Which stroker is best?

[dsmusmc]

A long rod 2.4 with 94mm crank and 156mm rods.......yes you most certainly can. I have one in my EVO and take it to 9200 but plenty have gone 10k and higher.

A 94mm crank in a 2.4l block doesn't give you the displacement of a 2.4, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it's in the ballpark of a 2.23 because the larger STD bore of a 4g64 piston (which would have to be 2.2 piston) with a either a 156mm or 162mm rod if you're going with a long rod 2.2.

It would be a 2.2 destroke.

Hopefully next year i'll finally get to test out my 2.2 stroker

 

[TunaTalon]

Anyway, I'm reading this thread that YZFR1 posted...
Stroke or Not, Mitsubishi 4G63

Lots of reading but don't see anything about 2.4's and I don't think 2.2's are menioned either. But I'm not done reading yet either. It's a lot to read.

That document is a copy of my white paper at http://www.kidzuku.com/StrokeOrNot.pdf. There was no separate section for the 2.4L because it has the same rod length and stroke as the 2.3L stroker. The main difference is that the 2.3L stroker piston has the wrist pin moved up 6mm.

After the research for that paper I decided that the best stroker for me was the 2.3L. But then I'm an old phart with fond memories of big displacement V8s pulling me under fresh green lights and no intent of ever racing the Talon. Your mileage may vary.

If you feel the need to hear the engine scream then go for the 2.1L.
If you want a daily driver without a lot of lag go for the 2.3L with a small turbo.

Or if you have impure thoughts and are willing to compromise, then study the physics and lore here and select a configuration to suit yourself.

Whatever combination of stroke and rod length you end up with the maximum horsepower will be limited by the turbo and sonic flow through the valves.

 

[Airsign89]

Another thing to consider if you decide to go with a 2.3 or 2.4 with a smaller turbo, is the huge amount of torque that you'll make in the mid range and how that will effect the reliability of your trans and other drivetrain parts. Just something to factor in.

 

[gprix1]

Another thing to consider if you decide to go with a 2.3 or 2.4 with a smaller turbo, is the huge amount of torque that you'll make in the mid range and how that will effect the reliability of your trans and other drivetrain parts. Just something to factor in.

True true.. but for an auto trans, that would not be as much of an issue and should make it to where you don't need to re-stall the converter for a DD saving some $$$. Besides, how much actual torque does a small turbo put down. That's what I'm trying (Big T28, 2.3L) with my wifes '95 AWD Auto. Stock converter and reflashed TCU is the plan for that car.
For a MT, I wouldn't go smaller than a 20g which is what I run in my 2.4L and it hits hard.
As for the 'best' stroker. If it's a street driven DD I would build a long rod 2.4L if I could do it again (mine is standard 150mm rods). The grunt of a 2.4L is just awesome for around town and is still safe for 8k rpms with no problems.

 

[fosforito95]

yea i believe i would go with the long rod 2.0 just because i wouldn't have to deal with the some modifications you have to do to get the timing belt to fit. I also heard that with the 4g64 block you also may have problems mounting the tranny but im uncertain of that

 

[gprix1]

yea i believe i would go with the long rod 2.0 just because i wouldn't have to deal with the some modifications you have to do to get the timing belt to fit. I also heard that with the 4g64 block you also may have problems mounting the tranny but im uncertain of that

Honestly a long rod 2.1L is a waste of money IMO if your never going to spin it past 8k. It really depends on how you plan to use it. For a DD that will spin 8k or less, you can build a 2.3l for the same money and have more power everywhere.

I can tell you for sure that the 4G63 transmission bolts up to a 4G64 with no problems what-so-ever. As for the timing belt, I even used a regular 4G63 Gates (blue) racing belt by grinding a little bit off the tensioner arm. However, the 4G64 build is generally a little more work and money. A 4G64 needs cam gears from a DOHC galant (or adjustables), 4g64 timing belt (or grind the tensioner arm a bit), extra drain holes plugged on the block deck (easy), and purchase a 4G64 block itself when you might have a good 4G63 block. If your looking at your pefectly good 4G63 block it can be hard to justify building a 2.4 vs a 2.3.

 

[rr06rs]

I think what's throwing me off is the fact that the chart shows 92mm for the custom crank, but I have a billet manley 94mm. So what would a 94mm crank, 162mm rods, and 4g64 pistons with the pins moved up 6mm in a 4g64 come out to?

 

[gprix1]

I think what's throwing me off is the fact that the chart shows 92mm for the custom crank, but I have a billet manley 94mm. So what would a 94mm crank, 162mm rods, and 4g64 pistons with the pins moved up 6mm in a 4g64 come out to?

