Which comment?

Yes, they both used 150mm rods from the factory. But with a piston that has a shorter than stock compression height (re: 2.3L stroker pistons with a larger bore size), you can use longer rods in the 4G64, due to the taller deck height.

 

[interex]

And when using a longer rod, such as the custom 156mm rod with the 2g 2.3L stroker piston you wont be able to rev high like you would with the 2.0L. You'll have to hope you can spool at a low RPM and build your power down low.

 

[delta448]

I think you just mis-spoke in the way you typed that, because it's actually the opposite that's true. A longer rod and lighter piston is better for higher rpms. The rod ratio is a big clue into how well suited for higher rpms any particular engine is. Stroke is the major factor however because it's related directly to piston speed; since the 2.3 and 2.4 long-rod both have a 100mm stroke the AVERAGE piston speed is the same. And because of the longer rod, the 2.4 is better suited to hold together at higher rpms.

 

[interex]

Oh, that's what I meant to say

 

[InfiniteGSX]

I'm actually building a 1G 7Bolt 2.3 Stroker. Eagle 2.3L Pistons, Early 90 Rods (the thicker ones), 2g 4g64 Crank from my friends wrecked Spyder, and a 4g63 Block. Its just for a rebuild, not going to be my race motor. Just for daily driving. I'm paying a total of 300 bucks for everything, including 90 Oil Cooler setup.