Comparing a 2.4l to a 2.1l

[red eclipse gsx]

Hey guys, I have recently installed a FP3052, and all supporting mods, but am running off the stock engine. I am looking at getting a fully built 2.4l or a 2.1l engine to fully utilize this turbo. My question is, which engine would be the best for my setup. Also, I am looking at upgrading to the fp3065 in the future after I upgrade the motor. I was only interested in the 2.1l because I heard from other members on this forum and other forums that you can rev this engine up to something like 9500 rpm which would be good for a high-end turbo. If any of you guys know of a better stroker motor, then all of your input is greatly appreciated. Also, I was mainly looking at getting one built by Slowboy racing since they are about 3 1/2 hours from me.

 

[GVR4592]

There isn't anything you can do with a 2.1 that you can't do with a 2.0. Lots of people take their 2.0's past 9500 with no problems. The limiting factor of revving the piss out of the 4g63 isn't the bottom end, it's the valvetrain.

Now wether or not you should go with a 2.4 is personal preference. You can max the 3052 or 3065 out with either engine. It just depends on if you want to rev past 8000 or not. If you like quick spoolup and lot of midrange torque go with the 2.4. If you aren't concerned with spool time and you want high rpm power then stick with the 2.0.

 

[red eclipse gsx]

Hmmm, thanks. I see what your saying. I think the 2.4l maybe a better choice because I have awd. Do you know how much I can rev up to on a 2.4l providing I have cams, etc???

 

[RavenX]

Hmmm, thanks. I see what your saying. I think the 2.4l maybe a better choice because I have awd. Do you know how much I can rev up to on a 2.4l providing I have cams, etc???

I heard pretty much 7500 is the limit to reving the 2.4l. I mean its not really a limit its just that from what i have read most people rev to that. I know it has to do with the longer stroke so it wouldn't be able to rev as high as the 2.0l.

 

[red eclipse gsx]

Oh, so the 2.4l would be sacraficing the higher rev limit but reducing spool on turbos. This just made my decision harder, . Anyways thanks for the input.

 

[GVR4592]

I hav never run a 2.4 so I can't say for sure, but from reading other people's posts it seems that anything over 7500 starts to put quite a strain on the main bearings. It's not really a big deal though, just don't rev it to high. There's some members here making over 600whp on their 2.4's. It's just a matter of preference.

 

[red eclipse gsx]

So, could I make that kind of power or more with the 2.1l? If so, I might just end up with that since an intake manifold and cams plus my dnp SS manifold and the fp3052 will all help spool anyways. Any more input?

 

[GVR4592]

I guess you could but I really don't see the point of a 2.1 engine. You get .1 liters more displacement and a better rod ratio if you use the 162mm rods. Those two things don't justify the added expense in my opinion. People say it revs higher, well I say show me 2.1that revs higher than 2.0. If you go to the forced performance website and look at the dyno chart for the 3052 those numbers were made with a 2.3 or 2.4. Cams and Intake manifold probably won't help spoolup, they will both affect your midrange power though. With large cams and a quality sheet metal intake manifold you will lose some midrange power.

 

[red eclipse gsx]

Hmm, that makes sense, because a fully built 2.1l will be roughly 6 grand. I was just at Fp's website and saw their dyno chart on the fp3052. Then maybe the 2.4l will be better for my goal. Thanks again.

 

[CanadianTalon]

I heard pretty much 7500 is the limit to reving the 2.4l. I mean its not really a limit its just that from what i have read most people rev to that. I know it has to do with the longer stroke so it wouldn't be able to rev as high as the 2.0l.

AMS is turning 8500 out of their 2.3L stroked 4G63's, and that's with a piston that's less stable than a 100mm crank in the taller deck G4CS block. In the grand scheme of things 100mm of stroke isn't that much, and I can't see you having a problem turning one of these to 8500 or 9000 RPM's if it's properly built.

 

[Scrymerr]

I have heard somewhere that revs wear a lot harder on an engine than power. Anyone know if this is true or not, or have any information pertaining to this?

 

[93AWDTalon1]

The 2.4L has no need to rev out high with smaller turbo's (smaller being gt35r size and under). Plus remember this airflow wise the 2.4L at 7500rpm is flowing what the 2.0L is a 9000rpm. So you would need a very large turbo to be making power to 8500 with a 2.4L like the GT42R.

 

[Lunch_Box]

I heard pretty much 7500 is the limit to reving the 2.4l. I mean its not really a limit its just that from what i have read most people rev to that. I know it has to do with the longer stroke so it wouldn't be able to rev as high as the 2.0l.

Swordfish was reving his 2.4L to 9000 RPM and lots of other people have taking it to over 8000 RPM.

 

[Reese92tsi]

I guess you could but I really don't see the point of a 2.1 engine. You get .1 liters more displacement and a better rod ratio if you use the 162mm rods. Those two things don't justify the added expense in my opinion. People say it revs higher, well I say show me 2.1that revs higher than 2.0. If you go to the forced performance website and look at the dyno chart for the 3052 those numbers were made with a 2.3 or 2.4. Cams and Intake manifold probably won't help spoolup, they will both affect your midrange power though. With large cams and a quality sheet metal intake manifold you will lose some midrange power.

What most don't understand is that changing rod length/rod ratio also changes the breathing characteristics of a motor. Motors with longer rods or greater r/s ratios are proven to create greater high RPM power. On the intake stroke piston speed is greater therefore there will be a harder suction or draw when the intake valves are open. On compression stroke piston position is slightly higher in the bore thus resulting in greater compression. Piston speed is slower around TDC (10 BTDC to 10 ATDC) thus increasing effective cylinder pressure and heat at high RPM, emissions are reduced, & from a mechanical advantage standpoint crank/rod angle is 1-2 degrees closer to the ideal lever arm angle during combustion at high rpm. Simply put, the 2.1 seems to be an awesome motor.

