Is the 2.3L Stroker Kit worth and extra $700?

[Initial DSM]

Yeah blah blah I KNOW. It's a common rumor thats already been dispelled.
Ask Marco of Magnus Motorsports. It's all on how you build it. With anything else DSM related, if you go cheap, you'll be sorry in the end.
There' s also guys in Europe running 2.4L's in there EVO's that have revved it to 10k...

 

[definitiveno]

Yeah blah blah I KNOW. It's a common rumor thats already been dispelled.
Ask Marco of Magnus Motorsports. It's all on how you build it. With anything else DSM related, if you go cheap, you'll be sorry in the end.
There' s also guys in Europe running 2.4L's in there EVO's that have revved it to 10k...

Did they make any power at 10k? If not why?

 

[definitiveno]

Yeah blah blah I KNOW. It's a common rumor thats already been dispelled.
Ask Marco of Magnus Motorsports. It's all on how you build it. With anything else DSM related, if you go cheap, you'll be sorry in the end.
There' s also guys in Europe running 2.4L's in there EVO's that have revved it to 10k...

When did rod stroke ratio's become a rumor?

 

[definitiveno]

Yeah blah blah I KNOW. It's a common rumor thats already been dispelled.
Ask Marco of Magnus Motorsports. It's all on how you build it. With anything else DSM related, if you go cheap, you'll be sorry in the end.
There' s also guys in Europe running 2.4L's in there EVO's that have revved it to 10k...

When was it marco's perogative to make a sale? What motor is in magnus's most powerful car?

 

[definitiveno]

Yeah I KNOW. It's a common rumor thats already been dispelled.
Ask Marco of Magnus Motorsports. It's all on how you build it. With anything else DSM related, if you go cheap, you'll be sorry in the end.
There' s also guys in Europe running 2.4L's in there EVO's that have revved it to 10k...

now I'm definatly going "blah blah"

 

[Initial DSM]

First off, what do guys in Europe with EVO's have anything to do with Marco's own cars or his business.
second yes they made power , plenty of it.
Third, go take a look at the 1/4 list on this site and see how many are 2.4L's that produce plenty of power. Here's one: http://dsmtuners.com/forums/member.php?u=24267
#14 on the list.
The point is, the more people do it, just like how the DSM's gradually got faster over the last 10 years of modding, the faster they will be. It's more displacement, its that simple.

 

[definitiveno]

First off, what do guys in Europe with EVO's have anything to do with Marco's own cars or his business.

I never associated the britts with magnus. maybe you lack of an arguement caused you to try and create one.

second yes they made power , plenty of it.

I don't believe you

Third, go take a look at the 1/4 list on this site and see how many are 2.4L's that produce plenty of power. Here's one: http://dsmtuners.com/forums/member.php?u=24267
#14 on the list.

14? Thats very impressive. 10.8 is nothing to shake a stick at, but clearly if you look at the top of that list you will find a 2 liter. That was my point. How can you possibly come to an arguement where some body says first place and try to use fourteenth place? It doesn't make any sense.

The point is, the more people do it, just like how the DSM's gradually got faster over the last 10 years of modding, the faster they will be. It's more displacement, its that simple.

That was not the point. The guy asked strokers were faster, they are not, and if they were reliable, lesss so compared to the 2 liter. I hope that the 2.4 does grow however, and the aftermarket makes it able to go even faster. I don't see it, but I'm not looking very hard either.

 

[Initial DSM]

