Buschur Racing's first 2.4 L engine build, results inside.

Subscribe
Jan 9, 2010 | 05:36 PM
  #91  
Since we have a lot of 100mm stroker guys in this thread I figured you might be able to give me some input here... Thanks!

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...reat-idea.html
Reply 0
Jan 9, 2010 | 07:46 PM
  #92  
Quote: You guys clamoring for results on big turbos are fools. 2.4 + A nice bolt-on turbo = mountains of torque. 400wqt by ~3700rpm is so much damn fun on the street. If you have never experienced this (or something like this) then STFU and let the guy enjoy his car
I'd probably take offense to the "You guys...fools" comment, but I've been reading this thread since day 1 and I know what this torque feels like. Have you read the original title? If you want people to STFU then you shouldn't read forums. Otherwise post in peace. Congrats again xRoguex.
Reply 0
Jan 9, 2010 | 09:48 PM
  #93  
Not to interrupt but there is one interesting thing we learned in Johnny's car that we didnt know in mine even until later. The MIVEC feed bolt has a restrictor in it which our line kit did not have. Replacing it allowed full MIVEC control so the car is actually spooling faster now than it was in those dyno sheets. It probably needs a retune again to be truthful.
Reply 0
Jan 9, 2010 | 10:24 PM
  #94  
*delete b/c I am a dumbass*
Reply 0
Jan 10, 2010 | 12:33 AM
  #95  
Quote: Not to interrupt but there is one interesting thing we learned in Johnny's car that we didnt know in mine even until later. The MIVEC feed bolt has a restrictor in it which our line kit did not have. Replacing it allowed full MIVEC control so the car is actually spooling faster now than it was in those dyno sheets. It probably needs a retune again to be truthful.
The MIVEC oil feed banjo bolt is a check valve as well as a restrictor, the car runs much smoother with it installed in the ER 4g64 MIVEC oil feed system:

Buschur Racing's first 2.4 L engine build, results inside.-mitsuasa.jpg  

Reply 0
Jan 10, 2010 | 09:33 AM
  #96  
Hmmm. I wonder if possibly I mixed up my banjo bolts when I did my build. I've been getting a P1021 code & havent been able to figure it out. I wonder if not having the right bolt with that check valve could cause it. Guess I'll have to check. And if so then I wonder where the hell I installed it & if it's could cause an issue where ever it is.
Reply 0
Jan 10, 2010 | 10:32 AM
  #97  
Quote: Hmmm. I wonder if possibly I mixed up my banjo bolts when I did my build. I've been getting a P1021 code & havent been able to figure it out. I wonder if not having the right bolt with that check valve could cause it. Guess I'll have to check. And if so then I wonder where the hell I installed it & if it's could cause an issue where ever it is.
At first glance the banjo bolt looks just like a normal part, you actually have to look into the end to notice the check valve components.

It is possible to reach it with one hand without dissasembling anything (at least on my setup). Trying to get everything to line up and assembled with one hand was a serious PITA.

John-
Reply 0
Jan 10, 2010 | 11:20 AM
  #98  
Quote: MAP intake and exhaust manifold???
I believe we are talking about the MAP ported/coated exhaust manifold and Rev3 intake manifold, right?

Quote: This was the first 2.4 build and we'll see how it goes. I am impressed with the torque and how the engine feels. Everyone gets hung up on RPM and "how high can I rev it?" Fact is most guys are running their car past where they should be in the first place and that's why many of them turn crappy track times.
This is by far one of the leading quotes of 2010 thus far. I've recently had a thrown rod and is now in the process of doing a 2.3L build. Wanting to stick with a stock-framed turbo for the interim, I'm concerned about the additional torque the higher displacement will bring. I was previously tuned to 394wtq with E85 on 30PSI. I've read thread after thread about either 2.3L builds and now a few on 2.4L builds but I haven't seen (read) anything about how to properly strengthen the transmission. What do you fellahs recommend at a minimum?

Quote: Aaron's right, on my 4g64 build the FPBlack falls off in airflow after about 7500; from my experiance, there would be no advantage to reving it out that far. A larger turbo is needed to keep the 2.4 supplied at higher rpms.
My plans are to run a ported stock IX turbo on E85 with my 2.3L build. I'm wondering where the power will start to drop off.

Quote: 20 miles, that's it? The benefits of e85 are so huge I would easily drive 20 miles one way to get it. Just take a couple gas cans with you and get an extra tanks worth each trip. E85 super fuel is worth the effort. It certainly can save a motor rather than running 93 to the edge and worrying about a bad tank of gas.
This is some very good advice. The benefits of running E85 are tremendous and you'd be amazed at how alive your car will be afterwards (not to mention that E85 sure does burn sweet).
Reply 0
Jan 11, 2010 | 05:37 PM
  #99  
The car was put back on the dyno today. Numbers are basically the same with pure 93 octane in the car. I ran the car out to 8,000 rpm, power as can be seen in the first post was starting to fall by 7500 rpm and that trend continued on and doesn't make for an impressive looking dyno sheet.

This car was knock prone on the original 2 liter. The engine did end up spinning a rod bearing BUT I can usually pick up on that type of noise and even with listening to the engine a few times during the orignal tuning session I never heard anything.

The knock activity is still there and it's aggravating. Considerable time was spent today and it's as sorted as I can get it. 25 psi seems to be about the peak boost for 93 octane.

There are many things that can cause knock and I'd love to go into great detail here about my thoughts on this but it's not for here. Post are taken down and it pisses me off, so I'll leave the better tech for elsewhere.

Rogue, I'll try to give you a call tomorrow.
Reply 0
Jan 11, 2010 | 05:48 PM
  #100  
the 2.4 just spun a rod bearing? if so that sucks!
Reply 0
Jan 11, 2010 | 06:02 PM
  #101  
Quote: the 2.4 just spun a rod bearing? if so that sucks!
he was referring to the 2.0 ........ which is why he said

The knock activity is still there and it's aggravating. Considerable time was spent today and it's as sorted as I can get it. 25 psi seems to be about the peak boost for 93 octane.

AFTER he stated the 2.0 spun a rod bearing.
Reply 0
Jan 11, 2010 | 07:44 PM
  #102  
strong power for pump gas david. This thing probably would make around 500 on dynojet. It also might run high 10s too. This engine setup sound like it's ready for future e85, race gas tuned with 35+ psi.
Reply 0
Jan 11, 2010 | 08:52 PM
  #103  
Quote: This car was knock prone on the original 2 liter. The engine did end up spinning a rod bearing BUT I can usually pick up on that type of noise and even with listening to the engine a few times during the orignal tuning session I never heard anything.
The original engine.
Reply 0
Jan 11, 2010 | 08:53 PM
  #104  
Quote: he was referring to the 2.0 ........ which is why he said

The knock activity is still there and it's aggravating. Considerable time was spent today and it's as sorted as I can get it. 25 psi seems to be about the peak boost for 93 octane.

AFTER he stated the 2.0 spun a rod bearing.
You beat me to it. Call me wed morning and we can talk about SD!
Reply 0
Jan 12, 2010 | 09:49 AM
  #105  
Quote: he was referring to the 2.0 ........ which is why he said

The knock activity is still there and it's aggravating. Considerable time was spent today and it's as sorted as I can get it. 25 psi seems to be about the peak boost for 93 octane.

AFTER he stated the 2.0 spun a rod bearing.
ohhh reading owns me sometimes, I guess saying he had to call rogue tomorrow threw me off a little bit
Reply 0