It is, that guy isn't very educated. And i agree with everything else.

If your car is going to be a big turbo drag car 2.0 probably be better but if you want an all around balanced car get the 2.3 it will still be able to drag but wont be quite so laggy for auto-x and dd.

 

Yeah, I guess many folks misunderstand stroker engine as being drilled/grinded out for a wider piston.
They need to look up what it actually is before they presume "thinner" walls.

 

There are a lot of stroker kits that are bored over though!

 

just like every other 2.0 motor that's been rebuilt and machined... you're talking .020 over

 

Look at the fastest evos on the board. What displacement are they? Also check out who built their motors.

 

The rev limit of the 2.3 has nothing to do with sidewall thickness...it has to do with rod to stroke ratio and piston speeds.

Most strokers are overbored

Stroker does not necessarily mean less dependable. It depends on parts used and who put it together. As long as you stay within the limits of the piston speed and are not producing detonation, it should last based on quality of the internals. Stronger metal fatigues slower over time, thus lasts longer. You get what you pay for. There is a link to a great article written about the differences of the 2.0, 2.1, and 2.3. shouldn't be too hard to find just use the 'search' button.

 

nice thread. def. interested in hearing more opinions.

 

You mean honed... and there are stroker kits that come with 86mm pistons. thats def bored over! even 85.5 is bored!

 

whats the deal with 2.1 motors. i see them on JAM and buschurs website but havn't seen one review or dyno

 

maybe some are getting confused with the 2.4 as that block has thinner cylinder walls.. The 2.3 uses the 2.0 block.

 

I would love to have a 2.1 or 2.2. It will rev almost as high because you can do a 92mm stroke with a 86 or even an 87mm if you plan on being under 600. then you have the rev and the tq. I think they are well rounded motors!

 

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread.

*******Basics********
4G63 Evo 85mm bore x 88mm stroke (2.0L)
4G64 87mm bore x 100mm stroke (2.4L)

Cranks readily offered:
Evo: 88mm,
Aftermarket: 92mm, 94mm, 102mm
4G64: 100mm

You can mix and match any combination of bore and stroke to give your displacement. Use the formula below to play around. FYI 2000cc's is 2 Liters. Bore size and Stroke are in millimeters.

cc's of displacement=(#of cylinders)*[(3.14159*((Bore size/2)^2)*Stroke]/1000

The center to center of each cylinder is the same for the 4G64 and 4G63, so there is less sleeve between the cylinders of the 4G64 block. I think this is why people are referring to "thin sleeves" The stroker kit in question by the OP uses the factory 4G63 Block (85mm or +.020 = 85.5mm) with the 100mm crankshaft... resulting in a 2.3L

You really need to understand the dynamics of the crankshaft, connecting rod, and piston to understand the benefits of rod to stroke ratio, thrust load on a piston, piston speed/acceleration, tensional load on the connecting rod fastener, etc.

Generalized statements that hold true
- A larger stroke for a given block will have higher piston speeds/acceleration and thus higher loads upon the connecting rod fasteners.
- A larger stroke for a given block will have a higher thrust load on the piston (can be compensated with further offsetting the wrist pin)
- A longer rod will help your Rod to stroke ratio regardless of your stroke. (Psss! Use the taller 4g64 block!)
- Having less material between the cylinders increases the likelihood of blowing a headgasket (cylinder -> cylinder)

Bah. You all need to read the article "To stroke or not to stroke" that guy covers plenty.

I'm going with a 4G64, 92mm stroke, 87(.5)mm bore

 

i just read the three pages of this thread... i been thinking of the whole stroker vs stock displacement issue (yes i've read the 'to stroke or not to stroke article") i see alot of people using 4g64 cranks and stuff to attain larger displacement ... why can't you just use the whole 4g64 block and have it forged??? would it not work??? i can understand the limitations of the engine not being "squared" and having such a long stroke... 2.4 lt displacement with a well built head would sure as hell be alot of fun!!!



Regards...

 

Very good info here. So you want the 4G54 2.4 destroked right? what is the benefit of doing this? Higher Rev on a bigger displacement motor? I like the sound of that

 

I was reading this thread and I started to wonder. Do 2.3L stroker engines run out of 4th gear before the finnish line do to the lesser reving capabilities?