Why do 2.4L's have such random failures?
I was kind of expecting a flood of 2.4L owners in the 500-600whp range to step up saying they DD their cars and have 20k+ miles without failure but so far... nothing.
btw,which shop says the 4G64 was not designed for boost hence it sucks?that is classic ignorance coming from a shop that builds motors,considering the 2 blocks are nearly identical.i just hope that they never work on my EVO.
It has to do with crank journal overlap. The 2.4 cranks have none, resulting in higher stresses across the journal. Couple that to the "right" angle machining of the rod journals amplified by the distance from the harmonic damper and you have a broken #4 rod journal.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
[IMG]
[/IMG]thx
Evolving Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
From: USA Caribbean
Wtf???
You are way off base thinking people put these motors into the Evo and leave the stock 2.0l tune 
Why would lower compression be a problem? The motor doesn't know if it is 9.5:1 or 10.5:1
Nobody is using a "stock long block" 2.4l, and nobody is using the stock 4g64 head, nobody is using stock 4g63 or 4g64 cams or cam gears in this motor.
What makes this a challenging project? This isn't a difficult project at all.
So what if it uses a 1 bar sensor? I doubt anyone is still running a 1 bar sensor on this site if they are running ECU boost or if they are logging boost.
Again with the tune, who in their right mind puts this motor in their car without a proper tune? The stock ECU is extremely capable of handling this motor and is basically fully programmable.
Why would lower compression be a problem? The motor doesn't know if it is 9.5:1 or 10.5:1
Nobody is using a "stock long block" 2.4l, and nobody is using the stock 4g64 head, nobody is using stock 4g63 or 4g64 cams or cam gears in this motor.
What makes this a challenging project? This isn't a difficult project at all.
So what if it uses a 1 bar sensor? I doubt anyone is still running a 1 bar sensor on this site if they are running ECU boost or if they are logging boost.
Again with the tune, who in their right mind puts this motor in their car without a proper tune? The stock ECU is extremely capable of handling this motor and is basically fully programmable.
First, ''You are way off base thinking people put these motors into the Evo and leave the stock 2.0l'' AND WHEN DID I THINK THAT WAY, I KNOW THIS ENGINE SWAP OR WHATEVER IS FOR HIGH MODIFICATIONS. Second, ''Why would lower compression be a problem? The motor doesn't know if it is 9.5:1 or 10.5:1'' Exactly there is no problem with lower compression, that's why I talk about the risk of high compression and the need of lowering it; but about a motor doesn't know if it is 9.5:1 or 10.5:1 YOU MUST BE KIDDING, RIGHT??? On a mechanical way, they don't , but on the electronical ECU signals they know what compression is in there, for all that, are a lot of sensors that monitors that. Finally, about ECU boost, map sensor over 1 bar, etc. etc. etc. well, that's why actually I was talking about TUNING THE ECU, REFLASH OR GOING FULLY PROGRAMMABLE!
/// But believe me with this engine are more risks, the 2.4L have more bore and stroke, and the stroke is the problem, because at high boost there is so many tension and pressure applied to the connecting rods and to the crankshasft righ when the piston is going up, there is no danger when the piston going down, but when it going up is the problem, less stroke is better, more stroke is more fragile. Since the EVO 2.0L 4G63 have 88mm stroke is perfect for high boost and it is more stronger, than the 100mm of the 2.4L, whatever, also must have in mind that maybe the 4G63 is japanese made I think, but the 4G64 2.4L, is that block and crankshaft japanese made or not? I wonder about it???
Last edited by Jos_iQRacingEVO; Aug 29, 2012 at 08:16 AM.
First, ''You are way off base thinking people put these motors into the Evo and leave the stock 2.0l'' AND WHEN DID I THINK THAT WAY, I KNOW THIS ENGINE SWAP OR WHATEVER IS FOR HIGH MODIFICATIONS. Second, ''Why would lower compression be a problem? The motor doesn't know if it is 9.5:1 or 10.5:1'' Exactly there is no problem with lower compression, that's why I talk about the risk of high compression and the need of lowering it; but about a motor doesn't know if it is 9.5:1 or 10.5:1 YOU MUST BE KIDDING, RIGHT??? On a mechanical way, they don't , but on the electronical ECU signals they know what compression is in there, for all that, are a lot of sensors that monitors that. Finally, about ECU boost, map sensor over 1 bar, etc. etc. etc. well, that's why actually I was talking about TUNING THE ECU, REFLASH OR GOING FULLY PROGRAMMABLE!
