Disadvantages of stroker motor compared to 2.0

[Hal]

I guess between piston speed and the terrible r/s ratio, they aren't good for longevity.

Since the 2.3/2.4/2.0 all use the same length rods I guess they all have suck ass rod ratios then?

Hal

 

[bus]

i wonder how good it would be to DESTROKE a 2.4? its seems that you could put a 2.0 crank in the 2.4 and it would be roughly a 2.2 but better angles and all that garbage. better wrist pin location. wisemen chime in.

Marco at www.magnusmotorsports.com/ (website is down right now) has done the destroked 2.4, it does make a 2.1 and revs its ass off. He dumped it and went back to his 2.4 in favor of something that he could actually shift.

I dont understand why most people want to rev to 10 to 11k. Not to many DSM trannys will let you go that high, even some of the better built ones. Plus on top of that not always will there be power that high up in the band.

Another thing to look at is longevity. When you stroke a motor you are going to increase the piston speed. This will wear the cylinder walls faster then non stroker application. With the addition of forged pistons, the only way to geta stroker to work, you will start to burn oil faster and may have problems with blow by. Another place to look would be at the angles of the rods. When you stroke it the angles will be putting greater force on the bearings, pitons, rods, and crank.

Boost will also, but I see people cranking that up. We done alot of research and have seen alot of worse angles on other stroker motors like in Ford and Chevy. Yes they are not perfect, but what is.

These are all good points.
Bus, it sounds like your right where i want to be. which Internals did you go with?

I have Eagle rods and JE shelf stock 8.8:1 pistons. Polk built my stroker for me. I didnt buy a kit, Polk has all the stuff shelf stock.

Now dont think that im on here tring to be know it all. This is stuff I have researched alot and from the info I got this is where I am.

 

[fastcarfreak]

Marco at www.magnusmotorsports.com/ (website is down right now) has done the destroked 2.4, it does make a 2.1 and revs its ass off. He dumped it and went back to his 2.4 in favor of something that he could actually shift.

I dont understand why most people want to rev to 10 to 11k. Not to many DSM trannys will let you go that high, even some of the better built ones. Plus on top of that not always will there be power that high up in the band.



Boost will also, but I see people cranking that up. We done alot of research and have seen alot of worse angles on other stroker motors like in Ford and Chevy. Yes they are not perfect, but what is.



I have Eagle rods and JE shelf stock 8.8:1 pistons. Polk built my stroker for me. I didnt buy a kit, Polk has all the stuff shelf stock.

Now dont think that im on here tring to be know it all. This is stuff I have researched alot and from the info I got this is where I am.

What did it cost you to have Polk build your stroker motor?

 

[bus]

What did it cost you to have Polk build your stroker motor?

Your gonna have to call him, but I will tell you it was way cheaper than any kit that I have seen. Plus he has built tons of these. He built Swordfishs 2.4 long rod stroker to. Its got marcos 6mm longer rods, and a displacement of 2.5 liters. There was alot of machine work to get that motor to clearence its self. This is his number (501) 847-7223, hes a great guy so dont be afraid to call him up.

 

[boostedinaz]

Since the 2.3/2.4/2.0 all use the same length rods I guess they all have suck ass rod ratios then?

Hal

No because they all have different strokes or wristpin heights.

 

[GPTourer]

I notice the Japanese tuners' stroker kits are wildly expensive and vary in displacement as well. I wonder if they have the "answer" to some of the problems some people are having with 2.3L's in this thread. There has to be something far more exotic then just dropping in a 4G64 crank going on to justify these costs. How do the bore and stroke and other important specs of JUN's 2.2L (2159 cc) kit and TODA's 2.3 (2323 cc) kit compare to the popular American tuners stroker kits?

http://www.junauto.co.jp/products/cylinderblock-part/crankshaft/4g63.html?en

http://www.todaracing.com/products/mitsubishi_4g63/stroker_kit.html

 

[boostedinaz]

I notice the Japanese tuners' stroker kits are wildly expensive and vary in displacement as well. I wonder if they have the "answer" to some of the problems some people are having with 2.3L's in this thread. There has to be something far more exotic then just dropping in a 4G64 crank going on to justify these costs. How do the bore and stroke and other important specs of JUN's 2.2L (2159 cc) kit and TODA's 2.3 (2323 cc) kit compare to the popular American tuners stroker kits?

http://www.junauto.co.jp/products/cylinderblock-part/crankshaft/4g63.html?en

http://www.todaracing.com/products/mitsubishi_4g63/stroker_kit.html

Alot of it is becasue they make there own parts. Your not getting a 4G64 crank. You are getting a forged Jun or Toda crank along with there forged rods and pistons. The geometry would still be the same or very similar, but my guess is becasue there arent as many people runnign those as the "stock" type components. I have never seen or even heard of anyone, with a DSM, running those overly expensive stroker kits. I think that perhaps they are used in more racecars than street cars so the tear down and build up schedule is alot more and the miles are alot less leading to less catasrophic failure.

