exactly. it's like buying a set of hair clippers, then sending back the clippers because your hair ended up like this when you cut it.

 

+1

If the clerances were too tight on the first kit, why not measure the second one before assembly? not to mention the third one......

Yes, my motor works like a charm.

 

Much more behind the curtain stuff that happened. But yes i was newb when it came to evos at the time and listen to Brian and others who did not know what they were talking about with the 4g63 platform.

Now what this whole learning experience taught me was to go to people that know 4g63 inside and out. This whole ordeal is what lead me to English Racing From their ive hit 1100whp ran 8s and went 166mph.

But remember i was getting calls from other machine shop who were running into the same problem that we ran into. But they stopped and said wtf did some research and sent the kit back.

 

Hey Mr Alex, how high do you rev your motor to and what kind of racing do you use the car for?

 

7500rpms, only track days.

 

That is quite simply the most beautifull motor I have ever seen. Amazing work

 

It's amazing you can get 2.6 out of the 4G63. I woulder how bad it hurts topend and longevity. Simply amazing though to get that out of a 2.0

 

You can't, that's why you use a 4G64

 

If I had money I'd buy this kit and rev it to 9500 and see if its really what they claim then end the debate.

DMF doesn't really have much info on their site other then bragging 1100bhp.... it would be nice to see some actual dyno, rev numbers from it.

I've never been impressed by BC stuff, sure its cheap but its nothing special either.

And from the looks at that dyno graph from Mr. Alex, the spoolup isn't that impressive either.

 

200whp and 300wnm at 4000rpms and after that it's a rocket, what more do you expect? it's still a 4 cylinder engine and compared to the 2.3l stroker which gives roughly 500rpms earlier spool than a 2.0l i would say that my engine has more or less spot on 1000rpms faster spool than a 2.0l engine would have with a same size turbocharger.

 

Using 88mm stroke for the stock 2.0L and 106 for the BC stroker. Average piston speeds are in meters per second. Note...peak piston speeds are not listed, but every piston has to stop twice for every revolution...so it only goes faster between each stopping point (TDC/BDC)

RPM 7.0k 7.5k 8.0k 8.5k 9.0k 9.5k 10.0k 10.5k
2.0: 20.5 22.0 23.5 24.9 26.4 27.9 29.3 30.8
2.6: 24.7 26.5 28.3 30.0 31.8 33.6 35.3 37.1

FYI, if BC claims that they can rev the 2.6L to 9,500 rpms it will have the same avg piston speed as a 2.0L revving to 11,500. 33.7 meters per second! A formula 1 engine has a mean piston speed of 25 meters per second.

Paul,
do you still have that mechanical oil pressure gauge?

The 2.6L is a terrible idea IMO...

 

Very cool, but I imagine that the rod/stroke ratio is crazy on this thing...

Anyways, Its always cool to watch something new come up! I bet this thing is a blasty blast to drive!

 

We took my BC2.5L to 8250 on the dyno, it's seen 85-8600 once or twice. The 2.6 was just just built and shipped, we didn't dyno it so I don't have any rpm info for the BC2.6

SBR fit the 2.6 in a 4G63. Half the main girdle was gone but it was in there.

Sick car by the way!!

 

I don't know why you people keep bringing this up but a formula 1 engine has nothing to do with our engines. You can easily rev a 2.0l engine to 10,000rpm as long as it is zero balanced and the valvetrain can handle it. But then again we would be breaking F1 regulations

If you want to talk about geometry that is ok but it seems like you know very little about egines and base your statments on what you can find from google.

I would say the side loads are a bigger issue than the piston speed.

 

Also very true. Our 2G saw 12k. We were testing our MSD rev limit vs. AEM because we were having a problem. Once we determined it wasn't the MSD, AEM got set at 12k so MSD would control all rev limits...and the MSD wasn't set back....long story short it saw 12k, without aluminum rods.