building 500+ whp 98 gsx, suggestions

[STECARS]

No no no ... I dont want to rev high at all. I'm automatic though with a Ipt trans 4k stall converter. So I wount actually i dont ever really brake torque past 4000k rpms. Thats my concern. I wont see much higher than 6k rpms. But this 2.0 suchs off boost I get full boost betwwen 3600-3800 rpms (bolton 50 Trim)

Internally gated Pte scm50 . 255 lph. 660 cc . 24x12x3 fmic with 2.5" custom short aluminum piping. Hks ssq . Victory performance SS 2.5" Tubular o2. N1 dp and catback . test pipe. 3 gm maf translator and S-afc II . Aero Fpr. Venom fuel rail. Custom exh mani. Polished and ported 1g Intake mani. Ipt full race trans 4k torque converter . Fludyne rad . Spal dual slim fans. 100% stainless air filter .


So thats my main concern for lots of lowend torque .
Trying to find some low end power
Right now its either 2.3 or 2.4 but due to price probably 2.3

 

[AL92]

Your mods aside from being auto are similar to my 92 that I had and as said hated it off boost.
Go with a 2.3 buy forged crank maybe for the extra insurance and peace of mind and the rest is pretty simple.
2.4 swap was a bit of a pain in the butt.But you also have a 7 bolt so likely should do the 6 bolt swap into your 2 g anyway..I still dont' trust 7 bolts..I have a nice one in my garage too!!

 

[STECARS]

You will make a little bit more power with the 2.4 compared to the 2.3 just from the extra displacement. I think the 2.3 is a little easier to build, theres not a huge difference between the two. The 2.4 you need to plug some of the passages on the deck of the block and make sure you are using all the right timing parts. The 2.3 you may need to clearance the block for the rods. I've heard some have had to do them all and others didn't have to do any of them.

I went with the 2.4 because I didn't want the downtime of rebuilding the motor in the car and I found a low mileage 2.4 for cheap. But the 2.0 went up in a big ball of smoke anyway, so it's been sitting unitl I get the money for the rebuild.

I was considering doing a 7 bolt 2.3L since I have a spare block

or

I wouyld buy a 2.4L 96-99 rebiult from Karking for like $1000 and just swap heads
I believe its a 7 bolt also and comes with 6 month warranty
What year 2.4 do I need ? and will this bolt up ?

thoughts

 

[snox135]

I don't know what KarKing is using for there internals. Just remember that the stock 2.4 rods and pistons will not hold up to alot of boost.

 

[AL92]

Stock 2.4 pistons would have way high compression also.

 

[Slippi84]

If your gonna go all out and build a motor don't do 7 bolt anything. Save yourself the trouble and worry and go 6 bolt. Second while evil eagle isn't a realistic example it is an example that everyone is aware of and can access the information I stated easily as to prove no one is talkin out their ass. At evil eagles power level and where he shifts at the 2.4 showed it's downside compared to the 2.0l. Take the example for what it's worth and not as law. While in a everyday car you probably won't break cranks but engine life will be decrease drastically when makin normal street power(anywhere from 300-500whp) between a 2.0l and a stroker. I am in no way saying strokers are a waste it is just a matter of what your goal is for your car. Hell I even considered going stroker. Reason being is that My head when fully done will only consist of cams(most likely fp2x's) and manley springs and my trans will be stock at most I will get my center diff welded which for street driving is a whole nother issue and debate. Anyway with mostly stock stuff in the valve train and tranny reving to crazy levels isn't very ideal as it could cause valve float and such. Enter stroker and you don't have to rev as high and still get the same effect. Thing is the more and more research and first hand experinces you hear people on here sharing reving to 8500 with mostly stock stuff I decided that my goal will be attainable with my 2.0l engine reving to about 8k naybe 8500 max.

Point of al this is if you want to rev high and run your setup like that which will make it easier to stay in the turbo's sweet spot stay 2.0. If you want to have a better everyday driving car torque wise and even slightly more hp and rev faster on your way to a 8k MAX redline than go stroker. The choice is yours

 

[AL92]

While I agree dont' trust 7 bolts and did build a 6 bolt 2.4 I disagree with your strokers will have a much shorter life or whatever. There is not a shred of proof to support that.
And eagle broke a crank or two.How many 2.4 and 2.3 motors are out there.Lets take a crank survey poll?

