2.7 Gt42r
In order to make it happen, one would need a 4G64 block, and a custom crank with a stroke of 115 mm. The downside is one would almost certainly need a very short rod to be able to fit a decent piston - like 143.5 mm. This works out to a rod/stroke ratio of ~1.24, which isn't something that I find especially appealing. Add to this the fact that it would reach a piston speed of 25 m/sec at only 6500 rpm, and on paper what you have amounts to a low rpm truck motor.
IMO, there just isn't enough deck height do make something like this attractive.
IMO, there just isn't enough deck height do make something like this attractive.
Ted B, knows his stuff. We are actually building an EVO for the show right now. The customer wants me to build some monster 2.6 or 2.7 motor. I am really hesitant because I know the redline will be so low that we will probably even up having to shift into 5th unless we do custom gearing. I am currently trying to convince him into doing a 2.1 for the Drags.
The guys name is Alex and he has been on the show twice already. This will be the first time with his EVO.
The guys name is Alex and he has been on the show twice already. This will be the first time with his EVO.
Originally Posted by Ted B
In order to make it happen, one would need a 4G64 block, and a custom crank with a stroke of 115 mm. The downside is one would almost certainly need a very short rod to be able to fit a decent piston - like 143.5 mm. This works out to a rod/stroke ratio of ~1.24, which isn't something that I find especially appealing. Add to this the fact that it would reach a piston speed of 25 m/sec at only 6500 rpm, and on paper what you have amounts to a low rpm truck motor.
IMO, there just isn't enough deck height do make something like this attractive.
IMO, there just isn't enough deck height do make something like this attractive.
Adding to this thought you would have take a 4g64 block add a section to the block makeing the head sit up higher then it just might work. But thats way over the top to make something like that.
Running a 2.4 with longer rods and a shorter piston allows you to have a better rod ratio and rev to about 8,000RPMs. Most tuners only recommend running the regular 2.4 motors to 7500RPMs. The advantage to any 2.4 motor is larger displacement and slower piston speed. The 2.4 has a slower piston speed then a 2.3. With the 2.4, all your doing is moving your powerband down in the RPM band. Its very expensive to build a high revving motor the right way, and also, the higher you rev, the more risk you run of stuff breaking, mostly trannys. With the 2.4, you rev just as high as the 2.3, with a better rod ratio, slower piston speed and .1 liters of extra displacement, your making almost the same power, but you can argue that the 2.4 may be better for long term due to less stress on the rods.
Actually, the average piston speed between the 2.3 4G63 and 2.4 4G64 is the same, as both use the same stroke. What is different between the two is the rate of acceleration of the piston near TDC and BDC, which is a result of the difference in rod/stroke ratio. The rod/stroke ratio of the 4G63 is a 1.5, and moves upward to a 1.56 with the 4G64.
Well the 2.7L sounds tempting but like the engine gurus have been saying the redline in a engine like that wouldnt be worth putting a monster turbo on. However, if the engine manufacturers devise a plan to where the engine could have a higher redline then you are in business.
Good luck to you guys.
Good luck to you guys.
RNR - Im transfering to San Diego from Hawaii and probably deploying. If I make it back alive, I will have saved a lot of $$$$. Hope by then you can offer us more displacement. Im in for sure even with the 2.4, but anything higher with no rev issues would be outstanding.
After my experience with the roll bars with RNR i wouldnt take anything they say to heart.
1) They lied to me on more than 4 times.
2) The roll bars i paid for were used....lol looks like they came out of there shop car
3) The roll bars never passed tech which they said they would.
4) So ive got used roll bars i paid $1200 for plus labor that i have to take out and have re made
1) They lied to me on more than 4 times.
2) The roll bars i paid for were used....lol looks like they came out of there shop car
3) The roll bars never passed tech which they said they would.
4) So ive got used roll bars i paid $1200 for plus labor that i have to take out and have re made
Last edited by Paul Nelson; Nov 9, 2006 at 03:13 AM.
wont the crank have to be made of like... atomantium or something since its going to be working so much overtime it would shatter if it wasn't the strongest metal in all fictional comic books?
Originally Posted by RnR Racing
I have no doubt it will work. It is just matter of keeping the rev limit to 7500.
You should mix that theory with Good Cust service and product that actually fits! 
Originally Posted by Kee1pride
wont the crank have to be made of like... atomantium or something since its going to be working so much overtime it would shatter if it wasn't the strongest metal in all fictional comic books?
