Vendors: 2.1 longblocks?
Oct 20, 2006, 05:13 AM
#16
Evolved Member
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toms River, NJ
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CO_VR4
SBR's 2.1 has had reported problems. Curt Brown's 2.1 was a SBR short block. I recall that it was rebuilt and sold very quickly on this board.
The Magnus 2.1, on the other hand, is very well thought out, extremely well built, and has not had reported longevity problems. It is not by any means "unproven". It revs quickly, has a beter rod ratio, and has more displacement via bore size, making it closer to a "square" bore / stroke. More displacement is not a bad thing, either. That's why you'd "mess with the nonsense".
BTW, Magnus owner Marco Passante won the Shootout this year, running an 8 second pass and knocking Buschur's Evo out of the competition.
The downside of the Magnus 2.1 is that it's not cheap, which is why, I believe, it's not more common.
The Magnus 2.1, on the other hand, is very well thought out, extremely well built, and has not had reported longevity problems. It is not by any means "unproven". It revs quickly, has a beter rod ratio, and has more displacement via bore size, making it closer to a "square" bore / stroke. More displacement is not a bad thing, either. That's why you'd "mess with the nonsense".
BTW, Magnus owner Marco Passante won the Shootout this year, running an 8 second pass and knocking Buschur's Evo out of the competition.The downside of the Magnus 2.1 is that it's not cheap, which is why, I believe, it's not more common.
Oct 20, 2006, 06:42 AM
#17
Alot of questions. First, Curt's engine WAS a SBR 2.1 liter. Curt is no longer running a 2.1 liter. His 9.3's he has been running have been on our 2 liter. The truth is Curt hasn't had an engine in his car that has lasted more than one trip to the track until he switched to our 2 liter. He has been running it since spring with no troubles at all.
I believe the 2 liter is the best. There is no limit to the RPM when it is built right. That is quite apart with John, Brent and our EVO going to over 10,000 rpm on each and every pass.
The EVO engine is superior to the old DSM 6 bolt design.
I have dyno'd a few 2.1's at this point and haven't been overly impressed. With nothing but a change back to a 2 liter one of them made substantially more power than it did with a 2.1. The 2.1 is also very knock prone and will not take nearly the timing that a 2 liter does.
I believe the 2 liter is the best. There is no limit to the RPM when it is built right. That is quite apart with John, Brent and our EVO going to over 10,000 rpm on each and every pass.
The EVO engine is superior to the old DSM 6 bolt design.
I have dyno'd a few 2.1's at this point and haven't been overly impressed. With nothing but a change back to a 2 liter one of them made substantially more power than it did with a 2.1. The 2.1 is also very knock prone and will not take nearly the timing that a 2 liter does.
Oct 20, 2006, 06:23 PM
#18
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: on the edge of sanity
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davidbuschur
Alot of questions. First, Curt's engine WAS a SBR 2.1 liter. Curt is no longer running a 2.1 liter. His 9.3's he has been running have been on our 2 liter. The truth is Curt hasn't had an engine in his car that has lasted more than one trip to the track until he switched to our 2 liter. He has been running it since spring with no troubles at all.
I believe the 2 liter is the best. There is no limit to the RPM when it is built right. That is quite apart with John, Brent and our EVO going to over 10,000 rpm on each and every pass.
The EVO engine is superior to the old DSM 6 bolt design.
I have dyno'd a few 2.1's at this point and haven't been overly impressed. With nothing but a change back to a 2 liter one of them made substantially more power than it did with a 2.1. The 2.1 is also very knock prone and will not take nearly the timing that a 2 liter does.
I believe the 2 liter is the best. There is no limit to the RPM when it is built right. That is quite apart with John, Brent and our EVO going to over 10,000 rpm on each and every pass.
The EVO engine is superior to the old DSM 6 bolt design.
I have dyno'd a few 2.1's at this point and haven't been overly impressed. With nothing but a change back to a 2 liter one of them made substantially more power than it did with a 2.1. The 2.1 is also very knock prone and will not take nearly the timing that a 2 liter does.
