Cross examination?


Stroking an engine doesn't add Horse Power?

 

2.3L is a bolt on?? since when...??
no offence bro..a strocked 4g63 gets 8~10% increase in horse power and about 25~30% increase in torque...so if you telling me that this car made this power without the cams..i would understand...but with the cams...?? i dont know about that..

Please do not take my arguement personal...i am only sharing my impressions/opinion...

Goodluck

 

Ok, so then what's the point of the stroker? A little more torque with no gain in spoolup? Errr, I don't think so. It's a built motor - it should add significant power. Also, my alky @26psi on an Evo VIII with stock cams should not make more horsepower AND torque than a stroked IX with cams and the same bolt-ons.

Look at the rest of these responses - it's not just me. There is NOTHING good about the power on this car relative to its mods.

 

Man my 03 with cams, aem,TBE, and a Tune put down 333/333- cost of 3500. My stroker put down 431 (detuned) and had as high as 451/365tq.All @21 psi on 93 pump.

I would think just the cams and stage 1 would put that down if not more..

 

You put down 451 whp at 21 psi on pump gas on a 2003 with a stock turbo? I am out of this thread.

 

hey how about this. you guys make the mivec optomised for top end. not bottom end because you have your stroker to take care of that.

and then to shut people up further you can add the alcohol that all the rag racers love.

 

I thought the following stroker build-up was rather impressive. This was back when Sharkbite had his Pruven 2.3L stroker with stock turbo on race fuel before alky tuned by AL. If the image below doesnt work, it was 490 wtq well before 4k rpm and 375 whp at 4k rpm but mantained 350+ whp till redline. I'll also add the link.

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=178448

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/at...8&d=1136952539

 

^^^ I agree, those EVO IX number are not impressive at all. You could have made more power by putting the money that you use towards the 2.3L else where.

 

Now this is what i would expect out of a bigger discplacement 4g63

 

funny that's not what i expect. i expect over 400 hp without a stupid stock turbo.

 

what do you mean without a stupid stock turbo??

 

490 Torque on the stock turbo with a 2.3? Come on. I don't care if it was running rocket fuel, that's insane. I might have to go readjust the correction on our dyno, I think it's reading 50% too low.

 

I can tell you're surprised and impressed but you would be shocked to see what the numbers look like on alky. This thread isnt about his car though. Its about why YOUR numbers are so wickedly unimpressive for a 2.3L motor. WE are all shocked at the numbers. They just seem wicked low period.

 

Surprised. You got it. Has that car been on any other dyno?

 

Maybe that's the problem. I couldn't figure out why they laughed in my face when I tried to warn them via PMs, but I guess they REALLY DO think these are good results. I kinda had a feeling, but I didn't really believe it. I guess they don't keep track of what IXs are putting out these days. Hell, Sharkbite's IX put down those numbers a long time ago. Yes, 490wtq...that's what a stroker does for the stock turbo. Yeah, this car was cranked on big boost with race gas, but it's far and beyond the car in this thread. Different dynos sure, but we're talking not even in the same ballpark.