Advantages of a 2.1 Stroker?

[ZABMANN]

Are there any advantages to de-stroking my 2.4 to 2.1?

 

[DSM_PWR]

Higher RPM Shifts...

Still faster spool up than 2.0...

Rare ...

If anything i would go for a 2.2 Stroker than 2.1...

 

[e85_4g63]

The 2.1 de-stroker is "supposed" to be a long rod motor. A better rod ratio means less wear when reving the motor to the moon (9000+ RPM)

 

[No_Skillz]

The limiting factor of going 8000+ rpms is mainly our old, beat up transmissions. I would be a big fan of a boosted 2.4. Imagine the spool!

 

[97eclipseNT]

If your not building a serious drag car i would stick with the 2.4 especially if your still N/A, the loss in displacement will only hurt your low end tq. The 2.1 only has a slightly better rod ratio than the 2.0, but both have a better ratio than the 2.4. This is really only going to come into play if your reving high where piston speed becomes an issue.

 

[DSM1G90]

Yea, 2.1 just gets things into an ideal "square" prespective with bore and stroke mm's the same.

Undersquare means more torque,but less RPMS

Oversquare means less torque, but very high RPMS

(why the Chev 327 was a loved motor but really lacked torque due to it being such an oversquare motor-sucked off the line but had the top end that couldn't be beat..almost 12krpms max. Thus, GM came out with the 350 to get more bottom end power of that same block with that longer crank even though it was still somewhat oversquare..)

 

[SBR Joe]

If you wanna rev...think long rod 2.0

If anyones interested by the sounds...just say it...and ill spill the beans on the amazing that is this engine.


Joe
SBR

 

[ZABMANN]

Higher RPM Shifts...

Still faster spool up than 2.0...

Rare ...

If anything i would go for a 2.2 Stroker than 2.1...

2.2? How?

 

[e85_4g63]

Joe, I've been thinking lately about doing a 4g63 build with a std. 88mm stroke, and stroker (6mm higher wrist pin) but I was never sure what length rod I'd need? I'm thinking 156mm? Care to shed some like on your post?

 

[vinnio]

This might help. http://www.kidzuku.com/StrokeOrNot.pdf

Its a good read, but ultimately its comes down to what you want to do with the car.

Edit: Well, my link isnt working for me. SO never mind. It WAS a good read.

 

[dsm-onster]

If you destroke to make a better rod/stroke ratio for making "X" volume displacement over time you can't shift high enough without a $3K tranny and $1K clutch. If you stroke for more piston velocity and larger displacement to make the same "X" volume displacement over time, the torque will kill your drivetrain without a $3K tranny and $1K clutch. 6 of one 1/2 dozen of another.

Having a high revving screamer will keep you from having to shift into 5th to net 140+ mph trap speeds. That will help a little. But you'll have to PAY BIG for a good valvetrain. . .

 

[SBR Joe]

Long rod 2.0.

Consists of stock 88mm stroke crank, 2.0 block. The 156mm long rod and a 2.3 stroker piston. Mike and i crunched some numbers one day and the rod ratio was a tad bit less than the 2.1, but not much at all allowing it to rev to the moon and very quickly. The benefit being you dont have the BS you do using the 2.4 block with the taller deck heigt affecting anything i.e. cam timing, having to get the 2.4 belt, and most of all for us 6 bolt guys, simply aquiring the G4CS block which is damn near non existent these days.

Heres a dyno graph of one of my wholesale accounts that purchased the 2.0 long rod from me. 26psi on an HTA 3582. Take a look at the tq and power curves. We were VERY happy with the results to say the least.

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

 

[dsm-onster]

This is confusing. A 2.1 destroker is a 4g63 crank in a 2.4 block with 156mm rods, so it has the EXACT SAME CRANK STROKE AND ROD LENGTH as your motor above. How can the rod and stroke ratio be different even slightly than a long rod 2.0L???

I DO see the advantage of having a lighter piston (less bore diameter) than a 2.1 destroker. That would make for some much higher rpm capability. But the rod/stroke is the same. The benefits would be the less weight and thus less tensile stresss on the rod bolts.

 

[SBR Joe]

This is confusing. A 2.1 destroker is a 4g63 crank in a 2.4 block with 156mm rods, so it has the EXACT SAME CRANK STROKE AND ROD LENGTH as your motor above. How can the rod and stroke ratio be different even slightly than a long rod 2.0L???

I DO see the advantage of having a lighter piston (less bore diameter) than a 2.1 destroker. That would make for some much higher rpm capability. But the rod/stroke is the same. The benefits would be the less weight and thus less tensile stresss on the rod bolts.

Correction, the 2.1 uses a 88mm crank in a 2.4 with 162mm rods and custom pistons.

Long rod 2.0 advantage like i stated before is roughly the same rod ratio and the shorter lighter piston, but still in the 2.0 block, so you have no BS to get it to work. It will go right in as a 2.0 would and rev like a 2 stroke dirt bike!

Joe
SBR

 

[e85_4g63]

So now the big question for people that are interested (cough cough, uhmmm ~ clearing throat). Where do we aquire these rods? (I'm guessing good ole' SBR can find em!)...

 

[SBR Joe]

So now the big question for people that are interested (cough cough, uhmmm ~ clearing throat). Where do we aquire these rods? (I'm guessing good ole' SBR can find em!)...

you got it buddy. Theyre available in an H beam and I beam rod. I do suggest only i beam though seeings its capable of very high rpms. Im not sure id trust the H beams to hold up reliably at 10k .

Joe
SBR

 

[dsm-onster]

Correction, the 2.1 uses a 88mm crank in a 2.4 with 162mm rods and custom pistons.