/// But believe me with this engine are more risks, the 2.4L have more bore and stroke, and the stroke is the problem, because at high boost there is so many tension and pressure applied to the connecting rods and to the crankshasft righ when the piston is going up, there is no danger when the piston going down, but when it going up is the problem, less stroke is better, more stroke is more fragile. Since the EVO 2.0L 4G63 have 88mm stroke is perfect for high boost and it is more stronger, than the 100mm of the 2.4L, whatever, also must have in mind that maybe the 4G63 is japanese made I think, but the 4G64 2.4L, is that block and crankshaft japanese made or not? I wonder about it???
/// But believe me with this engine are more risks, the 2.4L have more bore and stroke, and the stroke is the problem, because at high boost there is so many tension and pressure applied to the connecting rods and to the crankshasft righ when the piston is going up, there is no danger when the piston going down, but when it going up is the problem, less stroke is better, more stroke is more fragile. Since the EVO 2.0L 4G63 have 88mm stroke is perfect for high boost and it is more stronger, than the 100mm of the 2.4L, whatever, also must have in mind that maybe the 4G63 is japanese made I think, but the 4G64 2.4L, is that block and crankshaft japanese made or not? I wonder about it???
A few 2.4 owners have posted. Aaron from English Racing giving good to the point info.
However some good bull caca being thrown around too. I will not go back to a 2.0 after having one. LOVE the torque.
However some good bull caca being thrown around too. I will not go back to a 2.0 after having one. LOVE the torque.
First, ''You are way off base thinking people put these motors into the Evo and leave the stock 2.0l'' AND WHEN DID I THINK THAT WAY, I KNOW THIS ENGINE SWAP OR WHATEVER IS FOR HIGH MODIFICATIONS. Second, ''Why would lower compression be a problem? The motor doesn't know if it is 9.5:1 or 10.5:1'' Exactly there is no problem with lower compression, that's why I talk about the risk of high compression and the need of lowering it; but about a motor doesn't know if it is 9.5:1 or 10.5:1 YOU MUST BE KIDDING, RIGHT??? On a mechanical way, they don't , but on the electronical ECU signals they know what compression is in there, for all that, are a lot of sensors that monitors that. Finally, about ECU boost, map sensor over 1 bar, etc. etc. etc. well, that's why actually I was talking about TUNING THE ECU, REFLASH OR GOING FULLY PROGRAMMABLE!
/// But believe me with this engine are more risks, the 2.4L have more bore and stroke, and the stroke is the problem, because at high boost there is so many tension and pressure applied to the connecting rods and to the crankshasft righ when the piston is going up, there is no danger when the piston going down, but when it going up is the problem, less stroke is better, more stroke is more fragile. Since the EVO 2.0L 4G63 have 88mm stroke is perfect for high boost and it is more stronger, than the 100mm of the 2.4L, whatever, also must have in mind that maybe the 4G63 is japanese made I think, but the 4G64 2.4L, is that block and crankshaft japanese made or not? I wonder about it???
/// But believe me with this engine are more risks, the 2.4L have more bore and stroke, and the stroke is the problem, because at high boost there is so many tension and pressure applied to the connecting rods and to the crankshasft righ when the piston is going up, there is no danger when the piston going down, but when it going up is the problem, less stroke is better, more stroke is more fragile. Since the EVO 2.0L 4G63 have 88mm stroke is perfect for high boost and it is more stronger, than the 100mm of the 2.4L, whatever, also must have in mind that maybe the 4G63 is japanese made I think, but the 4G64 2.4L, is that block and crankshaft japanese made or not? I wonder about it???
wow.i was thinking your 2nd post might be better than your first post so i went a head and read it,boy was i wrong.
what are you even talking about?
I plan on building a 2.4 at some point over this winter as a spare block so this subjust does interest me. I have seen some strange stuff happen with the 2.4s though. Most of them being the long rod setups. A recent post about sidewall loading was interesting to read.
Also I have a friend that recently sold his evo because he was tired of fixing it. He managed to crack two 4g64 blocks within three months of each other. I've never seen a cracked 4g63 unless a rod went through it. One failure may have been tuning related while the other failure was blamed on a new 6262 that seized up while racing. It was theorized that the turbo failure drove egts through the roof and cracked the block. Both blocks cracked in the cylinder bore and the motor started pushing coolant each time.
this is just some info I'd like to add to this thread. I still plan on building but I'm leaning more toward a standard stroke 2.4 than the long rod version.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/10097677-post41.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/en...-overflow.html
Also I have a friend that recently sold his evo because he was tired of fixing it. He managed to crack two 4g64 blocks within three months of each other. I've never seen a cracked 4g63 unless a rod went through it. One failure may have been tuning related while the other failure was blamed on a new 6262 that seized up while racing. It was theorized that the turbo failure drove egts through the roof and cracked the block. Both blocks cracked in the cylinder bore and the motor started pushing coolant each time.
this is just some info I'd like to add to this thread. I still plan on building but I'm leaning more toward a standard stroke 2.4 than the long rod version.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/10097677-post41.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/en...-overflow.html
Last edited by evilempire76; Aug 29, 2012 at 01:10 PM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
From: USA Caribbean
BUT PLEASE, WHY NOT TO DEBATE MY COMMENTS,??? PLEASE DEBATE ME!!!
