Hey guys i bought a 4g64 block that had eagle h-beams and im going for over 800whp so im going to swap out for I-beams and i read somewhere that some block work has to be done to run I-beams, is this true? Just looking for input before i put it all together and realize theres some issues.

 

Block needs some attention to clear the number 3 rod. Some need/recommend notching the bottom of the cylinder walls.

 

Some rods require the block to be clearanced. I belive the Turbo Tuff rods have to have the block notched. I have the map/howard 156mm rods and they did not require any clearanceing.

 

I was pretty sure that clearancing the block was only needed with certain rods on a 4G63 block with a 4G64 crank(2.3L stroker). I didn't need to with Eagle H-beams on that setup but all aluminum rods(huge) need the block to be notched with a stroker.

 

Alum rods with a stroker will need to be careful, as you can grind into the main oil galley easily.

As far as H beams, they clear fine. The I beams will always need some work. The 63 and 64 block are nearly identical save for the water pump area and 6mm taller deck.

 

Yes, you need to clearance areas and castings in the block to run I-beams in a 4g64 2.4 build. I am running Manley turbo-tuff I beams (non-straight beam design) with arp 625 fasteners and had quite a bit of clearancing to do.

[IMG][/IMG]

ExViTermini- I'm curious to your results with the fp red 2.4. Was very much considering that turbo, breaking in my engine on the stock ported evo 9 turbo right now, fun, but would give up a little spool for more power.

 

ok so ill definitely need to make some clearance, now i plan to go with turbo tuff, how much clearance will i need to do?

 

Only this needs notched nothing else:

3rd cyl from left to right. (cyl #3) the turbo tuff rod will hit the casting on the edge. just shave the entire lip off the side.

The cyls themselves do not need notched. only the notch on cyl #3 under (above in the pic) of the cyl #3

 

Yes, How much depends on if you go with the straight beam design or the standard design. I went with standard design and honestly would never do it again, if I build another one I would use the new straight beam design for stroker applications.

 

i plan on doing another posts about which rod/piston combo would be the best for 1000whp

 

They aren't really new, they have been out for a long time now. over 4 years or more.

I agree though, use the straight beam on a standard 150mm rod for a stroker or 2.4 for sure.

Thats what my pictures for. the straight beam design. heres a better pic pointing to the area im talking about also for others:



Manley turbo tuff rods. If making a high rev 9500+ engine, then pay for the 625+ rod bolts also.

 

The fpred is a blast on the 2.4, i didnt run it long(upgrading), but with very little spool tuning effort it would make 25psi by 3800. It did about 450/400 on 93 with that boost. It felt like my bbkfull on the 2.0.

 

Pretty nice results, I would like something similer, that maybe spools a little quicker on pumpgas track tune, but will reach 500 hp without a problem and carry me through the broad powerband on an E85 kill mode tune. So I was looking for going with either an hta bb green, or red. Undecided still breaking in my engine, so far very impressed with the response it has, also for the gsc r2's to be such a big lift , decent size profiled cam, have very good vaccum, surprisingly awesome low rpm response, verrry good up top flow, even with this ported 9 currently I have on. Would definitely reccomend these cams to a fellow stroker/ or 2.4 runner. Just remember to run these cams retainer to seal is tight so check to make sure you won't hit. Also, didn't mean to thread jack or veer off, just not a WHOLE lot of oppertunities to talk to fellow "big block" runners, and all the secrets in setup

 

I'm doing a 2.4LR in a friends car over xmas break, he has the hta green on it, can't remember if JB or BB, but I will post up the results for giggles.