Inside the Brian Crower 2.6L stroker...
Evolved Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,387
Likes: 3
From: riverside, ca
thats just basically summed up some people talk out there a$$ like there experts, same kinda people dogged me about running crower valve springs/retainers...20k on a built engine revvin wot to 8k no problems, as long as they designed the internals to handle it, and its handling it i dont see the issue...i remember readin a post on this thread that a lot of our metals have been shipped to china, as long as the internals fall into the somewhat safe zone for the internal tolerances, as well as not goin half *** on some parts, yea i can see it stayin together... just becuz u didnt buy from a well known american company doesnt make it any less of a product. Damn fanboys, get off ur tuners dick, and show the guy some respect, he went above what you guys have done, and his engine is still in one piece, despite your insults. Keep it goin mr alex, im interested to see what you can do with this baby at say 30psi+ on race gas or e85 if you have it in your area.
His dyno graph looked pretty ****ty to me....not sure what some of you guys are looking at.... It just broke 200 whp at around 4250rpm's......I know a lot 2.3's and lower that have better response. That being said i don't think he was using the best turbo for the application...i'm just not that empressed. Not to mention the fact that there are a number of ppl saying they've had issues with the motor, but since ONE person is running it once and a while and it hasn't blown up...it must me good.
Why? why run this motor? what advantage does it have? I understand the extra displacement, but so far I’ve seen 1 dyno graph, no video, no nothing...nothing that would make me want to even consider this white elephant of a set up.
P.S Eagle? yuck
Why? why run this motor? what advantage does it have? I understand the extra displacement, but so far I’ve seen 1 dyno graph, no video, no nothing...nothing that would make me want to even consider this white elephant of a set up.
P.S Eagle? yuck
Last edited by Teal2nnr; Jun 7, 2011 at 05:21 PM.
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".
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".
It all depends on what the setup is built for. For rally I can see wanting tq. Look at the specs of the wrc cars, they are tuned to produce a crazy tq number with their anti lag setups. I can see them liking a 2.6 setup. For road racing I not so sure if its ideal, but that also depends on what the driver likes.
I personally would rather be able to rev it up so Im not having to upshift and then downshift so much. I guess if you can make enough power to shift up and then be in the next higher gear long enough to not have to downshift right away then it can be useful.
For autox this would be a nice setup as I have been through quite a few layouts where your in 1st for half the track and having the tq down low is nice for some of those transitions. Porsche club loves these tight courses that arent evo friendly, I'd love the tq of a 2.6L with their layouts.
Drag racing with this 2.6L probably wouldnt last too long as you still need to wind it up so your not shifting as much. The tq is nice as it would allow you to run stickier, wider tires to improve traction and 60ft times, I imagine.
Are we ready for yearly update from Alex? I have a 1984 Conquest with 4g54 SOHC 2.6 liter (91.1mm bore x 98mm stroke) now, and have been planning on a 4g64 swap when my new garage is built, so the 2.6L DOHC struck my eye as a possible good thing... but 106mm is a heck of a lot more stroke than the 98mm in the SOHC 2.6. I just wish the twin cam heads from the 4G engines would bolt up to the 5g engine 
Any updates appreciated,
Keith
Any updates appreciated,
Keith
Are we ready for yearly update from Alex? I have a 1984 Conquest with 4g54 SOHC 2.6 liter (91.1mm bore x 98mm stroke) now, and have been planning on a 4g64 swap when my new garage is built, so the 2.6L DOHC struck my eye as a possible good thing... but 106mm is a heck of a lot more stroke than the 98mm in the SOHC 2.6. I just wish the twin cam heads from the 4G engines would bolt up to the 5g engine
Any updates appreciated,
Keith
Any updates appreciated,
Keith
I was thinking of a 102mm crank, with 154mm rods, and the same LR2.4L spec pistons in a 4g64 block. What would that put you at?
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
Well, there is not much to update you on, it is still rocking. I havent spent much time with the evo the last two years, been working on breeding the family 
Anyways, last year we did some final tuning at the end of the year and dynoed it. The result? 750hp and 908nm of torque, thats 670lb/ft of torque.
Unfortunately right after dyno the water pipe at the back of the engine came lose and all the water evaporated, of course the head gasket blew. Good part is that when I pulled the head pistons and cylinders looked like new.
Pics from last event (iPhone, sorry):
Anyways, last year we did some final tuning at the end of the year and dynoed it. The result? 750hp and 908nm of torque, thats 670lb/ft of torque.
Unfortunately right after dyno the water pipe at the back of the engine came lose and all the water evaporated, of course the head gasket blew. Good part is that when I pulled the head pistons and cylinders looked like new.
Pics from last event (iPhone, sorry):