In a 4G63 block using a 94mm crankshaft with 150mm rods would give you a 2.1L or a 'long rod' 2.1L using 156mm rods.
In a 4G64 block you would be making a 'de-stroked' 2.2L using either 156mm rods or a 'long rod' 2.2L with 162mm rods.
Look at Manley's site for applications of the 94mm crankshaft:
http://manleyperformance.com/sc/mk/mitsubishi/4g63_cranks.shtml
The 94mm crankshaft is an odd size and I would stick only with the recommended piston part #'s listed on Manley's site specific for the application you choose.

 

[Hal]

I can tell you for sure that the 4G63 transmission bolts up to a 4G64 with no problems what-so-ever.

There is a variant of the block, known as the "wide block" that a 4g63 transmission will not bolt up to.

So, shop with care

Hal

 

[rvaughn]

I am running a 2.3L with a Evo 3 16g ported to creep for max power. Note I am using a much too large intake manifold (IMO) which is in effect hurting my power production on the high end but Ill say this, 400/400 with full torque by 3700 rpms (e85) is a kick in the ass from a dig, however once I move into the higher ranges its rather tame.

As for the drivetrain, we all know we risk damaging it with ANY added power production, however, there are quiet a few of us running around with nothing more then upgraded clutches and fly-wheels with no ill effects to date, it all comes down to how you treat it when you drive it. IE common sense dictates that launching with anti-lag on setup like mine, or gofers, is a poor idea, its probably only a matter of time before you work the drivetrain over.

FWIW I think it comes down to respecting and knowing your setup and its capabilities.

 

[gprix1]

There is a variant of the block, known as the "wide block" that a 4g63 transmission will not bolt up to.

So, shop with care

Hal

Forgot about that.. Ya, I think they come in some pickup trucks so that is something to watch for. Otherwise, you will have no issues mounting a 4G63 transmission the a 4G64 block.

 

[v8s_are_slow]

2.4 long rod (pulling info directly from that chart) uses 156mm rods (stock length is 150mm) and a 100mm crank. Ignore the 2.4 "stroker" Magnus has listed in that chart because it's not actually a stroked engine, if it were a 2.4 "stroker" then it would be a 2.6l with a custom 106mm crank, 150mm rods, and custom "stroker" pistons and that kit is linked above in my first post.

So to go back to my original question that was left unanswered...

What are YOUR goals for the car?

Okay, soooo I'm confused cause the quote below is a guy saying he has a 2.4 with 150mm rods. But you're saying it doesn't exist? And it's also in the chart that you're saying I'm not looking at? Lol. I also have no idea which pistons to be going with for "X" stroker motor.

I'm not good at math and all these formulas that everyone's talking about. That crap is over my head. So kinda not getting the difference between a 2.4L Stroker and a 2.4L long rod stroker. Basically the same displacement but different uhhhh, something?

As for my goals. To go as fast as I can from point A to point B in a straight line and drive it on the street from time to time. My car isn't a DD.

As for the 'best' stroker. If it's a street driven DD I would build a long rod 2.4L if I could do it again (mine is standard 150mm rods). The grunt of a 2.4L is just awesome for around town and is still safe for 8k rpms with no problems.

Anyway, I've also been reading this...

The building of one Bad Bish.

Not sure if ya'll can see it or not but it's an article about an Evo that Buschur built that's a 2.3L. Has lots of good info in it as well as far as parts he recommends for the Evo. But of course we share the same motors so basically, I feel it's the same.

As for the chart, I'm wondering why Magnus is recommending steel rods for anything under 800 horsepower and aluminum rods for anything over 800. Hmmm....

 

[gprix1]

Okay, soooo I'm confused cause the quote below is a guy saying he has a 2.4 with 150mm rods. But you're saying it doesn't exist? And it's also in the chart that you're saying I'm not looking at? Lol. I also have no idea which pistons to be going with for "X" stroker motor.

I'm not good at math and all these formulas that everyone's talking about. That crap is over my head. So kinda not getting the difference between a 2.4L Stroker and a 2.4L long rod stroker. Basically the same displacement but different uhhhh, something?

150mm rods certainly do exist for a 2.4L. In fact that is what a stock 4G64 comes with; 100mm crank and 150mm rods. That is a "standard" rod length 2.4L. The "long rod" version uses the same 100mm crank but uses a non-standard, 6mm longer rod (156mm). Now to keep the piston from sticking 6mm out of the top of the block at TDC they make a special piston with a pin location that is raised 6mm to cancel out the 6mm longer rods. This is commonly referred to as a "stroker" piston but in the case of the 4G64, they are technically not a "stroker" piston by definition. A more appropriate term in this case would be a "long rod" piston but nobody calls them that.
The primary purpose for the "long rod" build is to achieve a more desirable rod angle that can tolerate higher rpm's than a "standard" rod setup can.

Something to keep in mind is that the 4G64 block is a 6mm taller block. So, subtract a standard 88mm 4G63 crank from 100mm 4G64 and that giives you a difference of 12. Only half of that goes up so you have a 6mm difference in upward piston stroke. Both the 4G63 and 4G64 use the exact same rods (150mm); they are 100% interchangable. So, to make up for that 6mm of additional upward movement with a 100mm crank, the 4G64 block is 6mm taller.

