I'm not a fan of the r/s either when you compare it to a LR2.0 however, Dave just said that the 2.3 is better DD then the 2.4... Which makes no sense based solely on the rod stroke ratio because the LR2.4 has a better RS ratio.

Well if it not "as" reliable for DD as the 2.3, then there is clearly an unreliable attribute to the 2.4... I'm asking what?

Mikey

 

not necessarily...the 2.3 can just be more reliable, which doesn't mean the 2.4 isn't...either way were getting into semantics haha hopefully dave will explain his reasoning

 

My opinion is the 4g63 is more reliable due to the motor sealing better.. Lets just say it will take more abuse and possible mishaps and keep on ticking.. Lean conditions, overboosting, bad fuel etc.. Sure if EVERYTHING is right on a 63 and 64 car making 600 they are equally as reliable I would say but any mishap the 63 will take it better than the 64 that will spit the gasket..

 

Normally I would say 2.3 for spool, but we have our 2.2's spooling a 6265 as fast as 2.3's spooling a 35r, and providing MORE torque and over 9000rpm capabilities with a dead flat air flow graph. I think more than displacement, you need to get the right engine COMBO, and that means internals, head work, cams, and all associating components. Hell we even have a 2.0 on a 6262 making 660ft/lbs of torque which makes a BEAUTIFUL little street car.

 

I didn't say the 2.4 was unreliable, I didn't say anything about a sealing issue. I think most of the problem with the forums is guys getting bent over opinions and not reading what is written half the time.

Here is what I stated:

"DD, if you have a good core, absolutely a 2.3, stroker, best street engine ever."

If you have a good 4G63 core you'd be a retard to not use it and buy a 4g64 block. The highest producing power/torque engines I have seen (overall curve) have been strokers. The problem with the stroker is simply the RPM range but I believe that I have been overly conservative in that department, recommending 8500 rpm max on our strokers. The engines live forever like that and most guys I know end up running them higher, against my recommendation.

To build a 2.3 from a good core the only extra expense is the crank, everything else fits and works as it should be.

Building from a 4g64 block means needed other things: head gasket, water pump, messing with cam timing, grinding/slotting components on the engine so they fit. If you are pushed for clearance on a turbo kit the extra 6mm can suck (as it did on my forward facing kit in the grille opening). The head needs to be worked on slightly, blah blah blah.

I recommend using a 4g64 block for a few reasons but the NUMBER ONE reason is a guy is on some type of budget and needs a block core. The 2.1's I recommend for a guy needing to make big power and run high RPM and is unwilling to hardblock his engine. Beyond that, I say leave the 4g63 block in the car.

 

correct...

I'm not trying to make additional power as much as get the car back on the road making the same power but reliably (and without meth).

 

I went the long rod 2.4 route. My goal is 600whp with the best powerband possible. For what i sold my great condition stock shortblock i pulled a 2.4 from a junkyard and built it with forged internals.

 

i doubt you could even measure the difference between 1.50 and 1.56 r/s on a dyno. the benefit is less side force on the cylinders, rings and pistons. even then the difference is greatly exaggerated.

 

Thank you for clarifying David. If someone has a good core, sure a 2.3 is prob a preferred route and cheaper. But if you blew your stock motor I would do a 2.4 or at least a 4G64 platform, it is cheaper and I personally feel that it is a better option then a 2.3. I even sold my good 2.0 core and it paid for most of my internals like JesseB stated he did below.

I have yet to see anyone convince me that the LR2.4 is not the best DD out there. I plan to rebuild my motor soon and I absolutely love my motor but have thought about doing a 2.2 or rebuild the 2.4 with a 159mm rod and Marco's crank. idk yet but I have never drove an evo that was more fun on the streets as my motor. It is hard to one up a LR2.4 10.5:1 MIVEC Motor... That's the truth.

It is also hard to one up Kevin's 9300rpm std 2.3

In your case I would go LR2.4. My car did 480whp on 92 oct with 19psi.

You are correct. You can't really tell a difference on the dyno. Sure even the little bit of a different r/s ratio helps but it is not huge. Most of the time it is greatly exaggerated. I would like to try a 159mm build and see if there is a noticeable difference between going 150-159mm rod. It will def be able to rev higher and have less reciprocal mass due to a smaller piston. You are still limited to peak piston sped due to the 100mm crank but the better r/s ratio the lower your mean piston speed will be.

Mikey

 

The OTHER reason to go 2.4L when you have a good 63 setup is the savings still to help those who can barely afford to get into a built motor in the 1st place.. So trading your 63 core for a 64 + cash helps many people too and if you only want a RELIABLE 550HP i think you can beat a 64 at that level til your blue in the face..

Mike

 

I thought the same thing until I crunched the numbers on this just recently. The 2.4L actually ended up costing more (assuming the goal is to save money) as you can avoid the water pump adapter / mods, MIVEC oil feed (Evo 9 only), adjustable cam gear(s) and degree procedure (if you so choose), expensive head gasket, and cylinder head work. Blew me away.

 

Yep except if you have came gears already its even cheaper but if not its 100.00 for mivec car and 200 for evo 8...

Water plate is cheap, We tap the 8 block for IX feed Free, The gasket is about 90.00 more and we send all heads to machine shop for regardless for resurface, pressure test, new seals, guides and open up chamber they do for us as well..

 

I was thinking about the R/S ratio not affecting the Honda engines as much as the Neon or Evo engines. The Evo experiences bearing issues in high hp instances...as well as the Neon. Yet the Honda's can rev to 10k+ with 1.5:1 R/S ratios and some pretty fantastic power numbers.

A common solution for the rod bearing issue is to use aluminum rods in the Evo/Neon engines. The aluminum rod acts as a bit of a spring for the rod bearing and doesn't impart quite the inpact during reciprocation.

My thought for why the Honda engines can survive these terrible R/S ratios is the fact that their entire engine block is aluminum.

Food for thought.

 

No cam gears required for a 4g64 build, EVO gears are fine. No water pump spacer, we use no spacers, just a different pump.

One of the fastest/quickest Hondas currently racing uses steel rods, so does Kevin......

 

Can any one give me info on the 2.2, I have been looking at the magnus motorsports billet 2.2 stroker