Oct 20, 2006, 09:52 PM
#19
Evolved Member
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toms River, NJ
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FatheroftheEVO
Dave, i agree with you mostly, but i think you are just going off of your DSM experience's and that the 2.0 is superior. with the long rod 2.1, the rod ratio is better, thus durring most of the piston travel, piston speed will be lower. it is slightly faster close to BDC. i cant get into deatails right now, i will later, but there are definately benefits from the long rod and better rod ratio. its not the fact its a 2.1, its the ROD RATIO!!! lol
Oct 20, 2006, 10:47 PM
#20
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in no way am i disputing or disagreeing with Dave, the man knows his 4g63s prob better than mitsu...i just would like to know the disadvantages of running a 2.1 over a 2.0. everyone keeps bringing up CB and his motor problems, but is that because of the way they were built or because it was a 2.1? if i had DB or AMS build me a 2.1, would it be ****? my intention isn't to start a flaming war, but to hear opinions, BACKED W/ DATA, on why a 2.0 is the way to go...
Oct 21, 2006, 03:28 AM
#21
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: on the edge of sanity
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Evo_SpeedKing
in no way am i disputing or disagreeing with Dave, the man knows his 4g63s prob better than mitsu...i just would like to know the disadvantages of running a 2.1 over a 2.0. everyone keeps bringing up CB and his motor problems, but is that because of the way they were built or because it was a 2.1? if i had DB or AMS build me a 2.1, would it be ****? my intention isn't to start a flaming war, but to hear opinions, BACKED W/ DATA, on why a 2.0 is the way to go...
The 2.1 would technically be more reliable, due to lower piston speeds and less forces on the crank (overall. some places in the rotation they are slightly higher). this is all due to the better rod ratio. why do you think formula 1 cars or toyota atlantic motors (ect...) can rev so high, so freely and reliably? all of you people, including dave and most other tuners (no offense intended) are not comparing the 2.1 to the 2.0 correctly. truthfully, you cant compare them at all. how many 2 litre's are out there? probably hundreds of thousands. how many 2.1's with the good rod ratio? probably less than 1k. if you want to eventually go 2.1 shawn, i would say you would almost be better off building it yourself with parts you choose and with a machine shop you know and trust.
Oct 21, 2006, 06:52 AM
#22
Evolved Member
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toms River, NJ
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FatheroftheEVO
The 2.1 would technically be more reliable.
Oct 21, 2006, 01:39 PM
#23
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lets leave out the fact that CB ran the fastest time recorded on a stock turbo with the SBR 2.1L Also, CB admits to the fact that his launch rpm are higher than his shift rpm with that motor. Anyone who abuses a motor like he does could expect problems of some sort. I bet even DB's "miracle" motors would grenade after so many runs. Guys with money just rebuild them when it comes time, before major damage occurs.
Secondly..this purported other 2.1L kit that spun bearings was not built by SBR but a kit that was assembled by a member and his father who once again admitted to faulty assembly on their part. Not to bash or open old wounds here. Just the facts.
I have a SBR 2.1L sitting in my garage. I have spent hours and hours of emails and phone calls to research this project. As well as thousands of countless dollars. I may be wrong but thats neither here nor there. When this car is together I think we will have some ver conclusive data on a well built 2.1L and what it is capable of.
SBR built it. I am going to take the short block to RRE, have them machine the oil squirters into the block. Reassemble it and doublecheck SBR's work. (sorry SBR) It is going to cost a little more but I think the peace of mind is worth an extra 500-700 dollars. Rest of the work is being done by me. I cant wait to get it in. The project is taking longer(way longer) than I expected.
Secondly..this purported other 2.1L kit that spun bearings was not built by SBR but a kit that was assembled by a member and his father who once again admitted to faulty assembly on their part. Not to bash or open old wounds here. Just the facts.
I have a SBR 2.1L sitting in my garage. I have spent hours and hours of emails and phone calls to research this project. As well as thousands of countless dollars. I may be wrong but thats neither here nor there. When this car is together I think we will have some ver conclusive data on a well built 2.1L and what it is capable of.
SBR built it. I am going to take the short block to RRE, have them machine the oil squirters into the block. Reassemble it and doublecheck SBR's work. (sorry SBR) It is going to cost a little more but I think the peace of mind is worth an extra 500-700 dollars. Rest of the work is being done by me. I cant wait to get it in. The project is taking longer(way longer) than I expected.