 

[v8s_are_slow]

So basically you're saying that the 2.4 with 150mm rods that you have is an even bigger torque monster and breaks drivetrain parts even more than a 2.3?

And what piston did you use? A normal 4g63 piston? Or a Stroker piston?

 

[Airsign89]

150mm rods certainly do exist for a 2.4L. In fact that is what a stock 4G64 comes with; 100mm crank and 150mm rods. That is a "standard" rod length 2.4L. The "long rod" version uses the same 100mm crank but uses a non-standard, 6mm longer rod (156mm). Now to keep the piston from sticking out of the top of the block 6mm at TDC they make a special piston with a pin location that is raised 6mm to cancel out the 6mm longer rods. This is commonly referred to as a "stroker" piston but in the case of the 4G64, they are technically not a "stroker" piston by definition.
The primary purpose for the "long rod" build is to achieve a more desirable rod angle that can tolerate higher rpm's than a "standard" rod setup can.

Good info gprix1, explaining the ability of a long rod setup vs. a standard length rod setup to rev higher has always made my own explanation sound incomprehensible. Ideal stroked motor for me: LR 2.4 9.?CR; he35 vgt w/ controller: cyclone(or better) dual stage IM: e85: and exhaust cutout controlled by vgt/IM/tps /load controller: built transmission.

 

[gprix1]

So basically you're saying that the 2.4 with 150mm rods that you have is an even bigger torque monster and breaks drivetrain parts even more than a 2.3?

Well, it's a little bit more displacement than a 2.3L so it will make a little more torque though the difference is very small really.

And what piston did you use? A normal 4g63 piston? Or a Stroker piston?

The common "stroker" pistion applies to the 2.3L build using a 4G63 block. That's because the 4G63 block is 6mm shorter but you're putting a 100mm crank in it, increasing the stroke, and therefor displacement but using the same stock 150mm rods it puts the piston 6mm above the deck height of the block. This is where the term "stroker" piston comes from. The "stroker" piston locates the pin 6mm higher to cancel out the longer stroke. This gives you a 2.3L engine on a 4G63. The only reason a 4G64 is a 2.4L is the bores are 87mm stock whereas the 4G63 has an 85mm bore.

Remember, a "stroker" increases the displacement of an engine. If the displacement doesn't change from stock (i.e. a long rod 2.4L), it is not technically a "stroker".

So, to answer your other question, I did not use a 4G63 piston because again, they are an 85mm bore and the 4G64 block is an 87mm bore so they will not work. You could technically use a stock 4G64 piston but the compression is higher being a N/A piston and it is also cast. The only real option is a turbo friendly (lower compression) forged piston for the 4G64's 87mm bore. Manley and Weisco are the two most common but there are a few others. Again, it's not a "stroker" piston because the pin height is not raised. It is just simply a lower compression, forged piston for a 4G64.

I know somebody wants to jump in and muddy up the waters with the 2.6L and I left that out on purpose to avoid confusion

 

[WES_393]

There is a variant of the block, known as the "wide block" that a 4g63 transmission will not bolt up to.

So, shop with care

Hal

The post 1999 4g64's are also incompatible with DSM transmissions due to the bell housing bolt pattern being different. These are the 4g64's that Evo owners use.

 

[91stocker]

Just go with the 2.3L. Cheaper, easier, more displacement, more low end, and uses more commonly found parts.

A 2.3 with a hx35 would be the ultimate street car imo.

 

[gprix1]

^^^^^ Exactly what he said

 

[bastarddsm]

With cams and a big turbo, do you Really lose up top though? I don't think you lose, perhaps you don't gain as much as the other options, but I believe it's a good compromise. As Carol Shelby said: torque wins races.

Wrong, horsepower wins races. Torque just destroys dsm transmissions.

 

[LandSpeed-DSM]

Wrong, horsepower wins races. Torque just destroys dsm transmissions.

Bingo.

 

[autotalon]

torque gets you moving, horsepower keeps you moving.

But everyone knows that, right?

 

[gixrman]

The post 1999 4g64's are also incompatible with DSM transmissions due to the bell housing bolt pattern being different. These are the 4g64's that Evo owners use.

I thought the 4g64's in the galants up until 03 were ok. I've been looking for a split thrush main seven bolt to built a 2.1.

 

[v8s_are_slow]

Just go with the 2.3L. Cheaper, easier, more displacement, more low end, and uses more commonly found parts.

A 2.3 with a hx35 would be the ultimate street car imo.

I suppose. I've just been wanting to go with am aluminum rod motor though. Figured that a 2.4 might prevent me from having to do a ton of clearancing. Or maybe I'd be doing the same amount? I dunno.

 

[boost97gst]

jackstransmissions: i was cruising that site the other day looking for my next tranny and found they sell really nice 2.3 kits ready to go. think it would be the best bang for the buck and easy to do IMO.