Long rod 2.0 vs standard 2.0

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jan 23, 2013 | 05:45 AM

#31

FL_SilverEvo8

Evolved Member

iTrader: (15)

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 1,139

Likes: 0

From: Fort Myers, FL

Quote:

Originally Posted by evoxsi

im currently on my built motor that i built in 2007, 2.0 28k miles daily driven

Nice. Time and time again the 2.0 is where it's at. Really no big probs with the 2.0. And lag is only a down shift away to no lag.

Jan 23, 2013 | 09:28 AM

#32

Ted B

EvoM Guru

iTrader: (6)

Joined: Aug 2004

Posts: 6,334

Likes: 63

From: Birmingham, AL

Quote:

Originally Posted by FL_SilverEvo8

Who built your motor?

Shortblock machining and assembly done by Jackson Auto Machine
JAM

Nov 15, 2013 | 10:55 PM

#33

AnabolicEVO

Newbie

iTrader: (4)

Joined: Apr 2013

Posts: 94

Likes: 0

From: SoCal

I'm glad to see that there's still people out there that know and understand that the 2.0L is longer lasting, yet still makes great power and can rev to the moon. Respect

Aug 24, 2016 | 07:10 AM

#34

silverevo05

Evolved Member

iTrader: (7)

Joined: Nov 2004

Posts: 798

Likes: 9

From: So CAL

So for durability sake the 2.0 seems to takes it with the LR having even less side loading I guess

Aug 24, 2016 | 05:33 PM

#35

LetsGetThisDone

EvoM Guru

iTrader: (1)

Joined: Oct 2013

Posts: 15,973

Likes: 1,629

From: Las Vegas

Nice necro bump.

And no. The 2.0 rod/stroke ratio is just fine with the 88mm stroke and 150mm rods.

Aug 24, 2016 | 07:59 PM

#36

silverevo05

Evolved Member

iTrader: (7)

Joined: Nov 2004

Posts: 798

Likes: 9

From: So CAL

^ haha I know but see I used "search" instead of starting a new thread

I've been curious about building up the engine with the 2.3 but it seems to have a longevity (with some) issue per all the people who build the engine and then sell them almost right after.

My goals are modest so a 2.0 LR seems to be the way though I've been reading the longer stroke puts extra stress on the bearings and pins

I just got done reading jacks transmissions info on balance shafts delete not being good so just trying to get my research done.

http://www.jackstransmissions.com/pa...balance-shafts

Aug 24, 2016 | 10:16 PM

#37

LetsGetThisDone

EvoM Guru

iTrader: (1)

Joined: Oct 2013

Posts: 15,973

Likes: 1,629

From: Las Vegas

No balance shafts is fine with a good clutch.

And once again, building a 2.0lr is pointless. Only reason to use a longer is is if you run a 94mm crank you can use a 153mm rod in the 4g63 block.

Aug 30, 2018 | 07:01 AM

#38

japspec

Evolving Member

Joined: Apr 2007

Posts: 174

Likes: 15

From: Da hill, fl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fastone_evo6

Reaving the car is fun, when you can pull longer in the gears , 9500 PRM

chouse a crank , that have small nocks and match it whit the right rods , and you will make som good power ,

the other thing is a strocker enginge , but then you wont be able to rev that mutch ,
but then you will make power more easy whit a big turbo , precition 6262

Think that 800 hp is not cheap , you will need a lot of maintenss , a big fule system , intake , mainfold , indjectors pumps , enginge management , tune , IC , e.c.t

I dont wanna broke your dreams but 500 + is more driveable on the streets , and you will have more fun , and less headeck , and more use of your car

Not trying to bring a thread back from the dead but do you have fingers missing or did you fail English class.

Sep 5, 2018 | 07:37 AM

#39

2winscroll

Evolved Member

Joined: Mar 2014

Posts: 816

Likes: 82

From: wisconsin

Quote:

Originally Posted by japspec

Not trying to bring a thread back from the dead but do you have fingers missing or did you fail English class.

now that’s some funny $hit right there!
lmfao

But seriously nobody has talked about cylinder filling differences between a long rod and short rod motor. Yea yea everyone has regurgitated the piston side loading debate but the real reason a long rod revs so well is the cylinder filling is more efficient, along with better TDC dwell time at high rpm. The rod ratio is 1.70 stock and 156mm rod makes it a 1.77 ratio, not a huge difference but I’ll take what I can get. At 1000hp that’s probably good for 25hp, but hey that’s free power.

read this.......
https://www.team-integra.net/forum/b...latnships.html

Sep 5, 2018 | 11:50 AM

#40

kaj

EvoM Community Team Leader

iTrader: (60)

Joined: Mar 2006

Posts: 13,634

Likes: 824

From: Fresno, CA

Quote:

Originally Posted by japspec

Not trying to bring a thread back from the dead but do you have fingers missing or did you fail English class.

I wanted to say the same, but decided to give benefit of the doubt that English was not his first language.
😂
I'm trying to learn to be less judgemental...but it's hard when the internet is full of people that read and write on a 2nd grade level. LOL
I can only take so much. I had to leave a Mopar group, on FB, because I just couldn't take it any more.

Sorry to be off topic, but this thread is had been dead for years, anyway.

Sep 5, 2018 | 02:57 PM

#41

LetsGetThisDone

EvoM Guru

iTrader: (1)

Joined: Oct 2013

Posts: 15,973

Likes: 1,629

From: Las Vegas

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2winscroll

Unless that increased dwell time makes it more knock prone and you can't run as much timing.

Sep 6, 2018 | 04:50 AM

#42

2winscroll

Evolved Member

Joined: Mar 2014

Posts: 816

Likes: 82

From: wisconsin

Quote:

Originally Posted by letsgetthisdone

Unless that increased dwell time makes it more knock prone and you can't run as much timing.

Well a long rod motor is more efficient at higher rpm due to the lower piston speed away from TDC. So actually you can run less timing and extract more power. Yes at lower RPM’s you might have to pull a couple of degrees to prevent knock but who cares about off boost, low knock threshold fuel? most running long rod motors aren’t using pump fuel anyway.