the 2.1 strocker/destrocker

[nanokpsi]

Andy, your explanation does not make much sense. A Evo3 turbo can be used and wont necessarily be over taxed with the higher RPM. This isnt a belt driven supercharger. Turbos dont care what RPMs the motor turns. They only care about CFM. Now if you rev your engine at a boost which equates to more CFM than the Evo3 turbo can handle, then you will start to have issues.

Andy is right on the money. Turbos have a flow limit as I'm sure you are aware. In building a motor to rev to 10k you are undoubtedly running big cams, head work and a smim as well. Those things combined with 10k rpm will surely outflow a measly 40-42 lb/min turbo. Actually, a evo3 can't even keep up flow wise on a stock longblock 2g with cams and a smim.

 

[nanokpsi]

I don't believe short pistons are used on destroked motors. In fact it appears that they are not. The reduced stroke comes from using a 2 liter crank, the regular pistons can be used becuase of the taller 2.4 liter block, and the extra displacement comes from the larger bore of that block.

I find the 2.1 to be very interesting. No one says you have to take it to 10k rpm. You could rev to 9k RPM knowing that you are not abusing the motor as much as you would be a 2 liter. Or you could rev to 8k like most poeple and simply enjoy the extra .14 displacement, which is half of what you get with a stroker without the limitations and sideloading on the short pistons. The valve train is easy to upgrade, the tranny is the only worry IMO. And most Shep trans can do 9k rpm. Just thinking out loud...

As far as making one work, the internals are a no brainer, and getting this block to work in our cars with our heads is no different than running a "full" 2.4, for which there is plenty of info available.

I do agree with Andy that this is not a "mod" that you would add to your mod list. It's best suited to people that are doing a full build up anyway, and this fits the theme of thier particular build.

I was under the impression that a 2.1 does infact use the stroker style piston as they use 162mm rods. If they were using the standard piston they could only run 156mm rods. Since the piston are used in the 2.4 to free up 6mm more rod (for the 156mm rod) they are used to bump up even the 88mm motor for 162mm rods.

 

[Kevin Jewer]

I'm still half asleep, and it's entirely possible I had a brain fart earlier. I believe the taller deck makes up that difference and allows you to use regular pistons. Basically using a 88mm crank with a block designed for a 100mm, the extra 6mm going to the rods. But I'll put the disclaimer out there that I have not yet build one of these, just 2 liters and strokers.

 

[nanokpsi]

I'm still half asleep, and it's entirely possible I had a brain fart earlier. I believe the taller deck makes up that difference and allows you to use regular pistons. Basically using a 88mm crank with a block designed for a 100mm, the extra 6mm going to the rods. But I'll put the disclaimer out there that I have not yet build one of these, just 2 liters and strokers.

Not a problem Kevin. I think thats the first thing you've posted that I didn't agree with To further clarify, you could still do it with a 88mm crank and 156mm rods and a standard style piston. I've always thought they were "super long" 162mm rod motors though.

However, you could use the '63 bock with a big bore, stroker pistons, and a 156mm rod if you wanted

 

[DeeBo]

Why do people think they need to rev the ever living piss outta motors? If you reving to 10K you better have a GT42R or somthing along those lines.

I mean it does like to rev, but so does a 2.0 so why do people think they must rev a 2.1 that high?! You have a street car, build a 2.1,2.3,2.4 for more TQ and response. If want 10K go buy a honda.........


Show me one STREET CAR, not a weekend or some bullshit ass street driven race car that revs that high makes power and is usable.


I mean a Real EVERY SINGEL DAY car that is reving to 10K!?!?? I highly doubt alot of people are running around like that.

who said i would drive it ever where reving 10k? that would be pointless and wreakless... and i was thinking of this as a track motor for one soooooo slow your roll

 

[DSM90AWD]

From Magnus' Site

DSM 6 bolt 2.1L Super Long Rod
2.4L 6 bolt block, utilizing the largest bore possible (88mm) this is the largest displacement on 88mm stroke we can safely achieve. Excellent High revving engine highest rod possible rod ratio "super long rod)

The 2.1 4G64 in effect gives you 5% more displacement and a rod ratio that is as good (or better) than the 2.0 4G63

 

[Verticaljump1]

Maybe he wants to build a 2.1L for reliability purposes. I'm not going to step on a limb and make a statement, but the 2.1L @ 9000rpm actually has the pistons moving slower than a 2.0L or 2.4L @ 9000rpm (yes I know you're not supposed to rev that high, that's not the point). SBR has the 2.1 manley/wiseco combo for $1060's, and you can pick up a 4G64 block for 150-200, that only makes it a couple hundred more than a 2.0L build. I would think the added torque (though minimal), lower piston speed/less side load, and more "up-top" power potential would be worth the extra dough. Hell maybe that 6mm taller deck height will let you fit a turbo you otherwise wouldn't fit, think outside the box guys .

