Buschur Racing's first 2.4 L engine build, results inside.
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
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...reat-idea.html
Jan 9, 2010, 07:46 PM
#92
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Miami, FL.
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Jan 10, 2010, 12:33 AM
#95
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.
Last edited by JohnnyTSi; Jan 10, 2010 at 09:46 AM.
Jan 10, 2010, 09:33 AM
#96
Evolved Member
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Alpharetta GA
Posts: 911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Jan 10, 2010, 10:32 AM
#97
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.
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-
Jan 10, 2010, 11:20 AM
#98
I believe we are talking about the MAP ported/coated exhaust manifold and Rev3 intake manifold, right?
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jan 11, 2010, 06:02 PM
#101
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.
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.
Jan 11, 2010, 07:44 PM
#102
Account Disabled
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: on the street
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Jan 11, 2010, 08:52 PM
#103
The original engine.
Jan 11, 2010, 08:53 PM
#104
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.
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.
Jan 12, 2010, 09:49 AM
#105
Evolved Member
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.