Hard to go against the grain of the most respected opinions in the industry. If you look around a little strokers are very popular and they work very well.

Magnus is also very respected in this area. He has built 10 times as many of these as dave. Why? How about 495whp on pump gas and 10.8 at the track on pump in project white trash. You simply aren't gonna see performance like this from from a 2.0. It aint big enough.

I love my stroker and have gone 11.0 flat at 126 on pump gas with a little 25g and restrictive cylone dual runner intake. (I love the low torque gains)

Not proven? In a back to back Marco swapped in a 2.4 lower on his race car and picked up 30hp and 125tq.

My advice with strokers.
You need an e-manage at least. timing maps are have vastly different needs.
You are building a stroker not a 2.0. The needs of the motor are vastly different than a 2.0. Example hks 272 are too small. Crower 414s added 47whp at 7500rpm on my car.
Turbos to use changes quite a bit also.
Don't call burshur for advice on building your stroker.

 

I still stand behind my statement. Also, until you know how many strokers we have built and tried it is hard to make the statement that Marco has built many more.

If I remember correctly Marco also went from a ported cylinder head at one point to a stock one and the car picked up some rediculous amount of ET in the 1/4 too.

I think I am also correct in saying we have made more HP to the wheels here with a 2.0 than anyone else and have also went faster in the 1/4 with the 2.0 liter than anyone else. I think this will pretty much sum up what I said about having to stroke the engine.

I don't want to get into a big pissing match about it and I like Marco so I am only using his name here because you brought him up.

Do as you wish, I am advising against the stroking of the 2.0.

Take care all,

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

 

A 2.4L block with a 2.4L crank is NOT a stroker, it is a 2.4L engine.

A 2.0L block with a 2.4L crank with 2.3L of displacement IS a stroker.

 

I am not contending this fact whatsoever; just curious as to what that wheel hp number was exactly. Any dyno sheets out there I could take a peek at?

Mark
www.Quantum-Racing.com

 

Dave, can you with your infinate mitsu wisdom tell us WHY the 2.4 doesn't work better than the 2.0? I understand why 2.0 works better in race cars and I myself would not use a 2.4 for a drag car. But for a street car I am at a loss as to how you come to the conclusion the 2.0 makes more power.

 

Here are some comparisons.

1. twan diep 2.4liter/ 30psi/ gt40/t350 (max tq 530)
2. AMS 2.0/32psi/ gt40/t350 (tq 480)
3. kevin lawson 2.0/ 29psi/br57 (tq 450)

rpm 1. 2. 3.
4000 200 170 120
4500 340 280 180
5000 500 440 240
5500 550 500 300
6000 575 530 480
6500 570 575 560
7000 550 580 595
7500 540 600 600
8000 520 590 600
8500 --- --- 610

I think this clearly shows 2.0s make better drag cars and 2.4s are more fun on the street.

 

go to dsmtalk.com, there's a huge thread about swapping 4g63's and 4's. a 100 mm stroke dosn't make a rev happy motor. my uneducated guess is that you will develop too much boost at lower rpms. i think thats why people mentioned blown motors near the end of the thread.

 

I'd rather destroke a 2.4L engine to a 2.1, rev-to-the-moon engine.

 

If your gonna go through all of that trouble just get .20 or .30 over bore and some forged pistons.rods and be done with it......

 

the 4g64 eould be a much superior street car. For a race car there is not enough revs in it i believe. The larger engine will spool the turbo sooner and give more torque. That is why it would feel much faster. People drive torque and buy horsepower. With a custom crank in the 4g64 block (destroked to a 2.2 or so) and long rods, you will have a real screamer. Higher revs and .2 more litres.