Why I will never go back to a 2.0L

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jan 25, 2012 | 11:32 AM

#31

SmurfZilla

Evolved Member

iTrader: (33)

Joined: Jul 2002

Posts: 5,313

Likes: 1

From: Raleigh, Transplanted from Toronto, Canada

I think there is a theory going around that the longer rod would be harder on the bearings. I believe this is not the case but I'll let Aaron comment.

I love my 2.4 I'm glad I went this direction.

Jan 25, 2012 | 11:36 AM

#32

Blue91lx

Evolved Member

iTrader: (44)

Joined: Aug 2011

Posts: 2,154

Likes: 5

From: Philadelphia, PA

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmurfZilla

I think there is a theory going around that the longer rod would be harder on the bearings. I believe this is not the case but I'll let Aaron comment.

I love my 2.4 I'm glad I went this direction.

Thanks man. I'm hoping that it is just a theory, as I'd much rather go LR.

Jan 25, 2012 | 12:01 PM

#33

JohnBradley

Thread Starter

Evolved Member

iTrader: (30)

Joined: Jan 2004

Posts: 11,406

Likes: 78

From: Northwest

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue91lx

That explains things a little better

John,

What is your take on the longevity of a 156mm 2.4L compared to a standard length 2.4L? I've heard that the LR is harder on your bearings. Is this true?

I ask because I'm building a 2.4L now for a DD and need it to last as long as possible, and won't use 156mm rods if they're going to have a large negative effect on that.

Longer rod is easier on bearings in my experience and easier on the cylinder walls. A LR2.4 has less vibration than a standard rod so I have a hard time seeing how if the engine harmonics are better it would be harder on bearings. Mine looked great when I pulled them at 12k to check before the 3794 went on last year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broham

Great info as always. I didn't know the components were that much lighter. I have yet to see a BB green on a 2.4 Lr. Perhaps full boost before 3k?

There is zero difference in power or spool between a 150mm 2.4 and a 156mm, the advantages are higher revs with less sideload and less vibration. At the same time the components are marginally lighter depending one what you are using so that is an advantage as well I guess. For what a BB green and 2.4 looks like, see Luke's thread-

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...sh-racing.html

Aaron

Last edited by JohnBradley; Jan 25, 2012 at 12:03 PM.

Jan 25, 2012 | 12:14 PM

#34

whtrice

Evolved Member

iTrader: (6)

Joined: Jun 2006

Posts: 1,352

Likes: 58

From: Sacramento

4.11 or 4.00 final drive works great in these 2.4L cars. Loves to pull the taller gear. Everyones gonna want a "MitsuRat" motor now.

Last edited by whtrice; Jan 25, 2012 at 01:11 PM.

Jan 25, 2012 | 12:31 PM

#35

Broham

Evolved Member

iTrader: (10)

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 820

Likes: 2

From: va

THe pull from 2k to 4300 is 360wtq burst. I can not believe that kind of down low torque boost, must feel amazing. A true testament to why the 2.4 really is a monster for the streets

Jan 25, 2012 | 07:54 PM

#36

batty200

Evolved Member

iTrader: (3)

Joined: Jan 2005

Posts: 2,203

Likes: 5

My Magnus 2.4l made 400tq/487whp at 23psi on 93 and 517tq/603whp at 31psi on c16. It was on an sc6152e so it was out of breath. I love it. Since it is a 1g though the driveline hates it! I am working on it now with some new goodies and it should make some serious power and tq on the PTE 6262R. Bigger motors rock.

Jan 30, 2012 | 11:49 AM

#37

JohnBradley

Thread Starter

Evolved Member

iTrader: (30)

Joined: Jan 2004

Posts: 11,406

Likes: 78

From: Northwest

Quote:

Originally Posted by batty200

^^^This.

Thats awesome power out of a SC61. What hotside?

Jan 30, 2012 | 02:17 PM

#38

AreSTG

Evolved Member

iTrader: (4)

Joined: Jul 2005

Posts: 951

Likes: 1

From: PA/NC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikey@Spec-Ops

Most def will Acree, it won't be anything to crazy as the guy wants to stay 93 for now. I may give him some Q16 just so I can see what it does on full tilt, then flash him back to his 93 map

Mikey

can't wait to see these results

Jan 30, 2012 | 03:32 PM

#39

Svendiesel

Evolved Member

iTrader: (25)

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 1,730

Likes: 3

From: Teh internets.

You guys are all nuts, LR 2.4's are stupid.

Jan 30, 2012 | 04:49 PM

#40

project_skyline

Evolved Member

iTrader: (30)

Joined: Jun 2007

Posts: 2,532

Likes: 1

From: Colorado

We should start a LR2.4 army!

Jan 30, 2012 | 05:05 PM

#41

JohnBradley

Thread Starter

Evolved Member

iTrader: (30)

Joined: Jan 2004

Posts: 11,406

Likes: 78

From: Northwest

Quote:

Originally Posted by project_skyline

We should start a LR2.4 army!

I think we have and it is only going to grow I feel.

...also I realised I forgot to post my before and after results-

This is 23psi though not marked on the 499 run.

Speaks for itself I think, 300 ft lbs of torque at 4400 or 5100? Hmmm hard choice

Jan 30, 2012 | 05:15 PM

#42

Blue Evo 8

Evolved Member

iTrader: (40)

Joined: Mar 2003

Posts: 5,354

Likes: 2

From: New York City

I wonder how well the 2.4 LR motor would do with a AMS 950R turbo on pump gas and meth injection?

Jan 30, 2012 | 05:19 PM

#43

JohnBradley

Thread Starter

Evolved Member

iTrader: (30)

Joined: Jan 2004

Posts: 11,406

Likes: 78

From: Northwest

Which one is the 950R? The 6766 now? I would presume with meth, even a small amount, it should do over 700whp at 29psi if I did 648 on 92 octane and no meth.

Jan 30, 2012 | 05:29 PM

#44

Blue Evo 8

Evolved Member

iTrader: (40)

Joined: Mar 2003

Posts: 5,354

Likes: 2

From: New York City

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBradley

Which one is the 950R? The 6766 now? I would presume with meth, even a small amount, it should do over 700whp at 29psi if I did 648 on 92 octane and no meth.

John, I think its gotta be a 6766 or the next one above that.

Pump gas for me would be 93, running the biggest meth jet, 99% methanol...AEM EMS, all supporting mods.