seems like lars knows what he's talking about

 

Yes, 4G64 block . . . that's how they are able to get the better geometry to allow it to be more reliable at higher revs than the standard 2.3L

 

PM Ryan, BluByYouEvoVIII, on here. he has the AMS 2.3RR and he loves it. here is a link to one of his post about his build.

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=328820

 

Thanks. That's awesome. And I thought the 4G64 was just good because it was cheap. Makes me wonder how much of the benefits of a higher-revving 4G64 could be achieved with a self-chosen/a-la-carte 4G64 2.3 build for a lot less than $8500-9000, and how one would go about that?

 

I would take either model

 

What sort of power can both these short blocks take and what is the rpm limits.

Has anyone tuned the Cosworth with a GT4088R as this is the build I am curently undertaking

cheers

John

 

I love my 2.3RR. Revs like crazy.

 

There are no hard limits beyond which the motor will fail like a light switch being flicked off. The best proposition is not to rev the motor any higher than necessary IF one is concerned about longevity, especially where long stroke cranks are used.

Wear is a function of time and rpm. RPM (and the rotational forces that accompany it) is the largest factor in what wears out an engine, any engine. The larger the turbo, the greater the needed rpm, the faster it will wear out. With longer stroke cranks, the piston speeds and rotational forces are that much greater per unit of rpm, which means it should be expected to wear faster.

 

I wonder why ams does not use the 2.3RR for their AMS track car. It doesn't make sense to me especially since RR stands for ROAD RACE. AMS is using their standard 2.3 stroker kit with a an AMS ported head.

 

Thanks Ted, I understand what you are saying but was just wondering if anyone had any first hand experience with this short block and what state of tune they were at with it. Done some searching but haven't found anything yet.

The paperwork with the shortblock from Cosworth recommends that you do not exceed 450bhp

cheers

John

 

450bhp would be <400whp.

This is done almost certainly to absolve them of any perceived liability. On one hand, I can't blame them. On the other hand, it does cost some $9300 USD (which these days is worth about £50 plus a pint of Tim Taylor's Landlord ).

Nevertheless, it would be nonsensical to invest some $9300 USD on such an item and be saddled with <400whp, and they know it. They don't honestly expect anyone to abide by their guidelines. It's just covers their ***** in case you find a way to blow it up.

 

quite simply it was not available when we built our time attack engine. This engine was designed to be used in our Time Attack car this year but as most of you well know we sold it. If TA1 was still in our possession you can rest assured this 2.3RR would be at the heart of the power plant.

Eric

 

Thanks for clearing that up. For your next time attack car are you skipping the ix and going straight to an evo x build? I hope not!

 

let me tell you. Cossie strokers hold more than double than the number that Cosworth suggests.... and thats in awhp....

I know car with such block in Europe but not all the details...

 

Eric,

I saw in your sig that you are in the third season with the same engine. That sounds very reliable ... but how often you changed your bearings ??? or at least check your internals ?

As I'm going to US on the end of the year, I'm looking for a new engine, and I'm considering yours, or at least visit your shop.

Best Regards, Eduardo.