Some of the main reasons why I would never go larger than a stock frame turbo (FP Black or some equivalent) unless I was going to a stroker. These guys with 2.0s and super huge t3 turbos are making it very difficult to make the power even usable because they've moved powerband damn near out of the transmissions shifting capabilities.

 

Manifold pressure is irrelevant by itself, unless it generates north of 600 ft/lbs such as in Aaron's context. Manifold pressure is insignificant as compared to the pressure of combustion that the head/block seal endures.

Just FYI.

 

4g64 blocks work fine. I just put a 2.4L in my evo that i built that made my car feel smoother then I've ever felt it before. Pics here of build; https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...7302897&type=3

I build 2.4 and 2.4LR's for people. I suppose if the builder doesn't want to source the 4g64 blocks or want to deal with getting them and not being able to clean them up without boring the crap out of them, then i can see them not wanting to deal with that hassle having blocks laying around their shop they cant use and now need to get rid of. I don't mind it, because I don't deal with it. I just let my machine shop source the blocks for me.

The only bad thing about the block is the thin cylinder walls. Sometimes it creates headgasket sealing issues. (and misc other things like waterpump adapter, timing cover changes, dipstick revision or changes, etc due to being 6mm taller then the standard block that came in the car from the factory).

I'm in the process of building a 2.2LR (4g64) for a customer which on paper is the best combination that can be put in the evo. It has a rod ratio of a 2.0L and only 4% less displacement then a 2.3L roughly. It uses 159mm R&R rods & a 94mm manley billet crank.

Because of the thin cyl walls though, in the real world its not looked upon as the best combination. Same reason as the 2.4L/LR which use the same 4g64 block. (I know most of you already know that).

There are plenty of people running 2.4's with no issues. Some oringed and some not.

Next after this 2.2LR is a 2.2L (4g63) for another customer. Both of these 2.2's were bought for my car, but i decided i didn't want to limit my displacement while going with a larger turbo at the same time, so i went the largest displacement available and so far have no regrets other then the car is now very dangerous to drive on the street when boost hits.

If I ever run into sealing issues i will switch back to a 2.3L.

a 4g64 block will always run smoother then a 4g63 block though, and there's no argument that can be made to say otherwise. its a 6mm taller deck height, therefore you are allowed a better rod ratio. Now if you compare a 2.3L (1.5 rod ratio) to a 2.4L (1.5 rod ratio), you will notice right away the 2.4 is way smoother even with the same rod ratio. The 2.4L is way better balanced then the 2.3L.

Look at the 162mm 2.1L (4g64)with a rod ratio of 1.84.

Everyone has their own uses for their cars, I am a displacement kind of guy and want as much as I can get.

If someones against the 4g64 or 2.4's in general its usually because they had a bad experience with them personally.

Having HG sealing issues isn't exactly something you want to deal with, but as I said there are cars running out there with these blocks with no issues.

I am confident I wont have any HG issues. My head is oringed + im using the cosworth 1.3mm HG.

 

Mike at AWD has been posting numerous times on FB that hes getting out of the servicing cars aspect. I believe hes still doing tuning but dont quote me on that. Kind of sad I like seeing his GTR posts on FB haha

 

You see more 8sec 2.0 evo's than you do any other. I would stick with the 2.0 for all out drag racing. I do admit I would love to have a 2.3RPM shortblock to try out and see how she does for daily driving on a 6765 and how long she can take 8.5-9k shifts

 

We have removed the 2.4 builds from our site BUT we will still build them. There are a few reasons we have stopped, one is sourcing cores is a PITA. So if someone wants one built they need to supply us with the core. The other is the only good head gasket we have ever used is no longer available.

The 2.0 is ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT the best engine for drag racing, PERIOD, end of story.

For a street car I nearly always recommend a 2.3 and if I don't recommend our standard 2.3 I recommend the 2.3RPM for a guy who needs more RPM. The BadBish runs our 2.3RPM in it now and it's seen over 9500 rpm quite a few times now and been past 10,000 rpm a few more than I wanted it to ever do.

The 4G64 cylinders are not thinner than the 4G63. The 4G64 is also not smoother than any 4G63 build I've ever seen.

 

David what so you think of SLR 2.1 (4g64)

Heard stroke ratio on them is high 1.84 honda s2k is 1.81 and that they rev past 11000 RPM with ease? can you give us your opinion on this buid.

 

Was assuming the same thing, especially if balance shafts are removed on them

All the torque in the world but not smooth like a oem 2.0

 

4g63 from the factory is a 85mm cylinder bore

4g64 from the factory is a 86.5mm cylinder bore


This is why the 4g64 has issues sealing headgaskets. Once its .020 over its 87mm which is making the cylinder walls very thin.

 

Can't excessive engine harmonics and crank torsional whip cause clutch drag issues? An OEM 100mm factory balanced crank without a doubt exhibits excessive harmonics and crank torsional whip beyond 8500rpms. It's evident in main bearing wear as well after revving one out, even with lightweight internals.

 

#mitsubishiproblems

 

Here's some pictures that show the differences in the 4g64 block and 4g63. Both are .020 over. In person you can just look at them side by side and instantly tell which one is which.

A lot of people are forgetting the pistons the 2.4L uses vs 2.3L also. The 2.4L uses a standard piston just like the 2.0L with the wristpin location untouched. Its a stronger piston and a better design in general because it doesn't need the wrist pin pushed 6mm up into the bottom of the oil rail support requiring an additional lower oil ring just to achieve proper oil control. It also has less side loading, and less ring wear. The stroker piston has a way shorter skirt then a regular piston causing more movement from side to side. The only con of the standard piston is its heavier. To bad 2.2 (most combinations), 2.3, 2.4LR, and most other popular setups all use stroker pistons though. I went with a 2.4 because I didn't want to compromise the piston at all, since my last failure was piston related.

If for some reason i run into HG sealing issues, I will switch to a 2.3L without thinking twice though.

Here's pictures though;



4g64 block is around 0.259" between the cyl walls when bored .020 over (87mm)



4g63 block is around 0.308" between the cyl walls when bored .020 over (85.5mm)



So there's how much different the cyl walls are in thickness. It is a big difference, and this is why the 4g64 is prone to headgasket sealing issues.

 

OK…..hahaha, yes, and that's how it works and is measured….the old me would get all nasty with you and go off, the new me will just sit and laugh.

 

Oh lord, I didn't realize you weren't going to stop typing after the first post I saw. haha

NO **** there is a difference there but that has NOTHING to do with actual cylinder wall thickness. You are measuring the distance between cylinders, NOT cylinder wall thickness……

I've come to realize one thing, EVERYONE else is an expert, I don't know ****….

 

I think the cylinder walls can only be measured half of what tsc shows though. Since he's measuring between two.. Thoughts?

Leaving roughly .0245" being the difference in thickness of one cylinder wall to the other.