Just out of curiousity -

I see that >90% of stroked EVO's out there are from 2.0l to 2.3l. However, I have seen a handful of 2.4l strokers out there too. Is one preferred over the other when it comes to stroking? Sure it depends on what you want to do with the car, but if you want the quicker spool and lower end torque of a stroked motor wouldn't the 2.4l be better than 2.3l (20% more displacement vs 15% more).

If that logic is correct why are all the strokers 2.3l? Or is it too close to really matter? Loss of strenght/reliability? Someday I may want to go down that road, that is why I ask.

 

subscribed

 

The 4G63 can't be stroked to 2.4L, only to 2.3L, so you need to put in a 4G64 block if you want to go 2.4. Way more expensive for only 5% more displacement.

 

Actually it should be a good deal less expensive, look at the slow boy racing shortblocks, much much cheaper to get a 4G64 2.4L over a 4G63 2.3L. You need a couple different accessories, but it shouldn't kill your wallet.

 

SBR prices are good, but you have to order gaskets, cam gears, etc even still.

also, it's a question of who you want and trust to build your motor.

 

Not sure if this is 100% true or not, but I've read that the smaller strokers can rev higher than the bigger stoker. I believe that's why some of the people more interested in drag racing are going for the 2.1 due to it's rev capabilities. The 2.3 should give a little more torque I would assume, but once you're going in either drag racing or road racing, most of the time your rpms are up in the middle of the power band...and if not, that's where downshifting comes in...haha. I'm definitely curious to hear everyone's thoughts/facts/tests/results as well.

 

You can rev higher with the "smaller strokers". The rev limit on a 2.4 isn't very high at all. Although in most cases, the 2.1 is a destroked 4g64. IMO, that amount of displacement isn't really worth it - I'd just get a built 2.0 and rev it high all day.

 

^^^I agree. There would be nothing better than ramping out your entire tach...and then some!! The built 2.0 will probably be my plan once it's time for to me to do a built engine.

 

This is what sparked the question for me -

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=285483

So this is probably off of a 4G64 motor then? Any major difference between a 63 and 64?

 

 

Yep. that is a 4G64 motor built by Mynes. the torque difference between the 2.3 and 2.4 are quite noticeable IMO at least to the butt dyno. I'll dig up the dyno graphs to see what the differences are on paper - there are a few 2.4 running around in the Phx area. On the 2.4, the rev limit stops at 7800 to 8000... any higher can be risky.

mike

 

Displacment does not limit an engines RPM. Rod angle ratio and piston speed do.

Heres an engine that will rev like a 2.0 and spool early and have the tq of a stroker:

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=291105

If anything ever happened to my motor, this is what I would put in.

 

was waiting for someone to post this...
I can't wait until they are done with mine...
This motor is going to be bad ***!

 

can someone compare the max rev limit of a 2.3l strocked 4G63 and a built 2.4l 4G64.. Which would safely rev higher??

 

that AMS 2.3RR motor is sick....of course how many of us could really afford the best of both worlds like that engine?