The problem is the blocks are rare.
So to anyone who is racing on the track (the top guys on the list), if their engine is to break down (which I'm sure happens, a race engine can only last under abuse for so long), they would want a replacement engine that is readily available.
Hence, the 2.0L.
The 2.0L in the DSM world has +10 years more race experience than the 2.4L.
I dont doubt anyone not wanting to take the risk in running it, especially if they are in a race season.
Second, there hasn't been enough people WITH 2.4L's that have pushed their cars to the max to get hte best times.
It would be expensive to run them constantly on the track like the top guys do, unless you make your own like Magnus does.
Third, they have plenty of sponsors, running N20, and top of the line parts. And some like Shep and Buschur, it wouldnt make sense to abandon the 2.0L market when most of their clientel runs it.
If we had readily a 3.8L engine that can easily swap into our cars no problem we would all be doing it. I dont care what anyone says.
As far as streetablity, you can only go so far with a small displacement motor once you hit the 'wall' and it becomes a 'race car only'.
Therefore personally, I'd rather be fast on the street as well as the track to have the best of both worlds, hence a 2.4L.
Also, I wouldnt be surprised if there's any people out there that would run a 2.4L and NOT tell anyone.
But like I said, the torque alone is enough to compensate any loss in rev.
If the car can reve to 8200 while someone is revving at 9000, the difference wont matter compared ot the benefits the added displacement has.
You dont believe me fine; go call Marco at Magnus tommorrow he's the once who told me about the EVO's.
Only reason I called because my friends 2G crankwalked and I wanted info on the rod ratio issue.

 

[definitiveno]

The problem is the blocks are rare.
So to anyone who is racing on the track (the top guys on the list), if their engine is to break down (which I'm sure happens, a race engine can only last under abuse for so long), they would want a replacement engine that is readily available.
Hence, the 2.0L.

Sure it is.......

The 2.0L in the DSM world has +10 years more race experience than the 2.4L.
I dont doubt anyone not wanting to take the risk in running it, especially if they are in a race season.
Second, there hasn't been enough people WITH 2.4L's that have pushed their cars to the max to get hte best times.
It would be expensive to run them constantly on the track like the top guys do, unless you make your own like Magnus does.

True, you save alot of money making alot of power out of a smaller engine.....

Third, they have plenty of sponsors, running N20, and top of the line parts. And some like Shep and Buschur, it wouldnt make sense to abandon the 2.0L market when most of their clientel runs it.
If we had readily a 3.8L engine that can easily swap into our cars no problem we would all be doing it. I dont care what anyone says.

Not if it was a 4g63 with a 165 millimeter stroke

As far as streetablity, you can only go so far with a small displacement motor once you hit the 'wall' and it becomes a 'race car only'.
Therefore personally, I'd rather be fast on the street as well as the track to have the best of both worlds, hence a 2.4L.

Werd to that. The 2.4 is probly alot more power between lights.

I wouldnt be surprised if there's any people out there that would run a 2.4L and NOT tell anyone.

Why wouldn't they tell people?

But like I said, the torque alone is enough to compensate any loss in rev.
If the car can reve to 8200 while someone is revving at 9000, the difference wont matter compared ot the benefits the added displacement has.

That is opinion of yours not a fact.

You dont believe me fine; go call Marco at Magnus tommorrow he's the once who told me about the EVO's.
Only reason I called because my friends 2G crankwalked and I wanted info on the rod ratio issue.

it's not about believing marco. It never was. His interest is building and selling strokers and I'm sure he does a good job at pointing out all the finer points of his product. Outside of marco's though a year of personal research yields different results, first that the 2 liter is going faster, second i have never heard of a stroker with more than 60 thousand miles on it. Not to say it hasn't happened, but some thing ive never seen. I also read lots of threads about stroker problems, and for the few amount there are, there are too many problematic reports on them.

 

[Ludachris]

This thread brings up so many points, yet so many other points are left out. It's not a simple yes or no answer.

Is the 2.3L stroker worth the extra $700? That's the question... Depends on who you ask and what you want out of an engine. Do you go with a 2.3L or 2.4L simply to make more power than a 2.0? Probably not. The 2.0 has been around much longer and has more R&D under its belt which will make it easier and cheaper to make more power. Most people will likely choose a stroker for more torque, quicker spool, and driveability with a bigger turbo. It's just not as proven due to its new place in the market.

Are they reliable? Well, I'd say only time will tell. They haven't been available very long. Are the 2.0 engines more reliable? That's more tricky to answer. We would need to be comparing built engines to built engines. And even then, there are so many more built 2.0 engines on the road today than 2.3 or 2.4 that you'd have to look at the ratio of comparable good engines to failed engines, not just the number of failed engines. The 2.3 stroker is such the talk these days that you're likely to hear about a 2.3L failure than a 2.0L. The only fair reliability comparison would be to compare the 2.3L engine reliablity to that of the 2.0 engines that were built up in the first few years. You have to keep in mind a couple things - one, people build up engines to beat on them. There will be failures. Two, some people take shortcuts that lead to engine failure... we all know how many DSMers want to save a buck (except when it comes to loud BOVs). Anyone know of someone who built up a 2.0L and had it fail? I'm sure there are plenty, and there were probably plenty within the first years of 2.0 built engines.