Long rod 2.0 advantage like i stated before is roughly the same rod ratio and the shorter lighter piston, but still in the 2.0 block, so you have no BS to get it to work. It will go right in as a 2.0 would and rev like a 2 stroke dirt bike!

Joe
SBR

OOPs . I'm thinking something else. Yes 162mm rods with a 4g63 crank equals identical rod/stroke ratio, not roughly similar, as the 2.1L (86.5mm 4g64 bore) or 2.0L (85mm 4g63 bore). But GREAT thing is that the 2.0L bore motor has also a lower deck height. PLUS a lower diameter bore. This reduces the piston height AND radius, GREATLY reducing it's piston crown volume. Lower crownvolume means lower mass and hellatios revving ability. Hopefully, the pistons can be formed to still tolerated the same cylinder pressure though it is smaller in diameter and lower in height. Again I can see the revving ability from the volume reduction in the pistons. Not the rod/stroke ratio, since it is identical to any other motor with the same rod length and stroke length.

 

[SBR Joe]

OOPs . I'm thinking something else. Yes 162mm rods with a 4g63 crank equals identical rod/stroke ratio, not roughly similar, as the 2.1L (86.5mm 4g64 bore) or 2.0L (85mm 4g63 bore). But GREAT thing is that the 2.0L bore motor has also a lower deck height. PLUS a lower diameter bore. This reduces the piston height AND radius, GREATLY reducing it's piston crown volume. Lower crownvolume means lower mass and hellatios revving ability. Hopefully, the pistons can be formed to still tolerated the same cylinder pressure though it is smaller in diameter and lower in height. Again I can see the revving ability from the volume reduction in the pistons. Not the rod/stroke ratio, since it is identical to any other motor with the same rod length and stroke length.

Well the rod ratio in combination with the piston reduction makes it really rock like a GWAR concert. HAHA.

Joe
SBR

 

[dsm-onster]

Sounds very tempting!!! (the gwar reference is funny) Good stuff. I mean it's pretty simple, but how many have actually though of just lengthening the rods and reducing the weight of the piston at the same time. I agree! it sounds like a real screamer

 

[TunaTalon]

The long rod 2.0L with 156mm rods and stroker pistons has a rod ratio of 1.77.
The 2.1L destroked 4G64 with 162mm rods has a rod ratio of 1.84.
The difference in rod ratio is only enough to move the RPM where peak acceleration of the pistons of 39939 m/sec^2 from 8040 RPM on the long rod 2.0L to 8070 RPM for the 2.1L destroked 4G64.
(For the stock 2.0L 4G63 peak piston acceleration is 39939 m/sec^2 at 8000 RPM)
See http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/str...acement-various-combinations-bore-stroke.html

The 2.1 should rev higher but the long rod 2.0 is for sure simpler.

Why would anyone rebuild a 4G63 with new forged parts without using stroker pistons?

 

[SBR Joe]

The long rod 2.0L with 156mm rods and stroker pistons has a rod ratio of 1.77.
The 2.1L destroked 4G64 with 162mm rods has a rod ratio of 1.84.
The difference in rod ratio is only enough to move the RPM where peak acceleration of the pistons of 39939 m/sec^2 from 8040 RPM on the long rod 2.0L to 8070 RPM for the 2.1L destroked 4G64.
(For the stock 2.0L 4G63 peak piston acceleration is 39939 m/sec^2 at 8000 RPM)
See http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/str...acement-various-combinations-bore-stroke.html

The 2.1 should rev higher but the long rod 2.0 is for sure simpler.

Why would anyone rebuild a 4G63 with new forged parts without using stroker pistons?

Well these use the 2.3 stroker pistons. Kind of non conventional when building the 2.0! .

Joe
SBR

 

[dsm-onster]

Me! I didn't opt for custom rods.

Maurice. Gad to see you up and about. I think Joe is talking about using 162mm rods in the 2.0 motor vs. 162mm rods in the 2.1 destroker. So all the advantage would come from reducing the piston crown volume/weight vs the minor increase in displacement from an oversize bore to the oem 4g63 block. I REALLY see the advantage of how much higher you can rev this motor vs. the typical 2.1L motor to be better than the .1L displacement the 2.1L offers. . . I'm not going to do the exact math. I'm tired after doing my 2nd 4bolt rear swap

 

[SBR Joe]

Me! I didn't opt for custom rods.

Maurice. Gad to see you up and about. I think Joe is talking about using 162mm rods in the 2.0 motor vs. 162mm rods in the 2.1 destroker. So all the advantage would come from reducing the piston crown volume/weight vs the minor increase in displacement from an oversize bore to the oem 4g63 block.

No, in the long rod 2.0, you use the 156mm rod with a 2.3 stroker piston...in a 2.0 block with 2.0 crank.

The 2.1 destroker used the 162mm, custom "de stroker" piston, and the 2.4 block with the 2.0 crank.

The main appeal of the 2.0 long rod is the same appeal as the 2.1...but minus all the bs. You have a 2.0 already, well most of you. So this makes it a fairly inexpensive build, and actually shows better results than the 2.1's weve built in the past. I mean damn...look at that tourque curve...thats a 2.3 torque curve but with capabilities of 10-11k RPM's. And thats a 35r. Im still geeked about the results.


And GWAR refrence FTW! HAHAHA


Joe
SBR

 

[xi Talon ix]

joe, could you send me a pm of roughly what it costs to build the longrod shortblock please?

 

[SBR Joe]

joe, could you send me a pm of roughly what it costs to build the longrod shortblock please?

Sure buddy! PM sent!

Joe
SBR