 

[nanokpsi]

Maybe he wants to build a 2.1L for reliability purposes. I'm not going to step on a limb and make a statement, but the 2.1L @ 9000rpm actually has the pistons moving slower than a 2.0L or 2.4L @ 9000rpm (yes I know you're not supposed to rev that high, that's not the point). SBR has the 2.1 manley/wiseco combo for $1060's, and you can pick up a 4G64 block for 150-200, that only makes it a couple hundred more than a 2.0L build. I would think the added torque (though minimal), lower piston speed/less side load, and more "up-top" power potential would be worth the extra dough. Hell maybe that 6mm taller deck height will let you fit a turbo you otherwise wouldn't fit, think outside the box guys .

The piston speeds are going to be very close between the 2.1 and 2.0, since they both use the same crank.

 

[Verticaljump1]

I understand that they both use 88mm cranks, and that the difference in piston speed is minimal, but there is a difference. And I don't understand why everyone is saying the 2.1 is a waste of money, if you buy manley rods/wiseco pistons for a 2.0 you're spending the same amount on a set of 2.1 162mm rods/wiseco pistons.

 

[nanokpsi]

I understand that they both use 88mm cranks, and that the difference in piston speed is minimal, but there is a difference. And I don't understand why everyone is saying the 2.1 is a waste of money, if you buy manley rods/wiseco pistons for a 2.0 you're spending the same amount on a set of 2.1 162mm rods/wiseco pistons.

The only disadvantages are that the parts may not be stocked in the same amounts, ie it could take longer to get everything. Then if there is a problem the parts are more "custom" which could also lengthen down time.

As far as the difference in piston speeds switching from the 150mm rods to the 156mm rods in a 2.4 buys you all of 50 rpm mathematically before the speeds are the same. We're not tlaking about a 1000rpm difference here going with the 162mm rod. Is the extra 100rpm worth it? You could just as easily bore out a stock block and use the stroker piston to get the extra clearance to run 156mm rods in a 88mm motor.

 

[Verticaljump1]

There are more advantages with a 2.1L than rpm, that was just a point that the piston speed is lower. So you don't sacrifice any rev capabilities like people worry about with 2.3's and 2.4's. Slowboy has them in stock now, and who builds a motor within 2 weeks anyways. Look at the price of 156mm rods on magnus' website. $750 a set, plus $450'sh for stroker pistons, it looks like that adds to $1200, versus $1063 getting you rods just as good and one hell of a piston from slowboy. Why spend $137 more and get 156mm rods/stroker pistons when you can slaptogether a 2.1L for the same price, hell you can find a 4G64 block for the $137. I'm not saying the 2.1L is better, I'm saying that whoever is calling it a waste of money and flaming it should do some research and hopefully that will set them straight. I'm not trying to argue with you at all I just don't understand why you guys think it's $1,080987,0812370 more to build a 2.1L and that we will never use it. Hell over 80% of dsm's buy crap they never truly utilize what makes a motor different . Thanks, and again I'm not trying to argue, just trying to make the 2.1L more practical and possible.

 

[Verticaljump1]

Best advantages to 2.1L

1.) More displacement
2.) Better rod ratio than 2.0, no sacrificing revs
3.) Better upper-power band potential (lower piston speed allows better combustion)
4.) You have a 2.1L and you can brag to everybody
5.) You have now backed me up in this thread and will earn $20 for support .

 

[slvrstingray]

Not to HiJack or change the topic completely, but has anyone heard of using a 2.0l block and the 1.6l turbo crank to create the 2.1 stroker? I've done some searching in the forums but havn't found anything, just info on the 2.4 to 2.1 conversion.

Thanks- Ray

 

[donmagicjuan]

The 1.6L turbo (4G61T) is essentially a 2.0L engine with a shorter stroke. Doing that swap would just recreate a 1.6L, not a 2.1L. However, the idea is the same-- those are some rev-happy engines.

 

[Splitpi]

The 1.6L turbo (4G61T) is essentially a 2.0L engine with a shorter stroke. Doing that swap would just recreate a 1.6L, not a 2.1L. However, the idea is the same-- those are some rev-happy engines.

Don, So using the 1.6L pistons and crank with I believe the the 2.0L rods wouldn't produce a similar size 2.1L? I'm not sure on the engine math, but what size rods would produce that? As it does seems seem like a very similar idea as using the 2.0L crank and pistons in the 2.4L engine.

Edit:
I was thinking about this further and I think I realize what you are saying. the 2.1L uses the taller 2.4L block with the 2.0L crank. The destroking using the 1.6L and 2.0L block is different in that they are the same block size, so not a similar effect. Though I would think that using the "perfect" size rods (what ever that is) would fix this issue.

 

[donmagicjuan]

I'm not sure if the 1.6L engines used longer rods or taller pistons than the 2.0L, but I think I understand the idea behind what you're asking. If you think about it, the only way to increase displacement on a 2.0L block with a shorter stroke is to sacrifice compression, which would be counterproductive. The pistons would have to start at a lower height to allow for more volume in the combustion chamber when a shorter stroke is used. As a result, the compression ratio (volume in chamber @ BDC divided by volume in chamber @ TDC) would be lower by virtue of the larger denominator.