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

Long rod 2.0 vs standard 2.0

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 21, 2013 | 06:03 PM
  #16  
hks-evo's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: your mom
So what piston would you run custom one ?
Reply
Old Jan 21, 2013 | 06:13 PM
  #17  
riceball777's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 1
From: Los Angeles
So it looks like the log rod setup and nothin be advantages with no disadvantages. Correct?
Reply
Old Jan 21, 2013 | 07:39 PM
  #18  
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 hks-evo
So what piston would you run custom one ?
Correct

Originally Posted by riceball777
So it looks like the log rod setup and nothin be advantages with no disadvantages. Correct?
No real advantages until you regularly make power above 9800 and have a turbo that needs to rev. Disadvantages are no off the shelf parts.

Our drag car is still a standard rod 2.0L that runs 10,800 and has a best of 8.34@172mph.

Aaron
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2013 | 12:34 AM
  #19  
riceball777's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 1
From: Los Angeles
can u run a long rod setup with a 2.3 4g63 block? I guessing you would need some pistons that move the pins up even higher than the standard stroker pistons.
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2013 | 02:01 AM
  #20  
17pstockcar's Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
From: New Zealand
I have been going back and forth on this issue, Talking to a few companys and reading what a lot have to say.

Mellon says 2.0
STM says 2.0lr
Br says 2.0lr
English racing says 2.0

Seems to me that its not going to make bugger all difference and other issues will come into play before the difference in lr to normal will show.
Oil pump failing, oil starving issues, possible altnator issues.

I have read that the L/R dose take some of the sidewall pressure off the block ( Br's forum ) so that has to be good, but i have also read that L/R can harsher on the berrings.

For me i am still undecided and i am very intrested in your build i have put mine on hold for now
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2013 | 04:33 AM
  #21  
FL_SilverEvo8's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (15)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 0
From: Fort Myers, FL
Originally Posted by 17pstockcar
I have been going back and forth on this issue, Talking to a few companys and reading what a lot have to say.

Mellon says 2.0
STM says 2.0lr
Br says 2.0lr
English racing says 2.0

Seems to me that its not going to make bugger all difference and other issues will come into play before the difference in lr to normal will show.
Oil pump failing, oil starving issues, possible altnator issues.

I have read that the L/R dose take some of the sidewall pressure off the block ( Br's forum ) so that has to be good, but i have also read that L/R can harsher on the berrings.

For me i am still undecided and i am very intrested in your build i have put mine on hold for now
I am in the same boat as you. I am also looking at doing the same build.
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2013 | 04:52 AM
  #22  
evoxsi's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
From: PA
ive been looking over options for months and im set on going 94mm crank with 153mm rods, this should alow me to use stroker pistons and still have a better r/s (1.627) than a 2.3 but also up displacement to 2.2.
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2013 | 05:11 AM
  #23  
FL_SilverEvo8's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (15)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 0
From: Fort Myers, FL
Originally Posted by evoxsi
ive been looking over options for months and im set on going 94mm crank with 153mm rods, this should alow me to use stroker pistons and still have a better r/s (1.627) than a 2.3 but also up displacement to 2.2.
So that 153mm rod you are using is 3mm taller than stock right?
Whats the advantages on running 2.2L?
Let me see if I am right on this. A 88mm crank is a 2.0L, 94mm crank is 2.2L, and a 100mm crank would be a 2.3L? All of these going in a 4g63 block. Does rod length have something to do with his also?

Last edited by FL_SilverEvo8; Jan 22, 2013 at 05:19 AM.
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2013 | 05:46 AM
  #24  
evoxsi's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
From: PA
Originally Posted by FL_SilverEvo8
So that 153mm rod you are using is 3mm taller than stock right?
Whats the advantages on running 2.2L?
Let me see if I am right on this. A 88mm crank is a 2.0L, 94mm crank is 2.2L, and a 100mm crank would be a 2.3L? All of these going in a 4g63 block. Does rod length have something to do with his also?
you can run all 3 of those cranks with the standard 150mm rods and then all parts are off the shelf. people change rod lengths to to get a better rod to stroke ratio.
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2013 | 06:08 AM
  #25  
Ted B's Avatar
EvoM Guru
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Liked
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,334
Likes: 63
From: Birmingham, AL
The percent change in R/S ratio from 1.7 -> 1.77 reflects the range at which only the slightest difference can be recorded in a research setting, which means that a human won't notice anything from the driver's seat.

You'll notice in my signature that my 2.0 is a LR. My reasoning at the time (6yrs ago) was simply that because I was having a set of custom Oliver rods and custom pistons made anyway, I may as well take the RS ratio of my choice while leaving sufficient compression height for an effective ring package. This put me into a 156mm rod (1.77 R/S), which gives about 28mm C.H.

Otherwise, it's not really worth going out of one's way or spending more to get there.
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2013 | 06:46 PM
  #26  
Irishflame27's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix
really good information in here!
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2013 | 07:53 PM
  #27  
FL_SilverEvo8's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (15)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 0
From: Fort Myers, FL
Originally Posted by Ted B
The percent change in R/S ratio from 1.7 -> 1.77 reflects the range at which only the slightest difference can be recorded in a research setting, which means that a human won't notice anything from the driver's seat.

You'll notice in my signature that my 2.0 is a LR. My reasoning at the time (6yrs ago) was simply that because I was having a set of custom Oliver rods and custom pistons made anyway, I may as well take the RS ratio of my choice while leaving sufficient compression height for an effective ring package. This put me into a 156mm rod (1.77 R/S), which gives about 28mm C.H.

Otherwise, it's not really worth going out of one's way or spending more to get there.
Are you still running this same motor? Wow 6 years. And this is why I want to go back to a 2.0. It will last longer.
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2013 | 12:31 AM
  #28  
Ted B's Avatar
EvoM Guru
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Liked
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,334
Likes: 63
From: Birmingham, AL
Originally Posted by FL_SilverEvo8
Are you still running this same motor?
Affirmative. But then again, mine isn't a daily driver.
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2013 | 04:35 AM
  #29  
FL_SilverEvo8's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (15)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 0
From: Fort Myers, FL
Originally Posted by Ted B
Affirmative. But then again, mine isn't a daily driver.
Thats still good though. You take it out and race it and stuff on and off for 6 years. That is really good I would say. Who built your motor?
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2013 | 05:04 AM
  #30  
evoxsi's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
From: PA
im currently on my built motor that i built in 2007, 2.0 28k miles daily driven
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:36 AM.