Comparing a 2.4l to a 2.1l

[Verticaljump1]

No offense, but look at the purpose of all the motors you're considering. A 2.1L motor is designed with a 4g64 block with 4g63 88mm stroke crank, using 162mm long rods and aftermarket 4g64 pistons with the wrist pin bumped up 6mm. A 2.1L is intended to rev to and beyond 10,000rpm, and there is no way in hell you can piece together a head/turbo that will breathe with that set-up without forking over some major cash. No flame intended, but the "lower redline" of the 2.4L's is way overrated. I'm sure Marco has went beyond 8500 several times and his unit was still intact. Why do you want to rev that high anyways? What are your goals, what times are you trying to run? I'd recommend a 2.4L with eagle/wiseco. It's going to take 650whp to break that set-up (I know I can't say 650whp, but that seems to be the common rating). You'll spool that 3052 or 3065 so fast you'll crap your pants. Either way you're going to have a great set-up, but you don't need a 2.1L 12,000rpm motor to make your goals, unless it's single digits. If you're that worried about the supposed limited revs of a 2.4L, do the long rod set-up. $1350 shipped from Magnus will net you custom ross 9:1 or 10:1 pistons, with a custom quench pad to reduce knock, and 156mm pauter x-beam rods which will hold 800 horses easily (with good tuning). I'm sorry if I'm being rude because I'm not trying to, but I've been in your situation for about 3 months now. I'm doing the 2.4L, I just can't decide between stock length rods or the long rod magnus set-up. I've already got a brand spankin new fp3065 but I bought it for use with a 2.0L, now since I'm doing the 2.4L I want a FP3575 . You don't have to use a big turbo with the 2.4L, as smaller turbos will work just fine, you'll just outflow them easier. I'm also sorry if I discredited anyone's comments, because I didn't mean to. I just want to make sure this guy will utilize what he pays for, because that money can go to better parts. Thanks and let us know what you decide.

 

[Verticaljump1]

By the way, Slowboy sells 162mm Manley rods for a 2.1L for $699, and they sell Wiseco Pistons for use with a 162mm 2.1L or a 156mm rod 2.4L for $539. I know Magnus sells the combo too, but I'm not sure for how much.

 

[SleeperG]

when you are building a motor and valvetrain that will rev to 10,000+ rpms you need to realize that its a no comprimise motor.
first off, with the kind of headflow needed, between major porting, smim's and beefy cams, you aren't going to make any power down low. and to ahve a turbo that is going to give you power all tht eway up at 10k, its not going to spool anywhere you'd want it on the street.

add that in with how many places are there on the street to wind out a gear to 11k rpms?
good luck with that. no question the 2.1 is a badass motor..
but its not what id want on the street. though i'm sure it would be a fun engnine. but you also have to factor in a tranny that can shift that high without grenading.

i've seen dyno charts of 2.1's they make tons of power, but not until after 5k.


the 2.4 seems to be the most streetable motor.

so the question is,
where are you going to be spending most of your time?

 

[Lunch_Box]

If you are spending most of you time on the track then go with teh 2.1L or the 2.0L but if the car is going to have a large street duty then the extra displacement of the stroker will be beneficial.

 

[Turbocharged]

If you are spending most of you time on the track then go with teh 2.1L or the 2.0L but if the car is going to have a large street duty then the extra displacement of the stroker will be beneficial.

Im glad someone finally said this. The 2.4 is awsome on the street and performs well at the track (especially with a big turbo). I think the 2.1 should be left for the track and the 2.0 is the intermediate. The torque of the 2.4 is great for street driving. I can spin three tires with no problem (havent trashed the transmission yet).

If you are building a motor for revs you better have the transmission to back it up.

 

[steel_3d]

Sorry to interject, but I'm wondering if there's a real advantage to using a 4g64/g4cs block versus a 2.0 6-bolt bored out, for a stroker setup.

 

[MNGSX]

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.

Actually the piston is more stable...

Moving the pin up farther towards the crown also makes the piston lighter and reduces friction via the shorter skirt..

