to stroke or not to stroke....

[fawkes]

i was looking at the product pages on rebuilds and i was wondering what the stroker was and if it is worth the price anyone can help?

 

[1fast97gsx]

stroker motors will spool those big turbos up faster. It's worth the money imo. I wish I would have done a stroker motor when I did my buildup, but my backup motor will be a 2.3 stroker.

 

[clownface]

I really really wanna do a 2.3L. I think its worth it. Displacement=good.
A stroker kit gives you more displacement and its a good thing. As for the price....i dunno if it worth it really....theres a cheap way to do it, the way i was looking at. Its somethign about getting a 4g64 crank and some custom pistons..im not really sure i havnt checked into it much yet but i wanna

 

[fawkes]

well i was looking at the parts and it was like 500 more then the other price i got so i was like hmm

 

[1fast97gsx]

500 more than the other price for what parts?

 

[fawkes]

yeah it was like 500 dollars more for the price i got for the other rebuild kit

 

[44pirate]

I just did the 2.3 stroker. Used a 4g64 crank with wiesco 8.8:1 pistons and eagle rods. Arps all the way around. It does spool the 50trim about 400-600 rpm faster. So far I'm boosting 15psi. There is more torque at lower end.

 

[1fast97gsx]

yeah it was like 500 dollars more for the price i got for the other rebuild kit

What other rebuild kit? Is it forged pistons and rods? Is that with a new crank? There's more to this then just looking at the price. A stroker kit will include a different crank and forged pistons which could explain the price difference ...

 

[1fast97gsx]

if you want cheap then ebay is your friend.... http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/e...tem=7908804181&category=33623&sspagename=WDVW

 

[eclipsegsx9797]

look into the 2.4.

 

[bigjangin]

just do a 2.4 6 bolt. If you are planning to get new pistons anyways the costs are exactly the same as a 2.0.

 

[clownface]

Wow that ebay deal dosnt sound to bad, i might look into that.
2.4 6 bolt swap sounds good to......so whats involved in that?? basically all the 6 bolt swap stuff with a 4g64 6 bolt crank insted of a 2.0 6 bolt crank?

 

[1fast97gsx]

A 2.4 is the motor out of the 97-99 spyder eclipses ( non turbo ) ... they are 4g64 blocks that will bolt up to a 4g63t head and it will be a very powerful engine if done properly.

 

[bigjangin]

Might as well go with a 6 bolt out of an older galant or sonata rather than a 7 bolt.

 

[clownface]

1fast97gsx, im wondering about a 6 bolt 2.4 liter into a 7 bolt 2.0.

How is the 2.4 6 bolt different from doing a 2.0 6 bolt into the 2gen? I was wondering what the major differences where..im guesing you need a 2.4 block and crank...is there anything else you need different from the 2.0 6bolt swap? Like is is basiscaly the same procedure with a few different parts like the block and crank?

 

[sunflashx]

To stroke or not to stroke? Definately stroke it, strokers are way more fun.

 

[Kevin Jewer]

Too much BS with using a 2.4 block, IMO. Making holes, filling holes, etc... The only difference with the "2.3" is that the piston pin is in the oil ring, and the bore is a little smaller, depending on the over bore. If youre anal, go for it.

If you ask me, more important than getting the turbo spooled quicker is the extra ~20% air you can move at the same boost. This is pretty significant, especially on pump gas, and is often overlooked.

 

[bigjangin]

you dont have to fill or drill any holes with a 2.4

 

[bus]

Either is a good choice. I built my 2.3 for a little more than a 2.0 build up. Swordfish had all custom stuff built for his 2.4 and it was still a reasonable build up. Both cars can be seen at www.swordfishgsx.8m.com

 

[fawkes]

ok i am new so ....do i need a diffrent block to buy a stroker kit? or do i use my stock dsm cause i know my motor is shot so i need to start this process

 

[bus]

The 2.3 uses the stock 2.0 block and the 2.4 crank. The 2.4 uses a different block.

 

[swordfish]

Too much BS with using a 2.4 block, IMO. Making holes, filling holes, etc... The only difference with the "2.3" is that the piston pin is in the oil ring, and the bore is a little smaller, depending on the over bore. If youre anal, go for it.

If you ask me, more important than getting the turbo spooled quicker is the extra ~20% air you can move at the same boost. This is pretty significant, especially on pump gas, and is often overlooked.

Huh? Nothing to drill or fill with the 2.4. Its just as easy as building anything else. The only oddball thing about my 2.4 is that I run 156mm rods instead of stock length 150mm so I had to clearance the block a little. Also because the rods are Pauter and they are huge in general. Marco has now redesinged the 156mm Pauters he sells so that no clearancing is required.

If you run a standard 150mm rod you dont have to do anything except put it together. My 2.4L cost $300 more to build that if I would have built a 2.0L. The reason for the extra $300 is that I had to buy a 2.4 block and 2.4 crank (100mm stroke). Machine work is the same price, rods are the same price, pistons are the same price, timing belt is different and because it comes from a non turbo car it is cheaper.

Just like you say though, the extra air flow is what counts. IMHO its definately worth it. I went 11.52 @ 127 with a PTE bolt on turbo still running the internal gate the first time I was ever at a 1/4 track in my life. Still on a stock intake manifold and 2G mas as well. Stock tires, stock suspension and the HRC front mount with the dinky 2.25 inch piping.

cheers

jeff

 

[laggin3]

Hey Swordfish, does Polk want to kill you even more now that the rods are redesigned and he doesnt have to rip into the block?

 

[Mirage2LTurbo]

The guy above replied that his 50 trim was spooling 400-600rpm sooner on a 2.3 versus a 2.0. For street applications, this might be all fine and dandy. Lag is over rated, and with a competent driver, should never be an issue. A simple downshift will bring you instantly into boost with just about any turbo. If you are thinking about revving out your car, I'd stick with a 2.0. You might pick up some spool going with some more displacement, but I have yet to see a 2.3 or 2.4 rev over 8, while I'm taking my 2.0 to 9400.

 

[sunflashx]

The guy above replied that his 50 trim was spooling 400-600rpm sooner on a 2.3 versus a 2.0. For street applications, this might be all fine and dandy. Lag is over rated, and with a competent driver, should never be an issue. A simple downshift will bring you instantly into boost with just about any turbo. If you are thinking about revving out your car, I'd stick with a 2.0. You might pick up some spool going with some more displacement, but I have yet to see a 2.3 or 2.4 rev over 8, while I'm taking my 2.0 to 9400.

I've taken my 2.4L LongRod setup to 9000 rpm. Feels like it's still making power, but it's hard to tell by the butt dyno. Airflow continues to rise, but I have no idea if the power follows with it. Mostly I run it that high when running cars on the street. Good power from 4k-9k gives me enough time in 3rd to send most other cars home with their tails between their legs.

I haven't experimented with shift points at the track yet, or had it to a dyno to see where the power starts to fall off. I have a Magnus SMIM and 272/272 cams.