Block and crank mix

[spyderdrifter]

Which stroker setup uses a 4g64 block and 2.0 4g63 crank?

 

[Kuzi]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it creates a 2.1 liter. Magnus tried it with a 6 bolt. When you do it though, the 4g64 block has a 6mm higher deck so you will have to look for a rod and piston combination that will work.

 

[DSMPT]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it creates a 2.1 liter. Magnus tried it with a 6 bolt. When you do it though, the 4g64 block has a 6mm higher deck so you will have to look for a rod and piston combination that will work.

That's correct. a 4G64 block + a 88mm crank + 156mm rods + pistons (1.375CH) or a 4G64 block + a 88mm crank + 162mm rods + stroker pistons (1.13" CH) = a de-stroked 2.1L.

 

[gofer]

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

 

[donniekak]

The problem with this setup is you get all the head sealing issues of a 2.4, without any real advantages.

 

[ThunderChild]

The problem with this setup is you get all the head sealing issues of a 2.4, without any real advantages.

Head sealing issues...? I haven't read or heard about anything like that in my research, as I plan to run a 2.1 6 bolt de-stroker. Would you mind elaborating or linking to said info?

Only thing I can think is the oil drain-backs that need to be plugged in the block, is that what youre referring to?

 

[donniekak]

By the time you clean up the bore you're at 87mm. There are a couple gaskets you can get that don't hang into the chamber, but the gasket gets a lot smaller between cylinders due to the close bore spacing.

 

[ThunderChild]

Ah I guess that could make sense. Is there no fel-pro composite for the 4g64/g4cs?

 

[spyderdrifter]

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

Thanks for the chart Gofer.

Thanks everyone else for the input.

 

[spyderdrifter]

So since the head sealing issue was mentioned, is that only because of the ports not covered by the 4g63 gasket? If so, as long as those extra ports are permanently sealed (i.e. welded), couldn't any 4g63 head gasket be used?

 

[ThunderChild]

It's not so much the un-used oil drain back holes, its the space between bores and the overall size of the bore. As @donniekak mentioned, when the cylinder is bored and honed, it leaves you with a small margin between the cylinder wall and the sealing ring with the available head gaskets.

I havent looked at any gaskets yet, but the input provided makes sense. my plan was to o-ring and use a fel-pro composite, so if that works for me I can always post back, tho that motor is still easily a year away from being built.

 

[spyderdrifter]

So since that is the issue, what head gasket should be used for this block/head combo?

 

[donniekak]

It doesn't make sense to use a 2.4 block for anything but a 2.4. A regular 2.0 build can rev to 10k no problem. It takes a large turbo to even make it worth revving that high.

 

[gofer]

On a 4g64 block standard bore is 86.5mm, this is .060 over on a 4g63 that has a standard bore of 85mm.

Most engine builders from what I've gathered over the years recommend only going .040 over, .060 over max, on a block so you've got enough "meat" between the cylinders that the cylinder walls won't crack and, like Donnie said, won't have HG sealing issues because there's enough material there. Another concern going to 87mm bore is how close you may be getting to the oil/water jackets which can cause issues as well.

That being said, if you're wanting to run one of these "outside the box" strokers that require an aftermarket crank then I'd recommend leaning towards the 2.2L because you can still run a 4g63 block.

So since that is the issue, what head gasket should be used for this block/head combo?

Finding a HG isn't the issue, Felpro and Cometic both make MLS gaskets to work with a 87mm bore. The Mitsu MLS only works up to a 86mm bore (.040 over on a 4g63 block) so you'd have to machine it to 87mm if you wanted to use OE.