Marco says oil squirters will be going in.

From what I could gather it depends on the application on whether they are used. My application is primarily fast road use with reliability as number one concern. In this situation the oil squirters will be added.

 

Oil squirters are not a must. All the folks that I've read running without squirters have no problems. You can go without them and be okay. But if it were me, I'd add them as you did for added cooling.

 

Yes they do! IA Performance had to use ductile iron sleeves from Darton since my engine had dropped a valve and really damaged the cylinder walls of the stock block. Now my motor is able to handle more power, so I am told!

 

I also am interested in the 4G64 motor for my EVO. One of the reasons I was thinking 2.3 instead is because I do not want to give up the oil squirters. I did not know they could machine squirters into the 4G64, nice! Also, I sure hope you are keeping the balance shafts in place!

 

Evoeight,

Talk to an engine builder. I don't know of any that keep the BS in place. My 2.4 (RRE built) without BS is smoother than stock 2.0L. It also frees up some hp and makes the motor more reliable. I would definitely go for the oil squirters.

 

Realistically, if you balance the rotating assembly then balance shafts aren't necessary and you won't even know they are gone.

My only grievance with the old 2.4 setup on dsm was the low availability of headgaskets fro the setup. That's why I'm going 2.3 this time around.

 

The balance of the rotating assembly has nothing to do with the balance shafts.

FYI

 

Don't get the BC 2.4 until/unless they have changed their crank specs. I'm running this kit now and its great. BUT...the crank had to be re-machined for proper rod clearance and it was an expensive PITA. A buddy who didn't have his crank properly un-f&cked destroyed his engine under high boost.

Mine is holding fine but only thanks to the keen eye of my installer/machine shop. If they had thrown it in as-is it wouldn't have lasted. It is rev-limited more than most strokers too due to the 103mm crank and ludicrous speeds that come along with it. Definitely do your homework and go with a PROVEN kit. In hindsight I'd have gotten a Buschur, AMS or JAM 2.3.

 

i hear some negative things about the BC 2.4L here. Are y'all using the re-manned crank or the billet crank? I went ahead and bought the billet crank and i am in the process of having my pistons de-burred and coated, besides that im not doing anything different to the kit except swapping out engine bearings from what the kit included.


sorry this is so far down the road, i just returned from deployment 5 days ago or so.

 

The Crower 2.4L stroker kit was designed by Brian Crower and Rc Developments,needs some machine work done to the block,102mm crank.This kit is run in Rc´s cars which are doing very well in Time Attack,for this kit to work well you need the head and inlet manifold from Rc Developments

The 2.3L stroker kit runs a 100mm crank which is the cheaper option between the two.I have the 2.3 from Buschur and am not changing back to 2.0L for drag racing because of the advantages from higher revving

 

noted, i wasnt aware. thanks.

 

one thing I still want to see is the internals of an AMS 2.1 that is bored +2.5mm...
yes, the BC billet crank is 102mm stroke...leaves a hellaciously short rod ratio but should do well with spooling being its lower rpm peak VE's...

I've never heard of the rod clearance issue...in what way what there an issue with clearance?

I do imagine that the block will need some clearing much like the BC 2.7 for the subies...

 

Really? I would wonder if its the manufacturing or its the assembly gone wrong. But good to know....thanks

But just the same, I've been compiling information on the 2.4 in an effort to develop a larger engine than your typical 2.3.

While the 2.3 is great, Im interested in punching out the 2.4 to a 2.6 but after running past the 106mm crank in size, I'm starting to wonder about the durability of a motor I intend to spin past 8000 revs- in an effort to push Full Race's new turbo kit (hopefully) with a GT40/42 turbo. Im trying to maximize the power band with two components that are untested, being the 2.6 with the twin scroll manifold. My numbers suggest that its going to be a tough road....

The 2.4 I've seen has a taller deck height and lacks oil squirters, but there are measurements Im trying to attain and when I do get the numbers on anything different, I'll let you know.

 

The 4G64 (or G4JS) comes from the factory with a larger bore than the 4G63, meaning there is LESS material in between cylinders (weaker cylinder wall) which may result in cracking under high load if it is bored out much further. Because of the longer rod that is able to be used with the taller 4G64 block, it will definitely have the best rod length/stroke ratio. So it comes down to this:

2.4L 4G64 can rev little higher, and has .1 liters more displacement but probably cannot take the amount of power a built 4G63 can handle (900 HP +)

2.3L 4G63 cannot rev as high, has less displacement, and is subject to increased piston side loading because of the crappy rod length/stroke ratio, however it can hold theoretically more power because of the thicker cylinder walls.

You can install the squirters in the 4G64 if you really want to, its not hard at all (drill and tap).

 

With all these ideas...I believe its worth a shot. considering that there has yet to be a proven limit to the 4g63 blocks (race teams running all year long, like Shep, without diving into their spare), I figure that if the 4g64 is even a LITTLE bit lower...well, it'd still be quite high but the powerband would be worth looking at.