alright after talking to my gearhead friends...we have been discussing the better and safest/strongest way to go for the set-up for my evo. 1st the parts to be put in that we have set in stone.
GT3076R dual entry (.78AR) turbo kit with spec'd/engineered exhaust manifold
SMC alky kit
264 cams (they are fine, trust me)
AEM
TBE (duh)

The main hang up is stroker vs. nicely built overbored stock rod ratio.

One thing I'm trying to find is who makes the best pistons between 8.5:1 and 8.8:1 with quench being a strong seller.

What is recommended valvetrain wise?...really hoping to find some progressive/conical/bee hived springs...and of course oversized valves (weight will be key if staying factory rod ratio)...

I guess I will start here for now and see what I get back.

Thanks,
Hayden aka: Doc

 

May I ask why you want these type of springs??

EVOlutionary

 

well, its really simple...less valvetrain loss...a smoother lower idle and less shock to the valve itself...

 

he beat me to it...but i was just concerned mostly a better idle and strenth/not floating a valve.

 

Anyone have detailed pictures of rod bearings, rings, and the piston after several thousand miles on a stroker and big boost?

What is it exactly that you are debating? Power vs. longevity? The short stroke motor will make more power than you can handle if you have a good head/cam and give it enough rpm.

 

Who makes these springs? Are any of the EVOs out there that are running over 10K rpms using them yet? Sounds like a good idea.

 

I'm running pretty much your setup, go with the stroker. Unless your going for an all out drag/highway racer the 2.3 will be much more fun daily, however if you do go with the stroker don't bother with the valvesprings as you wont want to rev that high anyway.

Scorke

 

that is exactly the debate it sounds like he is having...
2.3L low rev's vs. 2.0 (little over) revving high...trade offs being fuel economy and from what RPM's the powerband exists...
longevity of the 2.3 will inherently be shorter though due to rod ratio and it won't want to rev like the 2.0 (even down low)...
the 2.0 build would be cheaper on the bottom end but then valvetrain would need to be addressed...
the 2.3 you have to buy, well, a stroker kit...

all pro's and con's...
but does anyone make a conical/progressive valve spring for the evo?...

 

^ you happen to be leaving out all the pro's of a 2.3, TQ,TQ,TQ and you don't have to rev as high, which puts less strain on everything spinning in the motor(besides all the things a stroker does effect like amount of pressure exerted on the cylinder walls by the piston)

Scorke

 

a stroke kit with a shorter rod ratio exerts more force on the side of the piston and the cylinder walls...increasing the wear on the piston and more importantly rings...
aside from that you have more rod angle and ultimately less power per stroke (displacement put aside) as the piston has less dwell and therefore less time to burn...with a better rod ratio you have more dwell and more time to burn you can ignite later and get a more complete burn having more pressure above the piston to force it down on the right side of the stroke...
Do a little reading on BMEP and flame propagation speeds...if only there was a long rod set up...

his torque would come later in the power rather than sooner in a 2.3....
so it would be more ideal for track and drag...while still leaving better fuel economy around town...the 2.3L strength is really only in auto-x and those who need quick torque for a DD...

 

That doesn't sound right, but then again, I know little about flame propagation, etc.

Maybe compared to a 2.3 with a different rod ratio, but not a 2.3 vs. 2.0...right?

 

I got the springs done with my stroker just because I want the insurance against valve float in case I mis-shift. An added benefit has been that the lifter tick I had is completely gone.

 

torque is dependent upon BMEP (affected by flame speed and relation to tdc/dwell)
the more directly down the piston is pushed the more power exerted...the longer the rod ratio the more power per stroke per unit of displacement the better...
power all comes down to CFM ultimately as well, hints bigger displacement is better.
So if he can rev 2.0L @ 10k (20,000 cold LM) and a 2.3 can rev 7k (16,100 cold LM) he has more air coming through the engine. It begins to become tricky when you add turbo's...turbo sizing and how much CFM is really flowing once boosted as it compounds upon itself...also upon efficiency range of the turbine that the boost is happening at (as hotter air has more volume but less mass)....regardless maximum torque occurs at the maximum volumetric efficiency of a motor...and all the things mentioned about really need to be worked as mass flow problems and not volumetric flow
but you can see a 2.0 will flow more air already

 

THe 2.0 may have more CFM @ 10,000 rpms (I know these are arbitrary numbers anyway), but at 4,000 rpms I would guess the 2.3 is moving more air, hence torque sooner, no?

 

exactly...like I said...2.3 torque sooner...and 2.0 torque later...and peak all depends on peak VE...

so about those progressive valvesprings and pistons with good quench design, who makes them?