Advantages of a 2.1 Stroker?

[ZABMANN]

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

 

[TunaTalon]

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

Joe
SBR

Joe,
Don’t think of them as 2.3 pistons. Think of them as pistons with the pin moved up so you can use a longer rod.

So what’s wrong with non-conventional? In my world non-conventional is conventional. Wait-that’s making me dizzy.

 

[dsm-onster]

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

I'm confused about WHY the shorter rod made better torque especially since it was on the same crank as a 2.1L motor. Not calling your $h!t out or anything. Just really interested in WHY this works???? What makes a SLIGHTLY low rod stroke angle make THAT much more torque. . . Is it possibly the setup? Different setups make SO much different torque numbers at very different rpms. . . As you know. Just hoping for a reason to off my unused eagle standard length 6bolt rods and standard wiseco pistons for something worthwhile. . . I've see 8.5cr 2.0l builds with that torque curve (again no offense.) Click.

 

[Strm Trpr]

What about a 156mm Aluminum Rod 2.0L?
Wouldn't that be the shit!
I have a 98 7-bolt so it can accept the Evo 4G63 crank without a problem.
Those are already lighter than DSM cranks, so for lighter weight.

Couple that with 156mm BME Aluminum Rods and 2.3L CP Stroker Pistons.

I wouldn't rev it to 11k, but I would sure get up to 8,500rpm real quick!
What are your thoughts on that set-up?

Mostly weekend warrior/road racer with an HX35.

 

[SBR Joe]

I'm confused about WHY the shorter rod made better torque especially since it was on the same crank as a 2.1L motor. Not calling your $h!t out or anything. Just really interested in WHY this works???? What makes a SLIGHTLY low rod stroke angle make THAT much more torque. . . Is it possibly the setup? Different setups make SO much different torque numbers at very different rpms. . . As you know. Just hoping for a reason to off my unused eagle standard length 6bolt rods and standard wiseco pistons for something worthwhile. . . I've see 8.5cr 2.0l builds with that torque curve (again no offense.) Click.

I think you should call me. haha i think youre looking to deep into what im trying to explain.

Same goes to anyone. If you have any questions call me.

321.304.4907 x 105


Joe
SBR

 

[SBR Joe]

Joe,
Don’t think of them as 2.3 pistons. Think of them as pistons with the pin moved up so you can use a longer rod.

So what’s wrong with non-conventional? In my world non-conventional is conventional. Wait-that’s making me dizzy.

HAHA i am, but they are specifically made FOR the 2.3L engine, they just so happen to work perfectly with this setup

Joe
SBR

 

[TunaTalon]

I'm confused about WHY the shorter rod made better torque especially since it was on the same crank as a 2.1L motor.

Matt,
See Figure 4 of http://www.kidzuku.com/StrokeOrNot.pdf on page 4. The best word picture I could come up with for more torque with lower rod ratio is that low rod ratios have more side loading. Think of the side loading as the piston leaning on the wall of the cylinder to get a better push on the crankshaft throw. The effect is small, but real.

But that is just my opinion and does not reflect the opinion of the management.

 

[klevur1]

wow, i've learned quite a bit just from reading through this thread. you know that saying "you learn something new everyday"..? well, uh, YEP! hahaa thanks for the tech. info. for me to geek out on. yeyeah =) too bad we can't test these motor configurations head-to-head..!..

 

[klevur1]

that would be "EPIC"

 

[SBR Joe]

Also just to clarify...the use of the 156mm rod is because the 162mm rod simply wont fit in the 2.0...not enough deck height. IF we made a custom piston for it, the pin would be so high on the skirt, leaving no room for fatty ringlands, that it would surely fail in no time.

Joe
SBR

 

[klevur1]

good lord

 

[prostreetdsmx1]

Joe is one bad mutha! This man knows his motors!

 

[Strm Trpr]

That power band is insane and what should be expect for a HTA3582R on a 2.0L, but the torque is extremely impressive spanning almost 2500rpms.

What head, intake manifold and cams were used in this motor?
I also see the ambient temp was 102*F WTF?

 

[dsm-onster]

Also just to clarify...the use of the 156mm rod is because the 162mm rod simply wont fit in the 2.0...not enough deck height. IF we made a custom piston for it, the pin would be so high on the skirt, leaving no room for fatty ringlands, that it would surely fail in no time.

Joe
SBR

That's exactly what I was thinking. Makes complete sense. Although the higher torque via more sideload as tuna mentions is more to chew . Yes most and professionals don't neccesarily agree. . . That's a whole OTHER debate. . .

 

[klevur1]

..makes me want to get one just to try. people (most true motor heads) would trip-out @ a DSM revving that high =). could be fun toying with some of the local turbo'd cars around here heh-heh (don't get me wrong i <3 turbos too)

 

[daren_p]

Since were talking motor combo's, here's a nice little break down:

http://www.magnusmotorsports.com/tech/DetailedEngineList.pdf

Me likey 2.2L

 

[klevur1]

this's getting better haha

 

[SBR Joe]

That power band is insane and what should be expect for a HTA3582R on a 2.0L, but the torque is extremely impressive spanning almost 2500rpms.

What head, intake manifold and cams were used in this motor?
I also see the ambient temp was 102*F WTF?

Our stage 3 head and Kelford 280's! Yup, that power/tq curve with 280 cams...how YOUU doin?! HAHA


Joe
SBR

 

[dsm-onster]

..makes me want to get one just to try. people (most true motor heads) would trip-out @ a DSM revving that high =). could be fun toying with some of the local turbo'd cars around here heh-heh (don't get me wrong i <3 turbos too)

Hey don't steal ideas .j/k I have an n/t car now with n/t thoughts (not serious, should be done in the middle of november, it's a break from my hx40 twin scroll build). I've already started to decipher the n/t timing and fuel maps with pcmx and tunerpro. . .

 

[klevur1]

wish me luck- i'm going to get some quick pick lotto tix. 2XXmillion jackpot! if i win we'll do a head-to-head!

 

[dsm-onster]

Don't jest do it! or stop upping your post count

 

[Strm Trpr]

Our stage 3 head and Kelford 280's! Yup, that power/tq curve with 280 cams...how YOUU doin?! HAHA


Joe
SBR

1g or 2g head, and which intake manifold?
I'll assume Manley Turbo Tuff 156mm rods?
What aluminum rods?

 

[klevur1]

SBR_JOE/DSM-ONSTER/?.. : col·lab·o·rate !

 

[SBR Joe]

1g or 2g head, and which intake manifold?
I'll assume Manley Turbo Tuff 156mm rods?
What aluminum rods?

this was all on an evo8. And yes, the turbo tuffs...i dont recommend anything less with the capabilities of this motor...would be senseless.

EDIT: he was using the magnus cast intake manifold.


Joe
SBR

 

[klevur1]

DSM-ONSTER: HAHAHAA u trixter u

no seriously, this thread is excellent

 

[klevur1]

that would be an excellent time doing a head to head test boioioing!