To those with 2.3 or 2.4
Rod ratio is the difference and the ability to rev the motor higher and maintain reliability, i think aaron from ER said he took his motor apart around 12k miles just to check, and bearing looked fresh no signs of wear and thats on a 700+ setup
To the OP, I would never go back to a 2.0l. I have a Wiseco/Manley 2.3 and I love it! If I could do it again I would prolly go 2.4LR. The deciding factor for me (at the time) was that my block was in perfect working order so I went ahead with the 2.3
i have a lr 2.4 love the torque for the streets
looking back i would have built a 2.1 LR.... torque and high revs!!
(actually buying a 4g64 block so i can start building one) lol
i rev to 8500 all day on my 2.4 stock porting in the head.
gsc h beams
looking back i would have built a 2.1 LR.... torque and high revs!!
(actually buying a 4g64 block so i can start building one) lol
i rev to 8500 all day on my 2.4 stock porting in the head.
gsc h beams
. Good 4g63 block/cranks go for a premium. Thus, selling your good 63 block/crank and buying a 64 block/crank will save you ~$500 towards your build, and you'll have a much more desirable motor (LR2.4 > 2.3).
$500 in the final scheme of things isn't a lot. I completely disagree that a 2.4L is more desirable since the 64 was never designed to work in our cars. It's personal preference.
What does English do? Do they use a 4g64 block or my 4g63 block if I have them do a lr2.4...
Also,
Pricing wise,m2.3 might be easier because my block is usable. Can anyone point me in the correct direction to look for a crank and rod piston?
Also,
Pricing wise,m2.3 might be easier because my block is usable. Can anyone point me in the correct direction to look for a crank and rod piston?
2.4 uses a 4g64 block. What people are suggesting is that you sell your 4g63 block and crank because you can get decent money for them.
$500 was a 14% discount off of my motor. Thus, my injectors were technically "free."
My only reason for pushing for the LR 2.4L is that I know of many folks who continually tell me that they wished they would've went 2.4 over 2.3.
This is due to the less-than-optimal rod/stroke ratio due to the 63 having a 6mm shorter deck height than the 64, thus making a 2.3L wear faster AND not be able to rev as high. The ability to run longer rods in the 64 also helps lessen side loading on the piston as well.
My 4G64 block is costing $350 for the core w/100mm crank and I have someone to buy my stock 4G63 block for $750. I have seen the stock 4G63 blocks with over 50k miles sold for 1k before. So you are making $400-650 pocket money just by going with the 4G64. That would pay for the rods for sure! All you need now are $400 pistons!
Mikey
Mikey
You can even take this one step further to the extreme. For the record, the 2.3 has a rod stroke ratio of 1.5. How about building a 2.4 block with a 106mm crank, 156mm rods and custom pistons similar to Aarons 10:1's, wher he shifts the pin up 9mm instead of the standard stroker piston's 6mm. This set-up could yield you 2550cc with an 87.5 bore, instead of the 2.3's 2324cc's of displacement. It would have a rod stroke ratio of 1.47 which is almost the same as the 2.3's 1.5 rsr and should be able to rev to 8000rpm all day long.....Mr.Alex's 2.6 is still running strong with something like 700ft/lbs of torque. AWD has pushed the 2.4 with an FP Black to over 700 hp and did 9.33 @ 146mph, just to scratch the surface of what the 2.4 can do. I totally agree with you, the 2.4 is the way to go, cost no object. Like they always said, there's no subsitute for displacement.
People always say a 2.4 is cheaper when in reality its not. A 2.4 requires cam gears, a modified water pump, a special head gasket etc etc All these things add to the cost of building a 2.4. Its a wash IMHO
All the people that really turn the 2.0L as high as they claim on the street as regularly as they claim are generally silly. Past 9400, even with a Kiggly HLA and AMS pan, you will run into issues with the bottom end sooner or later. Other than the 67mm+ stuff I cant think of any turbo that keeps making power past 8300 for the most part on 2.0L-2.4L. Revving it to say you rev to 9k+ is dumb, revving it to 9+ because you have to is different.
Really 9k on the street is MORE than enough for 99.44% of Evos. In my car there is a 400rpm difference in where peak power happened between the 2.0 and 2.4L, 8300 for the 2.0 and 7900 for the 2.4. The old pro stock rule is 5% past peak power for shift points so 8700-8800 is plenty and then run 4th out if you have to.
Ask Mr Tran, he'll tell you all about it.
Aaron
Correct. I do not feel a 2.4 is cheaper. In fact ours are for a fact priced higher than a 2.0/2.3L motor. The difference is take a 2.0L with a big turbo, and I dont mean an FP Black, and see where it spools. Then take the same turbo and see what a LR2.4 does. Smiles are higher on the 2.4L for sure.
All the people that really turn the 2.0L as high as they claim on the street as regularly as they claim are generally silly. Past 9400, even with a Kiggly HLA and AMS pan, you will run into issues with the bottom end sooner or later. Other than the 67mm+ stuff I cant think of any turbo that keeps making power past 8300 for the most part on 2.0L-2.4L. Revving it to say you rev to 9k+ is dumb, revving it to 9+ because you have to is different.
Really 9k on the street is MORE than enough for 99.44% of Evos. In my car there is a 400rpm difference in where peak power happened between the 2.0 and 2.4L, 8300 for the 2.0 and 7900 for the 2.4. The old pro stock rule is 5% past peak power for shift points so 8700-8800 is plenty and then run 4th out if you have to.
Ask Mr Tran, he'll tell you all about it.
Aaron
All the people that really turn the 2.0L as high as they claim on the street as regularly as they claim are generally silly. Past 9400, even with a Kiggly HLA and AMS pan, you will run into issues with the bottom end sooner or later. Other than the 67mm+ stuff I cant think of any turbo that keeps making power past 8300 for the most part on 2.0L-2.4L. Revving it to say you rev to 9k+ is dumb, revving it to 9+ because you have to is different.
Really 9k on the street is MORE than enough for 99.44% of Evos. In my car there is a 400rpm difference in where peak power happened between the 2.0 and 2.4L, 8300 for the 2.0 and 7900 for the 2.4. The old pro stock rule is 5% past peak power for shift points so 8700-8800 is plenty and then run 4th out if you have to.
Ask Mr Tran, he'll tell you all about it.
Aaron
