The Top DSM Community on the Web

For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. Log in to remove most ads.

Please Support ExtremePSI
Please Support Rix Racing

opinions about 4g64 Lr, 2,2 or stock?

This site may earn a commission from merchant
affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

ChrisO

Probationary Member
19
0
Nov 7, 2016
Borås, Europe
Hi.

I´m gonna try to explain the best way i can. I gonna buy a evo 3 as a Daliy driver. i am more interested in low/mid torque rather than high rpms etc. i have read ALOT about these setups, but now it only feels like water in my head haha. it feels like i don´t get any smarter anyway. i have a 4g64 short block at home and planing use the evo 3 head .the setups i have been looking at is: stock , long rod (156 mm rods) and a 2.2 destroker 162mm rods (seems to be the best of everything). which setup would be the best for me? what about the rod ratio? the 2.2l setup would have 1.72 and the long rod 1.56. how important is this in the reality? i want it to be reliable in first hand. if i go with this block, i am putting in the oil squirters.

2.2 destroker parts:

crank 94mm
https://www.extremepsi.com/store/product.php?productid=21351

pistons
https://www.extremepsi.com/store/product.php?productid=25797&cat=1662&page=1

conrods
https://www.extremepsi.com/store/product.php?productid=27385

long rod setup:

Oem crank

Conrods:
https://www.extremepsi.com/store/product.php?productid=23346&cat=1339&page=1

kolvar:
https://www.extremepsi.com/store/product.php?productid=25788&cat=1662&page=1
 
Just curious, but you guys that have a 4g64. is it really worth the effort to be as good as the 4g63? the 4g64 needs:

4g64 cam gears (if you do it right)
4g63 oil squirters (the highest cost)
4g64 timing belt (con, no kevlar belt though)
plug the 5 oil holes on the 4g64

im starting to get unsure if all the trouble is worth it? if i´ll go with the 64, it would be a long rod 156mm (1.56 rod ratio) rods anyways. but if i put the 100 mm crank in the 63 it would 2.3L but 1.5 Rod ratio
 
1. use adjustable cam gears
2. ditch the oil squirters
3. jnz, stm, boostin etc. all have 4g64 timing belt kits, or you grind the tensioner arm for the 63 belt. you can try to find the galant parts for it, but why bother when you can go a costr effective, more tunable route?

You can go either way, and a 2.3 has been a good option, but I know I'll be doing a 2.1 destroker for the piston dwell and longevity of the bearings. it may cost more, but thats my choice. I could rev it super high too, but i want to go auto as well, so ill stick with low rpms, longevity and a small bump in displacement.
 
Okay. so it are really no need for a kevlar belt then? a 64 belt works just fine? im going for about 400 engine horsepowers. so no "monster"
 
No need for Kevlar. oem or gates blue. I have the gates blue belt and no issues. 400 isn't going to even stress anything as long as its put together well.

Why not just stay 2.0 at that level of power? if you plan on going farther than that, by all means, build away. I just dont see why you'd spend half-again or twice as much if you're not going to push the setup.
 
No need for Kevlar. oem or gates blue. I have the gates blue belt and no issues. 400 isn't going to even stress anything as long as its put together well.

Why not just stay 2.0 at that level of power? if you plan on going farther than that, by all means, build away. I just dont see why you'd spend half-again or twice as much if you're not going to push the setup.

a have decided yet, it could be more power also. doing alot of research right now. im not after high rpms as i said. more low / mid range torque. but i can´t decied if it would be better (maybe not a difference anyway?) to go with 2.3 instead and skip the hassle with a 64? i know the bore is slighty bigger. but the little difference i can see is the rod ratio with 1.5 in the 63 and 1.56 long rod 64. so the question is if it is worth the trouble to only gain 0,6 mm in rod ratio? i´m reading alots of thread about this, but it still not clear if the 64 are better over a 4g63 2,3L.
 
We have built 2.0, 2.3, and 2.4 engines. Back to your original objective: daily driver with low-to-mid torque.

Higher torque comes from a longer stroke, so 2.4 wins there. However, there are other engine building options you can choose during the build (e.g. head, compression, cams, turbo, intake, exhaust, tuning) that will also change the characteristics of your engine, so don't think that your stroke choice will be the only factor.

Our advice would be to pick a standard stroke, since you don't have a special application, and select your other components to tailor your build. It will save you part searching and money.
 
Good advice from @DogWhistle.

If you want good tq, id just do a 2.4 std rod. youll have the benefit from unshrouding the valve, vs doing a 2.3 stroker.

A 2.4 will still rev well and make nice DD torque.
 
I'll throw my 2 Lincolns in having owned both motors LOL.

If your stock motor is not blown, or in okay shape, leave it as is, and build the 4G64 motor on the side, as a project leading up to an eventual swap... but if you want to make 400hp now on the 2.0 that can be done, and because swapping a motor out is a lot of extra work, and I'm not saying it is not worth it, the same amount of power can be had from a 2.0 motor with the right supporting parts, with less work... which brings up another good point, whats the maintenance like on the stock 2.0 motor?