Of course the fastest DSMs around are 2.0L. You would expect that with the ratio of built 2.0L engines compared to 2.3 or 2.4L. The odds naturally favor the 2.0L. Will it always be that way? Maybe, maybe not. It probably depends on how many people run the stroker and how the aftermarket supports it.

 

[white 2g awd]

well, after some thought, and what luda said (which is the truth, thank you.) i think this is one of the few things that dsmers is going to have to go into blind, you know, we all started somewhere, thinking that 20g's where not streetable, to thinking that 2.4l's couldn't be used reliably???? i my self have decided on a little bit of fact, how many 2.0's with the 2.4 crank have been ran for long periods of time (over 100k miles)? now how many straight 2.4's have been ran for long periods of time (over 100k miles)? plenty, hell, i have a stock 4g64 in my galant in the driveway with 108k on the odometer. so i'm going to go with a 2.4l block and crank, with forged pistons and rods. i personally believe this is the best bet, but i post because i ask any and everyone else....why isn't this discussed....in stead of the 2.0 with 2.4 crank. and like luda said, people want to save a buck, i know people are going to say well i can just buy the kit, or the crank, instead of buying the block also, cause i have a 2.0 block allready. maybe that is why they don't last as long??

 

[Initial DSM]

Jesus Christ thank you Ludachris! You just said pretty much everything I was just about to type.

 

[peregrine]

This thread brings up so many points, yet so many other points are left out. It's not a simple yes or no answer.

Is the 2.3L stroker worth the extra $700? That's the question... Depends on who you ask and what you want out of an engine. Do you go with a 2.3L or 2.4L simply to make more power than a 2.0? Probably not. The 2.0 has been around much longer and has more R&D under its belt which will make it easier and cheaper to make more power. Most people will likely choose a stroker for more torque, quicker spool, and driveability with a bigger turbo. It's just not as proven due to its new place in the market.

Are they reliable? Well, I'd say only time will tell. They haven't been available very long. Are the 2.0 engines more reliable? That's more tricky to answer. We would need to be comparing built engines to built engines. And even then, there are so many more built 2.0 engines on the road today than 2.3 or 2.4 that you'd have to look at the ratio of comparable good engines to failed engines, not just the number of failed engines. The 2.3 stroker is such the talk these days that you're likely to hear about a 2.3L failure than a 2.0L. The only fair reliability comparison would be to compare the 2.3L engine reliablity to that of the 2.0 engines that were built up in the first few years. You have to keep in mind a couple things - one, people build up engines to beat on them. There will be failures. Two, some people take shortcuts that lead to engine failure... we all know how many DSMers want to save a buck (except when it comes to loud BOVs). Anyone know of someone who built up a 2.0L and had it fail? I'm sure there are plenty, and there were probably plenty within the first years of 2.0 built engines.

Of course the fastest DSMs around are 2.0L. You would expect that with the ratio of built 2.0L engines compared to 2.3 or 2.4L. The odds naturally favor the 2.0L. Will it always be that way? Maybe, maybe not. It probably depends on how many people run the stroker and how the aftermarket supports it.

coming from a guy that has a 2.3 im on the 2.4 bandwagon. coming from a v8 world before my dsm addiction, i can say for a fact that there really is no replacement for displacement with all else being equal. i can also tell you that there *are* some of the bigger names out there running bigger inch motor under the 2.0 guise. i cant tell you how i know this but i talk to some of the bigwigs in the rwd world now

 

[definitiveno]

So wich one is the good one again? G4CS or 4G64.....

 

[definitiveno]

Wich one is the good one again? G4CS or 4G64.....

 

[definitiveno]

Jesus Christ thank you Ludachris! You just said pretty much everything I was just about to type.