 

[boostedinaz]

I thought if you put a 2.0L crank in a 2.4L block you end up with a 2.1L not a 2.2L?

You could so this, but it kinda defeats the thinking in a stroker. The whole point, at least from the Chevy days, was that you could make power down low in the RPM range. That not only made a streetable car but would help things, such as valvetrain, live longer since you didnt have to rev so high to get the power. Plus you add high revs to bad angles and you have a shorter life yet.

Like it has been said DSM trannies hate to shift high so it really is pointless, unless a full race application.

I do however think a 2.4 with a 3065 would be titties and beer for a street moster.

 

[sunflashx]

I do however think a 2.4 with a 3065 would be titties and beer for a street moster.

It is.

All this talk about how bad the rod angles are, and how it will accellerate wear. My 2.4L core had 150k miles on it and had no more wear than most of the 4g63's I've seen. Granted this was a low power NA car that it came from, things aren't quite the same. Does seem to indicate that the difference in rod angles themselves aren't enough to make a motor wear out that much faster.

People having problems with built 2.4's need to also look at the ratio of people who have problems with built/rebuilt motors in general. Seems as if there's quite a few people out there who can't get it right. There's alot of variables that go into a built motor over stock. Chrome/ Molly faced rings, ring endgap, piston-cylinder wall clearance, bearing clearances, etc.

 

[boostedinaz]

It is.

All this talk about how bad the rod angles are, and how it will accellerate wear. My 2.4L core had 150k miles on it and had no more wear than most of the 4g63's I've seen. Granted this was a low power NA car that it came from, things aren't quite the same. Does seem to indicate that the difference in rod angles themselves aren't enough to make a motor wear out that much faster.

People having problems with built 2.4's need to also look at the ratio of people who have problems with built/rebuilt motors in general. Seems as if there's quite a few people out there who can't get it right. There's alot of variables that go into a built motor over stock. Chrome/ Molly faced rings, ring endgap, piston-cylinder wall clearance, bearing clearances, etc.

A 2.4 isnt a stroker. Its just a swap of a different shortblock under out head. That why they will last alot longer then the other mentioned combos.

 

[Hal]

The 2.3 and 2.4 still have the same rod angle ratio because the crank is the same and the rod length is the same.

The ONLY difference is the distance from the pin center line to the top of the piston and the bore diameter.

Hal

 

[GPTourer]

Alot of it is becasue they make there own parts. Your not getting a 4G64 crank. You are getting a forged Jun or Toda crank along with there forged rods and pistons. The geometry would still be the same or very similar,

Oh, yeah - I knew there had to be a custom crank to justify the expense. But it was the geometry that had me thinking - "very similar" could be the difference with getting 7.000 miles out of it and 100,000 (above and beyond good tuning and abusive use of course.)

I'm hoping the stroker horror stories from this thread are just because of poor workmanship or tuning and not an inherent problem with 2.3's or 2.4's.

 

[GPTourer]

All this talk about how bad the rod angles are, and how it will accellerate wear. My 2.4L core had 150k miles on it and had no more wear than most of the 4g63's I've seen. Granted this was a low power NA car that it came from, things aren't quite the same.

I'm not sure I follow this reasoning. A lower power NA will never see the cylinder pressures, heat, or RPM's our cars will, so how can its former life as a lowly commuter, passenger car be any indication of its longevity now in a turbo DSM?

 

[herostar]

well I'm at about 2k with mine, and no problems yet

 

[4wd-Eclipse]

I'm hoping the stroker horror stories from this thread are just because of poor workmanship or tuning and not an inherent problem with 2.3's or 2.4's.[/QUOTE]




Me too, Amin

 

[hose101772]

all you doubters need only to think of how many 5.0s there are out there-spraying or runnin boost or just plain gettin the crap ran out of it.A 5.0 doesnt have that good a R/S and yet Ive seen plenty of them last.Mine had 170k when I sold it and I never had the heads or pan off.

Think about it-a 2ltr would have to turn 9000 rpm to have the same displacement as 2.4 at 7500 rpm. I'm pretty sure 9k is alot more expensive(valve springs,rods,a tranny that'll shift) and harder on parts than a lower reving 2.4 bottom end.