NOTE: My native language is not English. Thanks a lot.
I daily mine and did for 15,000 miles with at least 2 pulls a day at 34psi. 3586 it was 746whp, the 3794 was about the same. I stopped dailying it for the development of the Auto but that has been the only reason as of late.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 745
Likes: 1
From: WA Seattle toolanddyedesigns.com
Aaron- For a car that will be used for HPDE's, track days, occasional auto-x, street, some daily and zero interest in drag racing, would you recommend a 2.4L? Long rod?
I'm asking because you guys would be building it
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 745
Likes: 1
From: WA Seattle toolanddyedesigns.com
Aaron- Power goal would be ~500whp with a stock frame turbo, either a Black, EF3 or EF4. I was planning to use an Aquamist HFS-4 kit with a 0.3 jet on each runner of the intake manifold and a 0.8 jet on the IC pipe. Supporting mods obviously, S2's, JMFab manifold, MAP o2 eliminator dumped downpipe.
I'd love to just go e85, but it's not realyl available in Seattle and not practical for me to buy a drum of it.
I'd love to just go e85, but it's not realyl available in Seattle and not practical for me to buy a drum of it.
First, ''You are way off base thinking people put these motors into the Evo and leave the stock 2.0l'' AND WHEN DID I THINK THAT WAY, I KNOW THIS ENGINE SWAP OR WHATEVER IS FOR HIGH MODIFICATIONS. Second, ''Why would lower compression be a problem? The motor doesn't know if it is 9.5:1 or 10.5:1'' Exactly there is no problem with lower compression, that's why I talk about the risk of high compression and the need of lowering it; but about a motor doesn't know if it is 9.5:1 or 10.5:1 YOU MUST BE KIDDING, RIGHT??? On a mechanical way, they don't , but on the electronical ECU signals they know what compression is in there, for all that, are a lot of sensors that monitors that. Finally, about ECU boost, map sensor over 1 bar, etc. etc. etc. well, that's why actually I was talking about TUNING THE ECU, REFLASH OR GOING FULLY PROGRAMMABLE!
/// But believe me with this engine are more risks, the 2.4L have more bore and stroke, and the stroke is the problem, because at high boost there is so many tension and pressure applied to the connecting rods and to the crankshasft righ when the piston is going up, there is no danger when the piston going down, but when it going up is the problem, less stroke is better, more stroke is more fragile. Since the EVO 2.0L 4G63 have 88mm stroke is perfect for high boost and it is more stronger, than the 100mm of the 2.4L, whatever, also must have in mind that maybe the 4G63 is japanese made I think, but the 4G64 2.4L, is that block and crankshaft japanese made or not? I wonder about it???
/// But believe me with this engine are more risks, the 2.4L have more bore and stroke, and the stroke is the problem, because at high boost there is so many tension and pressure applied to the connecting rods and to the crankshasft righ when the piston is going up, there is no danger when the piston going down, but when it going up is the problem, less stroke is better, more stroke is more fragile. Since the EVO 2.0L 4G63 have 88mm stroke is perfect for high boost and it is more stronger, than the 100mm of the 2.4L, whatever, also must have in mind that maybe the 4G63 is japanese made I think, but the 4G64 2.4L, is that block and crankshaft japanese made or not? I wonder about it???
Do us all a huge favor and go take some ESL courses at your local public college!!!!!!!!
Can't believe what I just read lol. No the crank and block is made by aliens on mars!
I have a 2.4 L, 10.1 cr on e85 at 552 and 455.
-DD to work and back ~50 miles.
- DD around town unknown amount of miles a day. On the weekend I put on attleast 400 miles cruising around town etc etc.
- 8 1320 passes so far.
- Ask any of my friends and they will tell you that the car gets rapped on a dailly basis.
- I put about 5-6k miles on it since the build in ~2 months.
Next year It will get DD at ~800/700 on a QM 8 leg twin disc.