If the motor needs a tuneup and t belt change etc, then put the money into that, then start researching what, turbo, injectors, inter-cooler, exhaust, etc to buy to get you to your target 400hp reliably, with the 2.0, and lets say you get to that point, and now you are bored with the 4G63, and want more torque/power etc, most all the supporting parts you would use to get a 4G63T to the 400hp target are likely going to be needed to get a stroker/de-stroker to the same point [give or take] only you will have sampled both setups.

Good luck with the project man.
 
Thanks all for the input.i have also emailed manley to see if the oil squirters are needed. And save those money to others parts instead if i can. if i keep the 2.4 nearly as stock what do you think about these parts then?

Rods:
https://www.extremepsi.com/store/product.php?productid=23346&cat=0&page=1

Pistons:
https://www.extremepsi.com/store/product.php?productid=25788&cat=0&page=1

Or this setup

Rods
https://www.extremepsi.com/store/product.php?productid=31581&cat=0&page=1

Pistons:
https://www.extremepsi.com/store/product.php?productid=22678&cat=0&page=1

Can anyone please explain what unshrouding the valve means? i have a little hard time to understand what that means.
 
The parts would work fine. just depends on the power you're looking to put down. I wouldn't go with an h-beam below 600hp targets, but I also believe in over building.

Unshrouding the valve: essentially, you have a comparison of a large bore and small bore engine with the same valve orientation, layout and size.

The smaller bore has less potential for airflow because the bore is too close to the valve edges. the larger bore is farther from the valve edges, promoting more airflow potential. other factors will play into this, mostly dealing with combustion chamber quench area, and quench to valve proximity etc.

Essentially, having a larger bore will allow you to build for more flow, potentially.
 
The parts would work fine. just depends on the power you're looking to put down. I wouldn't go with an h-beam below 600hp targets, but I also believe in over building.

Unshrouding the valve: essentially, you have a comparison of a large bore and small bore engine with the same valve orientation, layout and size.

The smaller bore has less potential for airflow because the bore is too close to the valve edges. the larger bore is farther from the valve edges, promoting more airflow potential. other factors will play into this, mostly dealing with combustion chamber quench area, and quench to valve proximity etc.

Essentially, having a larger bore will allow you to build for more flow, potentially.

I gonna have around 400-450 hp the manley rods should work fine yes? arent they rated to 600 hp?
 
Yes that hp is nothing to those rods, stock rods would handle that.


Just what i thought but better sage than sorry when i already gonna tear down the engine. just having trouble to contact manley through the email for some reason
 
Last edited:
i live in sweden, but is their anyone that knows where i can find the freeze plugs to plug the 5 oil holes?
 
For the deck holes you'll need to measure them and get the appropriate size freeze plugs from a machine shop or online. measure with calipers to get the closest size, you will want .25-.5mm larger than the hole so they are snug.

Skunk alpha rods...never heard of them, im assuming like skunk2 racing?

Edit: yes, that's them. no, they don't make dsm rods, at least that I can find... yes, they look just like manley/eagle. I wouldnt trust them any farther than manley or eagle either.
 
Last edited:
For the deck holes you'll need to measure them and get the appropriate size freeze plugs from a machine shop or online. measure with calipers to get the closest size, you will want .25-.5mm larger than the hole so they are snug.

Skunk alpha rods...never heard of them, im assuming like skunk2 racing?

Edit: yes, that's them. no, they don't make dsm rods, at least that I can find... yes, they look just like manley/eagle. I wouldnt trust them any farther than manley or eagle either.

Here they are: http://realstreetperformance.com/Sh...G63-7-bolt-Eclipse-Evo-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9.html

Thanks im gonna meassure it the and see what i can find. anyone here that has done the 4g64 doch head conversion? im very interested to see how the timing belt cover looks with the gap.
 
Thanks for the link. I still maintain that the skunk2 rods look exactly like manley and eagle forgings. but if they hold the same power at least, theyre a good price.

For the timing belt cover gap, its only a 6mm difference. hardly noticable.
 
Thanks for the link. I still maintain that the skunk2 rods look exactly like manley and eagle forgings. but if they hold the same power at least, theyre a good price.

For the timing belt cover gap, its only a 6mm difference. hardly noticable.
They are holding the power trust me . My 2.3 is running on those rods 44psi dd 94oct gas & lot of pure meth . Revving to 9k rpm . & there is my old eagle rod after heavy abuse (same boost level)
You must be logged in to view this image or video.
You must be logged in to view this image or video.
[ATTACH=
 

If they are working, great. I'd have questions of mileage, power and tune differences between your old and new rods.
Also that comparison isn't even for rods of the same application, let alone size, and what brand are they? The "Competitions" rod looks like a cxracing or ebay cheapo rod IMO. I don't want to derail the OPs thread though.

Bottom line is any of the rods mentioned will get him to his goal and beyond. under 600? manley or eagle H-beams will do the job. till someone hits over 800 reliably on the skunk2 rods, im not convinced they're any better for the price.
 
I've mention those rods cause not to many people know about them. The rods are biffier than eagles just as they advertise. As for the power im close to 800 hp , my car is an auto so it'shard to measure hp . My tune has not change since the switch same pistons & everything else just different rods. Currently i have 35k km on them with out any problems. I went 50 psi on occasions.
 
One good thing anyway, i got an answer from manley i don't need the oil squirters.
 
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Innovation Products Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications MyMitsubishiStore.com RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds

Back
Top