Why would you buy a stroker kit from a company before they even had any R&D? And to top that off they make the worst cams for evos and and very bad track record for other motor internals.

Oh and if a 2.6l could spin 9500rpm everyone and their mothers would have one with a big as turbo on it. Also other reputable builders would make their own.

 

Look at the scales on the left and right. The Torque scale goes much higher than the HP scale, the 500hp horizontal line on the graph is not 500 torque.

Also, the torque values are in nm. i'm not an expert at all this, but i am pretty sure that at 5252rpm, the HP and NM values are not the same. If you were to convert the NM value to LB-FT and take it's value at 5252, it will be the same as the HP


-edit- here i made the calculations
From the graph, i can't see too well, it looks like it says it makes 758nm at 5210rpm. And it looks like roughly 560 or 565hp right in the middle between 5000 and 5500rpm. This calculator http://www.boltscience.com/pages/convert.htm says that 758nm = 559lb-ft

looks good to me

 

myth busted

 

Whoa. I'm currently building a monster like this. Reading threw this whole thread , I've seen people bash BC kits for no R&D, Rod angle , piston speed and parts quality, yet Mr Alex is still rocking out!

What timing belt did you use?
How did you cover the hole left by the water pump?
What clearance issue would require me to grind away metal?

 

Don't know about durability but been running for roughly 8000 miles now, had a turbo failure and became father at the same time so the car has been slightly down prioritized. Will probably not do anything with it until next year.

Timing belt I used a regular greddy, it's tight and timing will be off so you have to adjust your camgears +3/+3

I don't know what hole you are talking about? Used the water pump from my six, bolted straight on.

Clearances are rod ends touching the lowest part of the block and rod neck hitting the bottom of the cylinders, I have pictures of this, just have to find a new place to host them since my own server died.

 

By chance was your 4g64 already a Twin Cam GDI version?

 

(Mr.) Alex-

Would you be so kind as to send me the email address for the shop that built your 2.6, and your aslo, if possible? There may be some valuable info we can get them, and from you.

We have three 4G64 blocks and two BC stoker kits here and plan to start the first build soon.

Thanks, Chris Fisher ThaiAm Motorsports Bangkok Thailand

 

Ive been wanting to build a 2.6 motor too, but the tuning shops I talk to say to stick with a 2.3, but the way I look at (which Im no expert) you have to take the 2.3 to 10k RPM to make power on a 42R turbo but with the 2.6 you wouldnt have to

 

A 2.6 would further limit your RPM's. As far as I can remember this guy has only revved to 7500. That won't spool the turbo until very late with an extra .3 liters. You would have a very short power band.

If your thinking of a 42R get a high revving 2.0 or 2.1 because a 2.3 is limited to revs as well.

I have asked the OP to prove us wrong and rev this thing like BC said it can. I'll eat my sock if he can do that more then once without blowing something up.

 

I didnt know there was a 2.1 to consider Ill have to look in to that

 

Sorry to resurrect this monster, but I was really hoping on an update Mr. Alex or any of the other shops that have done a 2.6L build.

 

The engine is useless. 2.0 or 2.1 everything else is a compromise in durability and powerband. The 2.3RR may be an exception but an extremely expensive exception.

 

i wouldn't leave out the LR2.4

 

I wouldn't rev it passed 7500 anyway.

btw with an 86.5mm bore and 106mm stroke, doesn't that work out to 2.5l?

 

One of the primary values of greater displacement in a turbocharged engine is that with optimum cam profile, compression ratio and turbine/compressor sizing it DOES NOT require as much RPM for a) boost onset, b) big torque or c) maximum power. This is the whole point.

If an engine can produce the desired maximum numbers by 7000 or 7500 rpm, as opposed to having to be run to 9500 rpm, and has big torque commencing at a much lower rpm level, there are clearly definite advantages to having a 2.5 or 2.6 provided that the internals are properly designed and the engine is built correctly. The evidence so far shows that this definitely can be achieved.

Mr. Alex sent me an update not long ago. He's back at it and has done even more with his 2.6. His engine generates big numbers and he's had good success with it.

A shop in Australia I contacted built a 2.6 for rally use and it has done extremely well for them. I saw the dyno graph and its a nice setup.

(Actually, I think ecktt is correct re: displacement. I don't have my numbers handy but from memory an 86.5 mm x 106 mm engine is about 2520 cc. Going to an 87 mm bore would yield about 2560 cc. Thus the latter could be termed a 2.6 but the former more fairly a 2.5)

When people make comments like "this or that engine is useless", it only reflects their ignorance. Any of these engines, from the standard 2.0 up to the 2.6 and potentially beyond can be spectacular engines if properly built and correctly programmed.
A prime example of this is the 2.2 Tomei package with MoTeC (programmed by a MoTeC factory authorized technician) that I've been running for about 4 years now.
I've run the **** out of this thing. We've freshened the turbo a time or two and had to touch up some welds on the headers, but have never had to go inside the engine. Compression is still high on all four cylinders.
There are four maps. One is for 95 Gasohol, one for 95 Gasoline, one for 100 octane AvGas and one for VP 116. The race fuel map produces over 600 hp and yet the car is smooth to drive and has been very reliable.

This does not equate to "useless".