 

[LaN-]

isnt shep still on a 2.0???? i'd just follow his example

 

[GVR4592]

Simply put, the 2.1 seems to be an awesome motor.

You said exactly what I've been thinking. It SEEMS to be. I have yet to see proof that it actually does anything better than a 2.0

 

[Injected]

I have an idea, buy a G4CS shortblock and use the 100mm crank in your 2.0 block for the 2.4 build and the 88mm crank from your 2.0 in the 2.4 block with the 162mm rods for the 2.1 build. Build one and drive it until you blow it up and build the other or get a friend to do the other build and do a direct comparison.

 

[jpbrazill]

My 2.4 is awesome. I have a T3/T04E 57 trim and I get into boost a lot faster than a 2.0 would with the same turbo. I get to full boost about 700-1000 rpms before a 2.0 with that 57 trim. Granted, yes you do sacrifice your taller rev limit, but you gain the the faster spool up and the torque! The torque is a lot of fun. At my last dyno session, (before I changed my WG spring, installing the underdrive pulley, and tuning) I dynoed 378whp/379torque on 91 pump gas@17psi, untuned. Now Im running 21psi and havent taken it back to the dyno...I will post numbers soon.

My 2 cents

J.P.

 

[red eclipse gsx]

Very nice numbers Talontsiturbo. I bet your running a lot more. The 2.4l seems to be what most people with big turbos are leaning to. I think it would be better for me running a fp3052 to go with a 2.4l for the additional liters of power and flow. Anyone know what psi I can boost on with a stock g4cs and a built head with a fp3052???

 

[jpbrazill]

Very nice numbers Talontsiturbo. I bet your running a lot more. The 2.4l seems to be what most people with big turbos are leaning to. I think it would be better for me running a fp3052 to go with a 2.4l for the additional liters of power and flow. Anyone know what psi I can boost on with a stock g4cs and a built head with a fp3052???

Thanks, I think I will be around the 400whp range now. I also added an underdrive pulley since the last dyno session.

As far as boost goes, I think you shouldnt boost over 15psi on a stock bottom end. I havnt looked at your mods list yet, but make sure you have all of your supporting mods before even pushing 15psi. The FP 3052 is supposedly a really really great street/strip turbo for a 4G63. The FP3065 is more of a drag/top end powered turbo. However, I think with a 2.4L the 3065 would still be great on the top end, but a killer street turbo.

 

[red eclipse gsx]

Oh cool, thanks for the response, I am boosting, right now, at 15 psi on the fp3052. I do have all of the supporting mods for this . My closest reliable dyno is Slowboy racing about 3 1/2 hours away but I'm in college right now. So I am only home about twice a year to work on my car and I don't have much time to dyno tune. So far I've done a street tune with DSMLink. The reason why I started this thread is because I need to buy an engine within the next three months because I am moving to Hawaii with a couple of friends by july. I do know that it is harder to get parts out there.

 

[Lunch_Box]

The 3052 isn't that big of a turbo. You don't really need a 2.3L or 2.4L to help with spool but that doesn't mean you can't go that route either.

 

[Lunch_Box]

I have an idea, buy a G4CS shortblock and use the 100mm crank in your 2.0 block for the 2.4 build and the 88mm crank from your 2.0 in the 2.4 block with the 162mm rods for the 2.1 build. Build one and drive it until you blow it up and build the other or get a friend to do the other build and do a direct comparison.

You ment when you put a 2.4L crank into the 2.0L block that you would get a 2.3L and not a 2.4L correct.

 

[Injected]

You ment when you put a 2.4L crank into the 2.0L block that you would get a 2.3L and not a 2.4L correct.

Nope. The "2.3" uses the same 100mm stroke. The differences in displacement come directly from the size of the bore. 85mm bore x 88mm stroke = 1997cc's and your standard 2.0L. The standard overbore to 86.5mm and a 100mm stroke gives you 2350cc's which could be called a 2.3 or a 2.4. This can be had with either the 2.0 or 2.4 block. The difference is the piston you would use. Those boring for maximum displacement should have the block sonic tested to ensure enough material for an 88mm bore. 88mm X 100mm = 2432cc's, but you may see cylinder distortion.

The common naming scheme for builders seems to be the 2.0 block and 2.4 crank is called a "2.3" even though there is no difference in the bore and stroke between that and the typical 2.4 build.

Hope this info helps.

 

[bryanwheat]

Basically the 2.1 is is just a larger bore taller deck 4g63, so the stroke is exactly the same, now there might be a slight ammount of ability to turn slightly more revs our of the 2.1 over the 2.0 because of the 2.4 block (block used in 2.1) has a taller deck, which makes less of a rod angle. But the ammount will probably not even be a couple 100 rpm's if that. No i am experienced with building even higher rapping motors. Fir instance using a 4g63 block sleeved and bored out more than .060 and using a 1.6 dohc and 1.8 dohc crankshafts. The 1.6 crank in the bored 2.4 block ends up being close to 1.9 litres, but can turn around aver 10,500 rpm with the correct valvetrain. The only problem with building these motors is getting long rods and custom pistons, but if you call up weisco, or any other forged piston maker with the specs, on a certain piston, they will make them for you. Usually costs more however. I would recomend groden aluminum long rods also, they are light and tough as hell. If anyone is interested in more info on destroked motors than send me a pm and i will share some info with you.