Oct 21, 2006, 02:22 PM
#24
Evolved Member
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toms River, NJ
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by althemean
lets leave out the fact that CB ran the fastest time recorded on a stock turbo with the SBR 2.1L Also, CB admits to the fact that his launch rpm are higher than his shift rpm with that motor. Anyone who abuses a motor like he does could expect problems of some sort. I bet even DB's "miracle" motors would grenade after so many runs. Guys with money just rebuild them when it comes time, before major damage occurs.
Secondly..this purported other 2.1L kit that spun bearings was not built by SBR but a kit that was assembled by a member and his father who once again admitted to faulty assembly on their part. Not to bash or open old wounds here. Just the facts.
I have a SBR 2.1L sitting in my garage. I have spent hours and hours of emails and phone calls to research this project. As well as thousands of countless dollars. I may be wrong but thats neither here nor there. When this car is together I think we will have some ver conclusive data on a well built 2.1L and what it is capable of.
SBR built it. I am going to take the short block to RRE, have them machine the oil squirters into the block. Reassemble it and doublecheck SBR's work. (sorry SBR) It is going to cost a little more but I think the peace of mind is worth an extra 500-700 dollars. Rest of the work is being done by me. I cant wait to get it in. The project is taking longer(way longer) than I expected.
Secondly..this purported other 2.1L kit that spun bearings was not built by SBR but a kit that was assembled by a member and his father who once again admitted to faulty assembly on their part. Not to bash or open old wounds here. Just the facts.
I have a SBR 2.1L sitting in my garage. I have spent hours and hours of emails and phone calls to research this project. As well as thousands of countless dollars. I may be wrong but thats neither here nor there. When this car is together I think we will have some ver conclusive data on a well built 2.1L and what it is capable of.
SBR built it. I am going to take the short block to RRE, have them machine the oil squirters into the block. Reassemble it and doublecheck SBR's work. (sorry SBR) It is going to cost a little more but I think the peace of mind is worth an extra 500-700 dollars. Rest of the work is being done by me. I cant wait to get it in. The project is taking longer(way longer) than I expected.
Last edited by Soon2BEVO; Oct 21, 2006 at 02:25 PM.
Oct 21, 2006, 07:37 PM
#26
Motors don't "blow up" because of their rod ratios. They blow up because mistakes were made in their assembly, or they were used outside the parameters intended by the builder.
2.1s have a different rod ratio. In theory, the rod ratio allows for higher RPMs. There are excellent engine builders building a variety of motors (not just 4g63s) that believe that there are substantial physical advantages to the longer rod ratio. Others favor the characteristics of shorter rod ratios. Do your reading and research and you'll start to understand the pros and cons on both sides.
BTW, Magnus also has a long rod 2.0L motor
2.1s have a different rod ratio. In theory, the rod ratio allows for higher RPMs. There are excellent engine builders building a variety of motors (not just 4g63s) that believe that there are substantial physical advantages to the longer rod ratio. Others favor the characteristics of shorter rod ratios. Do your reading and research and you'll start to understand the pros and cons on both sides.
BTW, Magnus also has a long rod 2.0L motor
Oct 22, 2006, 01:20 AM
#28
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: on the edge of sanity
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Soon2BEVO
Key word is technically. When I was first looking at motors I thought the 2.1 was for me because everything about it seemed to be golden, however I really have not seen any conclusive data from anyone running them whatso ever. The only thing I have seen is them blowing up. Could it be the builder.. well yes but I know 2 people with SBR motors (one with a 2.0 and one with a 2.3) and theyve been together for over a year, so I cant immediately blaim SBR for the troubles.
Oct 22, 2006, 11:19 PM
#29
In total snowball destruction you can still inspect components and their mode of failure will tell the order in which things go to hell. In properly oiled high RPM engines you will find more broken rods, rod bolts, than pistons and cylinder walls trashed along their thrust faces. These tension failures almost always are the first of subsequent failures.
What does this tell you about which forces you run up on first that fail a high speed engine?
What are the other forces at work?
When you crunch the numbers, which of these forces is the greatest?