If it was that common doubt the big shops would be selling them.magnus has sold a fair bit and other companies have sold lots of 2.3s.

I would think running the 2.3 or 2.4 to 8000 tops would be more than enough and 7500 might be good enough for most people. Dsm trannies hate to shift at high rpm stock also.
Another reason to have the powerband lowered over stock.
And again off boost of a 2.0 is not much fun at all.120hp or so is pretty lame!

 

[Slippi84]

While I agree dont' trust 7 bolts and did build a 6 bolt 2.4 I disagree with your strokers will have a much shorter life or whatever. There is not a shred of proof to support that.
And eagle broke a crank or two.How many 2.4 and 2.3 motors are out there.Lets take a crank survey poll?

If it was that common doubt the big shops would be selling them.magnus has sold a fair bit and other companies have sold lots of 2.3s.

I would think running the 2.3 or 2.4 to 8000 tops would be more than enough and 7500 might be good enough for most people. Dsm trannies hate to shift at high rpm stock also.
Another reason to have the powerband lowered over stock.
And again off boost of a 2.0 is not much fun at all.120hp or so is pretty lame!

I said spinning a stroker to higher rpms like you owul d a 2.0l will result in shorter life not that strokers have shorter lifes period. Of course strokers sell more power more torque faster spool. It would seem like a no brainer but its' not that simple. No matter how many stroker guys say they're good which I agree with you can't dispute the guy named John who just happens to run a 2.0l

 

[mirkoelek]

now im getting more confused

 

[Rick@AP]

You want to talk about something being better for the street go ask Evil Eagle why he doesn't run a stroker anymore. "I broke to many cranks" Yeah that sounds like something I want my street driven car doing

Yeah strokers flow better but the 2.0l have greater rpm thresh holds allowing them to rev higher. So while a stroker can make more power as long as your still pullin you can accomidate that with reving higher than you would if you had a stroker. If you want a easy way of thinkin about it take a honda and a camarro. Honda might rev to 9k+ while the camarro will redline at 6500. That is with totaly diffrent cars too with our cars it has a more direct corrilation of course. In a nut shell if you want to rev high to make power get a 2.0 if you want more torque and low end power and don't want to rev that high get a stroker.


By the way no one ever said 2.0l's had a better power band then strokers and to technical your power band will be more dependent on your turbo setup then your engine.

Breaking cranks has more to do with the parts used than anything else. I've built more strokers than 95% of the people on this board and I have yet to break one crank.

Why is everyone so worried about revving higher? If I make 50HP more than you do a lot lower rpm then I wouldn't need to rev nearly as high as you would have to to make the same hp. By the time I rev the car up to the same point as the 2l I would be making signficantly more hp.

In a street car you want power and torque at the lowest point possible in the rpm band. That is what makes for a great street car. With 90% of the people on this forum that will never make over 400hp anyway, the stroker is a great option.

 

[Rick@AP]

I just gave up on that other guy....he'll learn once he's actually there.

Have you ever built a 2.4/stroker engine? I highly doubt it.

 

[Rick@AP]

I said spinning a stroker to higher rpms like you owul d a 2.0l will result in shorter life not that strokers have shorter lifes period. Of course strokers sell more power more torque faster spool. It would seem like a no brainer but its' not that simple. No matter how many stroker guys say they're good which I agree with you can't dispute the guy named John who just happens to run a 2.0l

This is the most bullshit arguement ever. Why bring Shepard into this? No here is ever going to duplicate what he does and you would never want to drive his car around everyday on the street.

By your arguement we should all run out and by 80mm turbos and cams bigger than the FP3x's because that's what he does.

 

[v2ner]

Have you ever built a 2.4/stroker engine? I highly doubt it.

Your right, I've never built one myself. Besides help putting a couple in. Doesn't mean I don't have experience with them. Like driving a couple and riding in a couple. You're probably more experience with DSMs then I am...I'll ask you next time instead...when I need help.

 

[v2ner]

BTW, Shep is not the only one runnin that fast with a 2.0L. Since your more experienced one, you probably know who I'm talkin about. Good luck, man, seems like you know what your talkin about.

 

[Turbocharged]

The 2.4 you need to plug some of the passages on the deck of the block and make sure you are using all the right timing parts.

This is not entirely correct. If you use a g4cs, the build does not require blocking any passages. In fact, I found it to be a very simple swap; nearly identical to a 6 bolt swap.