Well you should have just quit Pusey footin around and said what you wanted the first time around WTF

 

[peregrine]

Wich one is the good one again? G4CS or 4G64.....

g4cs=6 bolt
4g64=7 bolt. you decide

 

[Street Surgeon]

When I spoke with representatives from JAM, they told me that the 2.4 block itself was not as strong, and not designed quite as well (at least in that it was not designed to handle the higher hp) as the 2.0, and that's why they would reccommend the 2.4 crank stuffed into the 2.0 block. That was one of many reasons I decided to go 2.3

Are there faster 2.0s than 2.3s? Sure of course, there is also like a million to one ratio of turbo 2.0's to 2.3's / 2.4's so there's no argument there. My whole point was that for me it's a win/win situation. I'm only looking for 400 to 450 @ the wheels, I want instant-ish throttle response, I'm making sure the motor is overbuilt so that reliability (in a DSM HAH!) isn't an issue, and I'm not skimping on anything. I fully intend to do this once, do it right, and enjoy myself. Another interesting point is that you take any 2.0 setup to speak of, and then place that same setup on the 2.3 and you'll have higher hp and tq at lower rpm's. That's a plain fact man, you can argue theoreticals like will it last, if it blows etc, but THAT is a fact and not conjecture.

I love the 2.0 man, that's what I've owned in both my previous DSM's, and is also going to be pulling backup motor / side project build after I finish this 2.3 setup. I guess it also depends on what you're using it for as well. How many of us here have 500+ to the wheels, and use our car STRICTLY for track duty. I hear all this talk that the 2.0 is the track king, yet how many of you use your car STRICTLY for track 1/4's ONLY?!? Certainly not me. I daily drive mine, enjoy the occasional stoplight antics, and it will see occasional track duty. That being said the 2.3 is perfect as I'm not trying to run an 11k rpm track beast yanno? I'd venture to say that for ANYONE who isn't going strictly track the 2.3 is a great upgrade.

 

[definitiveno]

When I spoke with representatives from JAM, they told me that the 2.4 block itself was not as strong, and not designed quite as well (at least in that it was not designed to handle the higher hp) as the 2.0, and that's why they would reccommend the 2.4 crank stuffed into the 2.0 block. That was one of many reasons I decided to go 2.3

Are there faster 2.0s than 2.3s? Sure of course, there is also like a million to one ratio of turbo 2.0's to 2.3's / 2.4's so there's no argument there. My whole point was that for me it's a win/win situation. I'm only looking for 400 to 450 @ the wheels, I want instant-ish throttle response, I'm making sure the motor is overbuilt so that reliability (in a DSM HAH!) isn't an issue, and I'm not skimping on anything. I fully intend to do this once, do it right, and enjoy myself. Another interesting point is that you take any 2.0 setup to speak of, and then place that same setup on the 2.3 and you'll have higher hp and tq at lower rpm's. That's a plain fact man, you can argue theoreticals like will it last, if it blows etc, but THAT is a fact and not conjecture.

I love the 2.0 man, that's what I've owned in both my previous DSM's, and is also going to be pulling backup motor / side project build after I finish this 2.3 setup. I guess it also depends on what you're using it for as well. How many of us here have 500+ to the wheels, and use our car STRICTLY for track duty. I hear all this talk that the 2.0 is the track king, yet how many of you use your car STRICTLY for track 1/4's ONLY?!? Certainly not me. I daily drive mine, enjoy the occasional stoplight antics, and it will see occasional track duty. That being said the 2.3 is perfect as I'm not trying to run an 11k rpm track beast yanno? I'd venture to say that for ANYONE who isn't going strictly track the 2.3 is a great upgrade.

Your post was going well, up to a point. Than you started getting frisky and spouting opinion as fact. You think a 2 liter needs to spin to 11 grand to match your strokers 400 450ish horse power? You think 2 liter cars are strictly for track duty? Are you familiar with gas milage from your stroker/street car? You bought a 2.3 for it's reliability? You only want to make 400-450ish hp and you were worried about cracking the block on a 2.4?

I'm sorry, but I think your entire post will be written off entirly as opinion of a car you don't even own yet. Forgive me gentleman if you feel I am attacking strokers, just trying to keep the topic subjective. This post clearly was not.