Which increase the most when engine speed is varied?
What about when geometry is varied?
How many of each displacement variant have been built and by what quality of company/person?
Are they aware of what changes to make to components to counteract increases and decreases in forces from moving either way with geometry and engine speed range?
What are the racing classes rules on weight breaks and gearing, and how do they affect displacement selection?
Are they any no holds barred arenas in terms of displacement and gearing? What do they run there? If big names do not run in the open class, why not?
What about business and commercial viability of different stroker packages? Target market and how they pitch what they sell?
When you're all done you won't be favoring 2.0s. All this has been discussed before. If you'll search and update the appropriate threads, we can continue.
======================
FatherEVO,
lower overall loads means better reliability
lower mean piston speeds does not always mean lower loads
it is possible to have higher mean piston speeds but lower loads
Some production sports engines have mean piston speeds equal to or higher than some racing engines, yet live longer in both duration and mileage because loads are lower.
What does this tell you about which forces you run up on first that fail a high speed engine?
What are the other forces at work?
When you crunch the numbers, which of these forces is the greatest?
Which increase the most when engine speed is varied?
What about when geometry is varied?
How many of each displacement variant have been built and by what quality of company/person?
Are they aware of what changes to make to components to counteract increases and decreases in forces from moving either way with geometry and engine speed range?
What are the racing classes rules on weight breaks and gearing, and how do they affect displacement selection?
Are they any no holds barred arenas in terms of displacement and gearing? What do they run there? If big names do not run in the open class, why not?
What about business and commercial viability of different stroker packages? Target market and how they pitch what they sell?
When you're all done you won't be favoring 2.0s. All this has been discussed before. If you'll search and update the appropriate threads, we can continue.
======================
FatherEVO,
lower overall loads means better reliability
lower mean piston speeds does not always mean lower loads
it is possible to have higher mean piston speeds but lower loads
Some production sports engines have mean piston speeds equal to or higher than some racing engines, yet live longer in both duration and mileage because loads are lower.
Oct 23, 2006, 07:06 AM
#30
I have now tuned 3-4 different 2.1 liter engines on the dyno and at the track. I know what I see in the logs when I tune them, I know what I see on the dyno. I personally don't care about what "technically it does on paper" I never have, never will care about "paper".
On the dyno, yes, Curt's car with the stock turbo and a 2.1 liter engine made more power than any other car I've dyno'd with a stock turbo. Keep in mind that was also with an EVO with bar far the lightest tires/wheels/brakes/clutch assembly of ANY car we've dyno'd. Just last week I took a stock turbo'd EVO over 375 whp with very-very few mods done to it, so 400 whp in Curt's car, while impressive, isn't THAT impressive. Curt is a driving fool, the guy is unreal at the track, running 1.40 sixty foot times with the stock turbo is the key to running records.
Curt changed nothing but the shortblock from a 2.1 liter engine to a 2 liter of ours and made substantially more power and was substantially faster in the 1/4 mile. He will remember the exact times/mph and HP numbers if he'd like to chime in on this.
I was very interested in the 2.1's when I first read/heard about them. After tuning and seeing a few now, as good as they sound, I have no interest.
Also, all my experience with them have been strictly EVO, no old style DSM engines.
On the dyno, yes, Curt's car with the stock turbo and a 2.1 liter engine made more power than any other car I've dyno'd with a stock turbo. Keep in mind that was also with an EVO with bar far the lightest tires/wheels/brakes/clutch assembly of ANY car we've dyno'd. Just last week I took a stock turbo'd EVO over 375 whp with very-very few mods done to it, so 400 whp in Curt's car, while impressive, isn't THAT impressive. Curt is a driving fool, the guy is unreal at the track, running 1.40 sixty foot times with the stock turbo is the key to running records.
Curt changed nothing but the shortblock from a 2.1 liter engine to a 2 liter of ours and made substantially more power and was substantially faster in the 1/4 mile. He will remember the exact times/mph and HP numbers if he'd like to chime in on this.
I was very interested in the 2.1's when I first read/heard about them. After tuning and seeing a few now, as good as they sound, I have no interest.
Also, all my experience with them have been strictly EVO, no old style DSM engines.