I disagree with what many have said. If you do not own a 2.3/2.4, please do not comment on what to expect. When I swapped to a 2.4, there was a noticeable gain in power over the ENTIRE rpm band. Ive been modifying DSM's for 8 years and this has been my favorite modification.

Swapping to a 2.4/2.3 shifts the power band up (more power) and to the left (lower rpms). I also shift at 6,700 rpms which is great for the transmission. I just dont understand the arguement that a smaller engine (with identical platform) has any disadvantages; I dont like reving the hell out of my motor to get INTO the powerband, Im always in the powerband.

Man am I sick of everyone using Shep for arguements...

 

[AL92]

Well Rick that is good to hear that you haven't had many bad personal experiences with crank breakage on the strokers. Makes me feel a bit better since didn't put in a forged eagle crank.

Unfortunately I still have to join the club of having an actually running 2.4 which should be any day now as finish things up.

It does make me feel gooding hearing from guys that are running them and most like I said seem very happy with them.

The shep argurment is pretty weak.Sheps car is a race car.It might be street driven but its a race car.
And magnus and many others have gone plenty fast on 2.3 and 2.4s.
Obviously the 2.0 is a great engine,tried and true,pretty darn tough even in stock form.
But the lack of torque and hp off boost makes me not that thrilled with them.
I notice a lot of the new cars have gone up that 2.4 size..srt 4 neon..the new coming turbo solstice and sky are 2.4 I think? Bigger engine better torque and power.
And once again if you can have the power lower down and shift lower its better for the trans as high rpm shifting is not something the stock trannys seem to like.
I would be happy to shift at 6700 if the power is there lower.

 

[Slippi84]

What turbo are you running rick because with all your "experience" you should know that a turbo has a sweet spot and reving higher keeps you in that sweet spot when you shift. So if your stroker only revs to 7500 when you shift you will drop out of the sweet spot and have to wait again. With a 2.0l you can rev to 8k and stay in the powerband and keep pullin and pullin. The shep argument isn't bullshit your just naieve and hypocrytical. You say you want to go faster and what not but everyone that is really movin uses a 2.0l. It's not the point that shep isn't a street car the point is that if the stroker was so much better then the 2.0l as you state then he would use one cause he has the best of everything else why skimp on the block?? Show me someone going fast with a stroker I'll show you 3 going faster with a 2.0l

 

[fwdeclipse]

While I agree dont' trust 7 bolts and did build a 6 bolt 2.4 I disagree with your strokers will have a much shorter life or whatever. There is not a shred of proof to support that.
And eagle broke a crank or two.How many 2.4 and 2.3 motors are out there.Lets take a crank survey poll?

If it was that common doubt the big shops would be selling them.magnus has sold a fair bit and other companies have sold lots of 2.3s.

I would think running the 2.3 or 2.4 to 8000 tops would be more than enough and 7500 might be good enough for most people. Dsm trannies hate to shift at high rpm stock also.
Another reason to have the powerband lowered over stock.
And again off boost of a 2.0 is not much fun at all.120hp or so is pretty lame!

I thought once you rebuilt a 7 bolt you were out of the woods with crankwalk.I thought that was something the dealership screwed up and could be remedied by a rebuild.I guess I was incorrect in thinking this.

 

[v2ner]

Well Rick that is good to hear that you haven't had many bad personal experiences with crank breakage on the strokers. Makes me feel a bit better since didn't put in a forged eagle crank.

Unfortunately I still have to join the club of having an actually running 2.4 which should be any day now as finish things up.

It does make me feel gooding hearing from guys that are running them and most like I said seem very happy with them.

The shep argurment is pretty weak.Sheps car is a race car.It might be street driven but its a race car.
And magnus and many others have gone plenty fast on 2.3 and 2.4s.
Obviously the 2.0 is a great engine,tried and true,pretty darn tough even in stock form.
But the lack of torque and hp off boost makes me not that thrilled with them.
I notice a lot of the new cars have gone up that 2.4 size..srt 4 neon..the new coming turbo solstice and sky are 2.4 I think? Bigger engine better torque and power.
And once again if you can have the power lower down and shift lower its better for the trans as high rpm shifting is not something the stock trannys seem to like.
I would be happy to shift at 6700 if the power is there lower.