 

[Street Surgeon]

EDIT>>> Not trying to be a dick here, but please read my post and when you're replying and I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth. I'll answer all the questions you asked here.

*sigh*

Let me go ahead and clear things up for you since clearly you've become confused.

You think a 2 liter needs to spin to 11 grand to match your strokers 400 450ish horse power?

Absolutely not, but I know that my 2.3 won't have to rev as high to make that hp. Please point out where I said that haha. I merely stated that MY goal was for a mere 400 to 450 reliable hp out of the stroker that I bought.

You think 2 liter cars are strictly for track duty?

Absolutely not, someone in this thread (you I believe) said that the 2.0's rule the track, and I merely pointed out that OF COURSE they do there are a million more 2.0's than 2.3's out there! Hell it's a no brainer right? For some reason it seems you're taking this personally man, but if it makes you feel better I love the 2.0, I just want a larger powerband for my own needs.

Are you familiar with gas milage from your stroker/street car?

Absolutely, here's a shocker though.... If you have a 2.0 making 400hp, and a 2.3 making 400hp you tell me which one has higher gas consumption Answer.... It's almost negligible since it basically takes the same amt. of fuel and air to turn a given amnt of hp. Also if you're THAT concerned with gas mileage perhaps a Civic is more up your alley

You bought a 2.3 for it's reliability?

Nope, and we drive DSM's man so that's a bit of a moot point. I bought it for it's great streetability, I am making sure it's over-built, and correctly built for reliability however.

You only want to make 400-450ish hp and you were worried about cracking the block on a 2.4?

Am I worried? Absolutely not, I am running a 2.0 block with 2.4 crank so it's not an issue for me Sure the 2.4 block could *and most likely will* handle it, hell maybe with no problems whatsoever. I never said it couldn't. I SAID THAT THE 2.0 BLOCK WAS DESIGNED TO HANDLE HIGHER HP, AND BOOST. That is why I personally have gone that route.

Oh and I do own the car, the 2.3, and the (almost finished) built 6bolt 2.0 motor etc. Granted, it's not together yet and this is a culmination of what I've learned through my own research, basic knowledge, and personal opinions (which is what the poster of this thread asked for). I'm very subjective on this as I do in fact own both. Do you? Also everything I stated in this post in response to your questions was already stated in my previous post that you quoted. Please take the time to fully read and comprehend my posts before you put words into my mouth

 

[definitiveno]

EDIT>>> Not trying to be a dick here, but please read my post and when you're replying and I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth. I'll answer all the questions you asked here.

*sigh*

Let me go ahead and clear things up for you since clearly you've become confused.


Absolutely not, but I know that my 2.3 won't have to rev as high to make that hp. Please point out where I said that haha. I merely stated that MY goal was for a mere 400 to 450 reliable hp out of the stroker that I bought.


Absolutely not, someone in this thread (you I believe) said that the 2.0's rule the track, and I merely pointed out that OF COURSE they do there are a million more 2.0's than 2.3's out there! Hell it's a no brainer right? For some reason it seems you're taking this personally man, but if it makes you feel better I love the 2.0, I just want a larger powerband for my own needs.


Absolutely, here's a shocker though.... If you have a 2.0 making 400hp, and a 2.3 making 400hp you tell me which one has higher gas consumption Answer.... It's almost negligible since it basically takes the same amt. of fuel and air to turn a given amnt of hp. Also if you're THAT concerned with gas mileage perhaps a Civic is more up your alley


Nope, and we drive DSM's man so that's a bit of a moot point. I bought it for it's great streetability, I am making sure it's over-built, and correctly built for reliability however.


Am I worried? Absolutely not, I am running a 2.0 block with 2.4 crank so it's not an issue for me Sure the 2.4 block could *and most likely will* handle it, hell maybe with no problems whatsoever. I never said it couldn't. I SAID THAT THE 2.0 BLOCK WAS DESIGNED TO HANDLE HIGHER HP, AND BOOST. That is why I personally have gone that route.

