To Stroke or Not to Stroke
I spun a bearing at 47K miles. The dealer didn't warranty it. (Bone stock car) It's in the driveway on jack stands and i've been fighting with what i want to do... This article sealed the deal. I'm going 2.3. I don't feel the desire to rev past the stock limit and i would like more torque. I can alwas swap for the old mans s2000 for a day.
Having come to the EVO community from an S3 SRT-4 i really miss the feel of that engine. Flame away
Having come to the EVO community from an S3 SRT-4 i really miss the feel of that engine. Flame away
Finally got around to reading the whole thing, and I think I'll be reading it again a few dozen more times.
The 2.1 does seem to be an excellent choice, except for the fact that one needs a 4G64 block. Does anyone then reuse their original Evo 4G63 crank to build the destroker, or is that a bad idea?
The 2.1 does seem to be an excellent choice, except for the fact that one needs a 4G64 block. Does anyone then reuse their original Evo 4G63 crank to build the destroker, or is that a bad idea?
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
From: The Last Sorta Free State in the US
I spun a bearing at 47K miles. The dealer didn't warranty it. (Bone stock car) It's in the driveway on jack stands and i've been fighting with what i want to do... This article sealed the deal. I'm going 2.3. I don't feel the desire to rev past the stock limit and i would like more torque. I can alwas swap for the old mans s2000 for a day.
Having come to the EVO community from an S3 SRT-4 i really miss the feel of that engine. Flame away
Having come to the EVO community from an S3 SRT-4 i really miss the feel of that engine. Flame away
There's a video (allegedly) of a 2.3L stroker on the stock turbo on youtube; it reminds me of how the SRT-4 used to behave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykmet7Tmnoo
^ I came from a Srt4 to a S2k to the evo now and man talk about a jerk around on torque. The S had - torque.
I cant open the PDF right now but how awbout for higher milage evos? Is it a good idea to stroker them? I was just curious about making the engine stronger.
I cant open the PDF right now but how awbout for higher milage evos? Is it a good idea to stroker them? I was just curious about making the engine stronger.
You should read the PDF
I think of the 3 options the stroker is actuially the least "Strong" but that really all depends on what your definition of strong is. I'm still doing the stroker becuase it's PLENTY strong for what I want to do. For what a lot of people who have taken it MUCH farther than i plan to the stroker has been more than strong enough.
I was just curious. I plan to DD my evo and I have 74k miles on it. I jsut started to mod it (i/e/licp) and im hoping it will last long. I dont have any dreams of 600 whp or anything. I plan to be in the 300s then if i stroker i would like to be 4-500 awhp. So just trying to get some input on the car.
I didnt read all the post here but i would love to see a side by side that had the 4G64 2.4L.. I 'm headding that way with a build and would love to see how it would stack up to the others in the paper...
seems to me to get top hp numbers you dont stroke,reaso n being you have to get high in the rpm band to get the boost press. high.so mad hp is going to be in the destroked 2.1 or stock/slightly overbored even 2.0.street only drivers will be very satisfied with a 2.3 and say a gt35r spool up fast and rev to 65 or 7 k.great for around town just not a miximum top end hp build.just my thoughts.
seems to me to get top hp numbers you dont stroke,reaso n being you have to get high in the rpm band to get the boost press. high.so mad hp is going to be in the destroked 2.1 or stock/slightly overbored even 2.0.street only drivers will be very satisfied with a 2.3 and say a gt35r spool up fast and rev to 65 or 7 k.great for around town just not a miximum top end hp build.just my thoughts.
I haven't finished reading the paper yet, and so far the author makes several interesting points. However I'm interested in his use of the mach number. I'm not sure your numbers are accurate if you only used the calculator on the Wallace Racing site. Adding a few BAR of pressure will pump up the velocity considerably, though your aim may have been only to show the difference in airflow between the 2.0 and 2.3, I don't think it was well enough addressed.
From what I have seen in the V8 world, our heads regularly approach and hit velocities of up to 1100 fps(mach). Some interesting facts first, a 500cid, NHRA Prostock car reaches piston speeds of 100 fps(to my knowledge pistons don't go faster than 100fps anywhere in motorsport) at 10k rpm, a 2.3 hits 92 fps at 8500. So we've got piston speeds approaching that of a prostock car, once you add 30 pounds of boost to the equation I don't see how we could possibly be at only .6 mach, and at some areas of the port, particularly around the valve stem and guide, we should easily be hitting mach.
Not that I know how to calculate the new discharge coefficient with added manifold pressure, but I'm sure someone less lazy than I could figure it out.
From what I have seen in the V8 world, our heads regularly approach and hit velocities of up to 1100 fps(mach). Some interesting facts first, a 500cid, NHRA Prostock car reaches piston speeds of 100 fps(to my knowledge pistons don't go faster than 100fps anywhere in motorsport) at 10k rpm, a 2.3 hits 92 fps at 8500. So we've got piston speeds approaching that of a prostock car, once you add 30 pounds of boost to the equation I don't see how we could possibly be at only .6 mach, and at some areas of the port, particularly around the valve stem and guide, we should easily be hitting mach.
Not that I know how to calculate the new discharge coefficient with added manifold pressure, but I'm sure someone less lazy than I could figure it out.
I haven't finished reading the paper yet, and so far the author makes several interesting points. However I'm interested in his use of the mach number. I'm not sure your numbers are accurate if you only used the calculator on the Wallace Racing site. Adding a few BAR of pressure will pump up the velocity considerably, though your aim may have been only to show the difference in airflow between the 2.0 and 2.3, I don't think it was well enough addressed.
From what I have seen in the V8 world, our heads regularly approach and hit velocities of up to 1100 fps(mach). Some interesting facts first, a 500cid, NHRA Prostock car reaches piston speeds of 100 fps(to my knowledge pistons don't go faster than 100fps anywhere in motorsport) at 10k rpm, a 2.3 hits 92 fps at 8500. So we've got piston speeds approaching that of a prostock car, once you add 30 pounds of boost to the equation I don't see how we could possibly be at only .6 mach, and at some areas of the port, particularly around the valve stem and guide, we should easily be hitting mach.
Not that I know how to calculate the new discharge coefficient with added manifold pressure, but I'm sure someone less lazy than I could figure it out.
From what I have seen in the V8 world, our heads regularly approach and hit velocities of up to 1100 fps(mach). Some interesting facts first, a 500cid, NHRA Prostock car reaches piston speeds of 100 fps(to my knowledge pistons don't go faster than 100fps anywhere in motorsport) at 10k rpm, a 2.3 hits 92 fps at 8500. So we've got piston speeds approaching that of a prostock car, once you add 30 pounds of boost to the equation I don't see how we could possibly be at only .6 mach, and at some areas of the port, particularly around the valve stem and guide, we should easily be hitting mach.
Not that I know how to calculate the new discharge coefficient with added manifold pressure, but I'm sure someone less lazy than I could figure it out.