Wow...shifting at 6700 RPMs. Are you serious? Just trying to help you, man. If you guys don't want to talk about Shep's car, then I'm guessing you already know about Adam's EVO II. Before he took it apart and went to road racing, he was runnin a 2.0L and hit 8s in the 1/4. Before gutting it into a racecar it ran mid 9s. It was a daily driver at this point. I understand where you guys say that it's heavy maintainence though.

 

[Slippi84]

Yeah first off I wouldn't even consdier a stroker unless I was running a turbo 60-1 or bigger. With that said if you shift at 6700 you will drop out of boost forget sweet spot. You will get beat by 16g's that are maxin out if you do that.

 

[Rick@AP]

What turbo are you running rick because with all your "experience" you should know that a turbo has a sweet spot and reving higher keeps you in that sweet spot when you shift. So if your stroker only revs to 7500 when you shift you will drop out of the sweet spot and have to wait again.With a 2.0l you can rev to 8k and stay in the powerband and keep pullin and pullin.

Negatory. I don't have to attempt to stay in the powerband. The powerband is always there. Anything over 3.5k is go. Part of the reason I switched from a 55 lb/min turbo to a 75 lb/min turbo is that I got tired of not being able to modulate power in wet conditions. At least now I can somewhat do it.

Why is it that you think that you've somehow out thought everyone in the world on basic engine design. According to your theory we should be driving 1.8l engines since it would allow people to rev the engine higher and keep the engine in the "sweet spot" longer than a 2l engine would.

BTW, my "street" car has a 2.3l with a FP3575 hanging off of it. On the stand right now is a "2.4" for all intents and purposes, which is awaiting the newly order GT42r.

The shep argument isn't bullshit your just naieve and hypocrytical. You say you want to go faster and what not but everyone that is really movin uses a 2.0l. It's not the point that shep isn't a street car the point is that if the stroker was so much better then the 2.0l as you state then he would use one cause he has the best of everything else why skimp on the block?? Show me someone going fast with a stroker I'll show you 3 going faster with a 2.0l

Another pathetic arguement. Shep chooses what he chooses in order to make a full race season without breaking parts. If I remember my history correctly, Shep did play with a stroker for a while and started to break driveline parts so he went back to the 2l. Maybe he will chime in and tell us why.

In all seriousness though, you really need to stop with this misinformation. Read the 3rd rule listed under "before you reply" because your not helping anyone.

 

[Rick@AP]

Wow...shifting at 6700 RPMs. Are you serious? Just trying to help you, man. If you guys don't want to talk about Shep's car, then I'm guessing you already know about Adam's EVO II. Before he took it apart and went to road racing, he was runnin a 2.0L and hit 8s in the 1/4. Before gutting it into a racecar it ran mid 9s. It was a daily driver at this point. I understand where you guys say that it's heavy maintainence though.

There is a very good reason that AMS is putting 2.x in the EVO's and making 988whp as opposed to trying to do the same with the 2.0l engine.

 

[snox135]

A turbos "sweet spot" has nothing to do with rpm's, it's all about airflow. If you are reaching the sweet spot on your 2.0 at 8k you will reach that same sweet spot on a 2.4 at 6.7k.

 

[v2ner]

There is a very good reason that AMS is putting 2.x in the EVO's and making 988whp as opposed to trying to do the same with the 2.0l engine.

My point here is that it's been done with a 2.0L. BTW, HP is just a peak number. It would make more sense if you pulled out a dyno sheet, right?

 

[Slippi84]

A turbos "sweet spot" has nothing to do with rpm's, it's all about airflow. If you are reaching the sweet spot on your 2.0 at 8k you will reach that same sweet spot on a 2.4 at 6.7k.

I gonna follow the second start to the left till mourning so I can get to never never land where you are right now. Your makin the stroker sound like a v8. it's .3-.4 more liters. You are only gonna spool 400rpms faster and your only gonna make slightly more power and torque. You guys are makin it sound like if you slap a stroker on you will go from running 12's to 10's or something. You keep thinkin that a turbo's sweet spot is just about air flow . You ever think of how you get the air flow your talkin about?? Without a descent load on the engine your not gonna flow that's why people on the dyno with big power sometimes make less than they do on the street cause of the load diffrence. The same idea is true with rpms. The higher in the rpms range you are the more load your puutting on your engine which makes you boost more faster and of course if everything else is ok equates to more flow. Just because a stroker flows more at a given rpm does not meen it's except from the laws of physics. the little diffrence there might be will not be as significant as 6.7k -8k.