I dont' have experience with this kit personally on an evo but have seen some of the similar kits for honda k series and no one has had much luck. x2 on passing.

 

thanks for posting this question... ive been wondering the same thing. i guess 2.3 or 2.4 l bc stroker it is then

 

still BC?

 

I suggest nothing BC. If you want a stroker, look at a factory crank, manley crank, eagle crank, etc.

 

Thanks for the comments guys.

That's real food for thought now!

Mr.Alex's car doesn't seem to like revs too much, which may cause an issue as the car will be used on the strip and track as much as on the road....

I'm in the process of buying a AMS 850R kit from a member on here, how would that stack up on a forged 4G64 if I didn't go the stroker route?

Does the 4G64 rev well with an aftermarket crank?...

 

going the long rod route or str8 2.4?

 

If I don't stroke will stick with the straight 2.4

 

Unless there are some viable benefits of the longer rod on the 2.4?

 

long rod and supporting crank destrokes the 2.4 if im correct, you lose cc's for higher potential rev limit, depends on the stroke and the rods you coudl have a 2.2 or 2.4, contact a vendor

 

learned something new, so building a stoke 4G64 (with beefier internals) 2.4L is better than the BC 2.6L

 

a 2.6l evo would be torquey. NO need to rev as high.. I would be happy if it maxed at 7500 SAFELY, all day. Its all about power under the curve.

 

anything BC = Garbage!

 

Standard 2.3: wiill rev safe at 8500rpm all day long why would you need more than that anyway's.

 

You can only stroke something so far before it becomes unrealistic financially and power wise. There was a guy in the Supra world that tried building a 3.5L motor but all the time and money he wasted on trying to make this was wasted as it never really worked for him.. IMO if you aren't happy with a 2.3 or 2.4 setup then you should probably just look at a different car... probably a V8 lol.

Besides I think some people misinterpret why motors are stroked in the first place.. You don't magically make more power just because you stroke it. A turbo will only put out as much power as it's designed for.. doesn't matter if it's on 5.0L V8 or a 2.0L 4cyl. The only advantage you get to having a stoked motor or more cylinders, etc. is torque and spool times. If you want to go faster than 9s or 8s then you should probably look at getting into a twin turbo lsx car. lol. And yes I know DSMs have been 7s and 6s before..

 

So, the hottest thing out right now is to build a 2.4 long rod stroker which uses a 100mm crank and the standard stroker piston (which moves the pin up 6mm). They combine this with a 156mm rod and presto.....LR2.4. I don't see what the big deal is going to a 2.6.......This requires a 106mm crank, which is going to make the piston travel an extra 3mm up into the bore.....this is only .118 inches which is less than a quarter of an inch.....To compensate for this, you'd run a 153mm rod vs. the LR2.4's 156mm rod.....what's the big deal at this point????? You could probably tweak the 156mm rod into the mix and get a piston with the pin moved up 9mm instead of the traditional 6mm of the stroker piston. This is definately doable and someone else besides BC should step to the plate and build a light weight but strong 106mm crank with rods and pistons. MrAlex on this forum has proven that the BC parts with their 106mm crank and 153mm rods work. Has anyone eentertained the idea of using the LR2,4's 156mm rod and stroker piston and combine it with the 106mm crankshaft.....but.....have a custom solid copper 3mm headgasket made by SCEGaskets to increase the deck height????.....Aaron, I know you of all people could do this.....the rod stroke ratio would be 1.472...

http://www.scegaskets.com/Mitsubishi...orLanding/true