According to a few piston manufacturers I spoke to, there are no problems running this.

 

I have thought about running a 159 rod in my 2.4... I too and looked into it and Wiseco says the pistons would be fine. I may try this on my next engine build however that will be quite some time before that. I am hoping someone else tries it first.

I don't even know that the extra stress that would put on the piston would be worth it for an extra 3mm rod. jmo

Mikey

 

it depends on what rods you are using, what compression ratio you want and how strong the piston needs to be. to me its not worth all that hassle for 3mm.

 

my LR2.4L will be done in Feb! So psyched

 

R&R has the 159s engineered and has built them (probably not on the shelf, Eric has a set though), the pistons are easy. I have been working on Wiseco to make the 2.1 162mm and 2.4 156mm a stocking item since they interchange. Technically it also supports a 159mm 2.2 as well.

 

Alot of good info in here! I have a 4g64 crank for sale that I just purchased from awdmotorsports! I need a 4g63 Crank!

 

So, if i'm not wrong with math, ( day after Christmas is critical due to alcohol......), with a 97 mm crank and 159 mm rods like the R&R, pistons should have wrist pin 7.5 mm up, are they doable? As regards rod ratio at this point we would be at 1.64 approx, would it be good for safe 500 rpm higher limit compared to the 2.4 LR? In you opinion are the advantages worth the custom build?

 

Giangi,

Your math is good it would fit with a 1.08 compression height and still be .002 below deck. As far it being worth it I look at it like this, Kiggly runs 9600 (obviously drag racing only) on a 1.5 R/s. I run 8600-8800 on 1.56 r/s and keep the car "conservative" since its on the street and I'd like to see it last for awhile. Since the secret is making sure the mains stay oiled properly and Kevin did post that he is running grooved mains (both sides) to keep the bearing cooled at that RPM, I would say its a tossup.

The main reason is while right now the pistons arent off the shelf for either (working on the 2.1/LR2.4), the rods are off the shelf, and the crank you can go both ways on, the cost is going to be about the same. The one issue I see is in the event of breakage I think you'll be waiting longer on a 97mm crank where I can find 100mm anywhere.

If you are looking for 9-9200rpm peak speed I would just stick with a LR2.4 over the 2.3RR (I think?) setup you describe. If you were trying to run 9600+ then really the motor you outline might be better in the long run.

I ran the math and its 2280 with an 86.5mm bore so its not quite the AMS 2.3RR but its pretty close. Running a 156mm rod is a pretty close R/s at 1.61 and the rod will be lighter and more readily available. You could run a 1.19" compression height and be .011 below deck. If I was going to be tempted to do this motor that would be the way I would go as it saves the block from needing to be REALLY clearanced vs kind of clearanced

aaron

 

Many thanks for your reply, considering the whole thing i will go with a simplier 2.4 lr, pls let me know when the new lightweight 156 mm gsc rods will be available, so i will place a single order for pistons, rods, bearings and crankshaft.....

 

sounds good my friend You have access to the 4G64 blocks I take it?

aaron

 

Actually i have 5 4g64 blocks, purchased all together in England about six months ago, here in Italy no chance to find one, no cars sold in Italy use this engine.....

 

read all 20 pages just now, and i didn't see my (probable) newb questions answered. it was alot of reading though...

Will a 2.4/2.4LR shortblock run off the Evo8 head and ECU? are there any random parts from a 4g64, not included in an assembled longblock, that you have to source to make this work?


This 2.4LR setup sounds like its exactly what I'm looking for. I just need to learn what all i'm getting myself into.

Also, sorry for more questions... what are the downfalls to titanium pieces (other than price)? My goal is reliability, so if titanium will hold-up like forged steel parts than i'm getting it. If it's brittle, or has some longterm reliability drawback (like aluminum might have with stretching) then i'll stick with the norm. I want it lighter specifically for less stress, not for higher RPMs.

-cheers

 

I have a evo 8 2.4 stock ecu runs fine

 

Yes, the 4g64 works fine with the stock ECU and the EVO8 or EVO9 head. There is nothing extra you need from a 4g64, you actually use everything from the 4g63 when you assemble it to put into an EVO.

I'd suggest using good forged steel rods over titanium, the added cost of the titanium I don't feel will benefit you in anyway over forged steel in this application.

 

You would need a water pump adapter plate (I believe some have modified their OEM water pump as an alternative) and a head gasket that is suitable for the bigger bore of the 4g64 block, here is my recommendation.