Build a 100mm stroke in a 2.0 block... The highest winding engine short stroke engine should be in the 2.4 block..

 

[steel_3d]

What if I want a street motor and don't really care about revving past 7500? Would I be fine with going with the 4g63 block, stroker kit, bored 20 or 40 over?

 

[MNGSX]

Build a 2.3 and rev to the stock redline on the tacho...

So what if some guy got a stroker to rev to 9k... It would have been making more power and been faster down the track if he had just shifted already and brought the engine RPM back down into its power band in the next gear...

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/dynosheets.php

Look at the different charts and where the powerband starts to fall...

 

[Turbocharged]

Heres an idea. Get your car dynoed and see where the ACTUAL power band is. Only rev your motor to the point where you are still making power. Why does everyone want to rev to 9000 rpms? I shift at 6800 rpms because that keeps my car in its optimal power band. I actually like being able to make more power at lower rpms mostly because I dont have to beat the hell out my transmisson. There is no advantage to reving high if you arent making to power.

 

[Turbocharged]

How does reving ever even come into these discussions? A bigger motor is going to make more power. Ask anyone with a 2.3/2.4. My car got MUCH faster after I did the swap. Sure it doesnt make power in the 8000+ range but why would I rev it that high when it makes plenty of power in the 3000-7000 range.

 

[jpbrazill]

having a 2.4L, I can speak from experience. The whole idea of having a 2.4L is to have a bigger motor....spool the turbo faster....and have more low end power/torque.

If you want a motor that revs past 10,000rpms then you need to consider all of the other things that go with it. Turbo sizing, transmission, head flow, cams, and how you want your power to come on.

A 2.1L for the street does not sound very reasonable in my opinion. If you want a street brawler, go with a 2.3 or 2.4, or stay with a 2.0. The differences in the 2.3 and 2.4 are really only in the build.

J.P.

 

[megadan]

There is no replacement for displacement.
I HAD to plug that in somewhere!

Had the same choice to make several months ago and I chose 2.3L. I'm currently putting it together.

 

[Injected]

Heres an idea. Get your car dynoed and see where the ACTUAL power band is. Only rev your motor to the point where you are still making power. Why does everyone want to rev to 9000 rpms? I shift at 6800 rpms because that keeps my car in its optimal power band. I actually like being able to make more power at lower rpms mostly because I dont have to beat the hell out my transmisson. There is no advantage to reving high if you arent making to power.

Actually, this isn't 100% correct logic (no offense). The reason the engine would have a lower power band has a lot to do with the cams, and nothing to do with the displacement. Stock cams will never make power in the higher RPM range. They don't have the duration to fill the cylinder at those speeds. A 2.4 can be cammed to make power to 9000 rpm, but most people don't see a point and fear the rod ratio. The 2.1 wouldn't really make much power past 7000 rpm without a larger cam. Either way, a cam made to flow a lot of air at those speeds will have such a big duration, it would have a very lopey idle and poor low end characteristics (though some find that tolerable).

RPM vs Displacement isn't really an argument unless you talk about piston speed and rod ratio. Either engine can be built to make power wherever, it's a matter of preference.

If you are putting down a lot of power and torque on a 2.4, you will need a Shep tranny (or other). If you are going with a 2.1 and plan to rev it to the sky, you will also need a tranny upgrade.

 

[steel_3d]

What exactly is there in a Shep tranny that would make it handle more torque than a stock tranny? Center diff maybe (this doesn't seem to be the only failure point), but everything else only aids in shifting.

 

[clipsit]

There is no replacement for displacement.
I HAD to plug that in somewhere!

Hahahahah...that's a good one...I was waiting for someone to say that...

 

[whiteythepimp]

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.

Just to let you know.. A fully built 2.1l is far less then 6 grand through SBR.. Just thought i'd let you know...

 

[GVR4592]

Just to let you know.. A fully built 2.1l is far less then 6 grand through SBR.. Just thought i'd let you know...

Just to let you know...this thread is two years old.