Oh and I do own the car, the 2.3, and the (almost finished) built 6bolt 2.0 motor etc. Granted, it's not together yet and this is a culmination of what I've learned through my own research, basic knowledge, and personal opinions (which is what the poster of this thread asked for). I'm very subjective on this as I do in fact own both. Do you? Also everything I stated in this post in response to your questions was already stated in my previous post that you quoted. Please take the time to fully read and comprehend my posts before you put words into my mouth

Nobody put words in your mouth. Just seems that you should be putting more support into your thoughts. When you leave brief bites about what you think, other members take that shit out of context and fill in the blanks with their own skewed ideas. You and i may fully understand what were talking about, but i was just asking the stupid questions in case some one who didn't know happened upon your post.

I personally went with the 2 liter. from the advice given to me from john at Import performance transmissions and the previous experiiences of russ coxx, it seemed the 2 liter was the only thing working. Russ went through several motors this season, not sure exactly how many. All season long, even when the car was running good, he still wasn't going as fast as the 2 liter. Not getting what he wanted in the lower rpm's he spun his motor to 9k and popped it. This season he's back with the 2.

Both automatics and 2.3/2.4's haven't been around too long, and taking the advice of my personal mechanic, the advice of john @ IPT, russ coxes experiences, and the experiences of those around here, I was too skeered to take that leap of faith. I wanted a stroker believe me, but it din't seem like the smart thing to do at the time.

Outside of that, the only thing I didn't agree with you was that if i wanted good milage I should get a honda, because when asked to a well tuned 2 liter can get great milage, and also that dsm could not be made reliable. If you take care of your stuff, it will last you a long time. Look at brnoutking, he's been makin over 400hp to the wheels with a 20g for the passed 140k or some thing like that, and now he is making 450 to the wheels with his gt3156. Take care of your stuff and tune your car well.

 

[sweet97]

OK. I've been following along and have some questions. I too would like a stroker. I run a 60-1 which culd use more bottom end though it is surprisingly good at 2500RPM's. I tore down a running 6 bolt from a '91 that had 86k miles on the odometer. The $700. difference between the rotating assembly of a 2.0 and a 2.3 is significant. One qestion is block "clearancing". Please explain. Do the lower bores have to be notched to make room for the rods due to the angle they have along with the extra 1/2" extra stroke? More expense. If my block's bores are within spec and the crank also I believe I would go with the 2.0.
SBR has a stroker kit for $1575. Besides Carshop's used crank option for $1099. is there a better price out there than SBR's? Anyone experienced a stroker's torque and can say WOW!!? I have not added many bolt on's that have had a WOW factor to them. I guess I don't have a sensitive behind. Adding Comp 200's this weekend and am hoping to exprience a WOW factor for the first time.
I often wonder if guys who add a 3" exhaust and say it added like 30+HP must be wishful thinkers.
Back to the stroker. I have also heard some bad things and was told to stay away but I figure the trouble is high revving them when they are not meant for high revs.
Buschur does not even sell a stroker kit and he seems to have some experience and given his prices he is not turned off from making a buck. He just wants his products to work.
I guess I havejust 2 quetions right now.
1. block clearancing
2. strokerkit prices
Thanks, mark

 

[Ludachris]

Just noticed that this stroker thread was in the Bolt-On forum - no wonder more people aren't chiming in... moved to the correct forum.

 

[sweet97]

When did rod stroke ratio's become a rumor?

Is there an issue with the 2.0/2.3 stroker with the rod stroke ratio, yes/no? Does a 2.0 block require clearancing to use the stroker crank?
Irun a 60-1 turbo and the stroker is tempting. I have a '91 6 bolt motor to rebuild to replace my '93's 7 bolt.
The stroker kits are expensive. I will not ask if it's worth it as that is subjective at this point.
There is a lack of facts in these replies.
1. What is the approximate extra cost to build a 2.3 stroker?
2. Is there a rod angle issue that requires clearancing the block?
3. Who actually has done this and can comment on his results with turbo used and does the spool quicken/how much?
4. I would think the problems that may exist come from turning revs too high for the stroker. This is just my simple opinion.
Please some answers without argueing or nom-factual backing. Thanks, Mark

 

[Savage Talon]

This is a good thread on building a stroker.

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100677