Talk to a knowledgeable engine builder and I'm sure he/she will tell you they are concerned about the area to seal the block/head under high boost applications. To say that you have never heard of 4g64s having trouble makes me wonder how much research you did - the problem was not entirely the headgasket used. I know many on here don't 'feel' oil squirters are needed, but again if you talk to race shops and /or the piston manufacturers they will tell you it is better to run them if you are running a high hp motor.

Rock - I know you went 2.4 and I am sure you will have a fun and fast car. I am in no way bashing the 4g64. I just don't see why so many get so excited about the 2.4L route vs. the 2.3L. I guess to each his own....

 

The exciting part about the 2.4L is the 87mm Bore.. We have seen 100whp over 2.0L at the same boost level in the same exact setup except for motor.. our FP black setup on kill 2.4L made 720 and then a 2.0L made 620whp @ the same boost level..

The headgasket issue is not a head and block issue its a timing issue IMO..

Mike

 

Mike - I totally agree when comparing power output of a 2.4 vs 2.0 (that's a 20% increase in displacement) vs. the 5% difference I'd bet you'd see with a 2.4L vs. a 2.3L....Still 5% is 5%....

I too agree there were likely many blown 2.4s due to timing issues.

 

n/m

 

It's easy to go to 10,000 rpms. Just unplug one of the coils so you reduce engine stress by 50%

It comes from the fact that there is less space between the cylinders than on a 4G63. Historically, the 4G64 has had HG issues. There has been at least one HG issue with a 4G64 recently that I know of.

But, I like the extra 5% air that a 2.4 provides over a 2.3...so that's what I will be going with when I do my build.

 

what im referring to is evo with 2.4 i have not seen any issues im aware of other cars. I could have got 2.0-2.5 if i wanted did not matter i did my research on the blocks and a stroker just seems better overall on the street and for any type of use includeing drag. I know your not bashing the 2.4 never said you did there is nothing wrong with a 2.3 either. Get what you can afford i say if thats a 2.0 so be it just dont sell your first born to build your car is all. the why is a 2.4 vs 2.3 excitement route has be answered already basically from mike and eric

 

there is so much crap throwing in this thread it is ridiculous!

My car revs to 8.5k... I don't have a need to go any higher. If I had a 3586/3794 where I would actually make power at 9k, I would rev to 9k. However reving to 9k is not just "holding the gas down till you get to 9k", a lot of things need to be taken into effect for a car to survive at 9k. Oiling is the first - with proper oiling, HLA, no oil squirters, pump, dry sump/wet sump, proper bearing clearance for 20w50 etc... it is capable to rev to 9k without destroying the bearings... If you have strong enough/light enough rods/pistons you won't have a problem holding the motor together at 9k or higher. Also the car needs to have a lot of head work for it to breath at 9k on a 2.4... not much of a problem for the 2.0 becuase it is 20% smaller. the head was designed for a 2.0, not 2.4... Even if you open the ports all the way to the water jackets you still won't flow the amount of air needed for your 2.4 at 9k. However, having large cams specifically designed for the 2.4 helps out a ton as well as lager valves and a nice port job.

There are a lot of people in the community that rev over 9k... MAP and Kevin Kiggly are two examples.

Mikey

 

B18C5, 1.58 R/s- 10,500rpm rev limit historically.

Kevin outlined what causes the issues revving the longer strokes that high. To be accurate I said the following-

"I rev mine to 8600 now, and if I had a larger turbo I dont see 8800 on a limited basis being a problem". I am building a 2.3 for my 2G Auto I just picked up that will be revving that high with a 1.5 R/s so I can tell you how well it works based on that. Its all in how the engine is put together and then common sense with the rest of the combo from there.

 

and how many miles on those motors? as soon as i see a time attack/road racing car do it then i might believe its a decent idea.

 

B18C5 has a shorter stroke than a 2.0/2.1 though.

 

At this time the only 4g64 2.4L I would consider for that application would be the AMS 2.3 RR.

 

I agree, although its a 2.3 not a 2.4.

 

But their 2.3 rr engine does utilize a modified 4g64 block.

 

86.5x100 is 2351cc, its the same one I have in my car right now.

 

ya but a regular 2.3 uses a 4g64 crank also.