Notices
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain Everything from engine management to the best clutch and flywheel.

2.1L vs 2.4L vs 2.3 Stroker

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 10:55 AM
  #1  
5LEEPERISAH23I's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (23)
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,544
Likes: 1
From: Malvern, PA
2.1L vs 2.4L vs 2.3 Stroker

Well ive been thinking alot about what motor to get.

1. I had a 2.1L on my old evo i owned this motor it was a great motor could revv out to 9k all day no problem.

but with my new Evo i am thinking about going a different route.

2. A 2.4L i understand you can rev to 7.8k safely. Would i make the same WHP up top as a 2.1L just with more TWQ?

3. and why do some people get a 2.3 Stroker over a 2.4L wouldnt a 2.4L last longer then a Stocker?
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 12:30 PM
  #2  
n2oiroc's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,180
Likes: 5
From: milwaukee, wi
crunching the #'s a 100mm stroke will always have a 1,000 rpm lower redline than an 88mm stroke. and assuming nothing breaks, the shorter stroke will last longer too before the rings go.
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 12:45 PM
  #3  
RockmanX's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (78)
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 4
From: Louisiana
with the 2.3 2.4 you will hit that power band hella quicker then a 2.0 just cant rev high basically so you can hold shifts out. you will gain tons of tq pending turbo selection of course. to me the strokers are just better DD motors in general now if you love the strip then you need to go back to what you had if you want something new then stroke it. if your bottom end is good then you can go 2.3 route if not 2.4 but i sold my 2.0 for a 2.4 that way i could get it built while i worked on other parts and still had to evo together
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 02:08 PM
  #4  
SmurfZilla's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,313
Likes: 1
From: Raleigh, Transplanted from Toronto, Canada
you can rev to 8k+ on the 2.4's (Long Rod configuration) safely
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 02:39 PM
  #5  
Acree's Avatar
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Shutterbug
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 787
Likes: 1
From: Dallas
Originally Posted by SmurfZilla
you can rev to 8k+ on the 2.4's (Long Rod configuration) safely
You can rev out to 8k safely on the standard 2.4L also. Some people say that 8500 is a good limit for a standard length 2.4L. I keep mine at 8k and have been daily driving it for 4000 miles now.

-Acree
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 02:53 PM
  #6  
n2oiroc's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,180
Likes: 5
From: milwaukee, wi
Originally Posted by SmurfZilla
you can rev to 8k+ on the 2.4's (Long Rod configuration) safely
and how long will it last like that?
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 02:57 PM
  #7  
RockmanX's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (78)
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 4
From: Louisiana
lol i dont see the point mine is set to 7800 and that works perfect but yes as mentioned above you can rev to 8k if you like and have it set up like that in ecu.
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 04:59 PM
  #8  
sktng22's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
From: Northern NJ
Does anyone even really go 2.3's anymore? cause i was thinking about building a 2.3 next
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 05:04 PM
  #9  
Svendiesel's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,730
Likes: 3
From: Teh internets.
If and when I do it again Id probably go with with a 2.0 but do a Long Rod version. The 2.4 LR is nice and the power is stupid instant with a stock frame style turbo...but eh idk, Im constantly worried about head gasket issues with there being less room for the HG to seat between cylinders. Its not a big deal, but its something thats always in the back of my mind.
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 05:15 PM
  #10  
n2oiroc's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,180
Likes: 5
From: milwaukee, wi
Originally Posted by Svendiesel
If and when I do it again Id probably go with with a 2.0 but do a Long Rod version. The 2.4 LR is nice and the power is stupid instant with a stock frame style turbo...but eh idk, Im constantly worried about head gasket issues with there being less room for the HG to seat between cylinders. Its not a big deal, but its something thats always in the back of my mind.
im not too worried about the head gasket sealing.

Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 06:06 PM
  #11  
Svendiesel's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,730
Likes: 3
From: Teh internets.
I'm o-ringed too man and Im still concerned haha
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 06:20 PM
  #12  
n2oiroc's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,180
Likes: 5
From: milwaukee, wi
Originally Posted by Svendiesel
I'm o-ringed too man and Im still concerned haha
ams drag car is a 4g64.....
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 06:28 PM
  #13  
GT35MR's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne, FL
I'm in the same boat as you. I want a fun street car so I think I'm going with a 2.4lr. I'm putting on a t4 twinscroll setup as we speak so hopefully everything will come together nice. I want to get 500 hp by 4000 rpms.
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 06:32 PM
  #14  
n2oiroc's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,180
Likes: 5
From: milwaukee, wi
Originally Posted by GT35MR
I want to get 500 hp by 4000 rpms.
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2011 | 07:03 PM
  #15  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Originally Posted by GT35MR
I want a fun street car so I think I'm going with a 2.4lr. I'm putting on a t4 twinscroll setup. I want to get 500 hp by 4000 rpms.
Thats 656 ft lbs of torque. Have fun with that.
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:29 PM.