To stroke or not to stroke
So yeah definitely read this if you haven't already
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...our-build.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...our-build.html
Evolved Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 851
Likes: 2
From: US
As far as 4G64/2.4 goes, Buschur no longer builds them from what I was told. Head gasket issues and whatnot. If someone with that much Evo motor building experience thinks it isn't worth the hassle, I'm not going to disagree. No disrespect to any other shops rocking the 4G64.
Had the 2.3 was not impressed. I've seen 2.0 and 2.1 spool just as fast and make more power because of the rev band. I hated the 2.3 because of the limited rev's and trap speed had the 4.11 also but then you need e85 or race gas just to turn those gears fast enough 
Everyone seems to be forgetting about the 2.3rpm Buschur offers, revs 9k and is better on the street than a 2.0. I'm running the 2.3rpm right now and made 770whp and 637wtq at 35psi on e85 with a 6466, stock intake manifold and throttle body
All other things equal (fuel, turbo, compression, tune, etc), isn't this mathematically impossible? Not to be that guy but even if you can make it close, it will never be "just as fast" or no one would be building anything bigger than a 2.0 ever. 
I did a 2.3L with all else being the same as my previous 2.0, and I disagree with Sharkbite. I've always thought the Evo lacked the lowend that the STI had, and the stroker made up for that shortfall. The spool and torque was magnificent.
Evolved Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 851
Likes: 2
From: US
Had the 2.3 was not impressed. I've seen 2.0 and 2.1 spool just as fast and make more power because of the rev band. I hated the 2.3 because of the limited rev's and trap speed had the 4.11 also but then you need e85 or race gas just to turn those gears fast enough
2.0+6466 = 5,500rpm-9,500rpm of powerband and 140mph+ traps.
^this setup will be fun on the street(scary lol), and also be able to perform well at the track.
If you were to do a stroker it would be best to get a 4.11 final drive, if not you will be shifting for days trying to prevent the stroker from over revving.
^this setup will be fun on the street(scary lol), and also be able to perform well at the track.
If you were to do a stroker it would be best to get a 4.11 final drive, if not you will be shifting for days trying to prevent the stroker from over revving.
truth
CHURCH!!! I believe in the would be apples to apples comparisons that have been done with multiple combinations of top and bottom end mods with built 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3-2.4 motors the 2.3 is just the overall best option for best bang for buck in the HP/TQ category, with drive-ability and reliability. NOW best option for straight line track or auto-X...maybe not so much for the myriad of reasons already listed. But if you're after a 500 or above HP number on pump gas and you want your Evo to still feel like an Evo, I don't think there is any way around it. 2.3 FTW jus my .02c
Seriously?!?! 
770whp and 637wtq on a stock Tranny and TC... WoW. How many miles were on the car before you went the 2.3 route and how many now?? I knew the QM 8 leg was a bad girl but WHOA. That's a crap load of tq on a stock TC bro.
All of that said I guess I should be pretty confident in this Jacks Stage 2 TC that I've acquired to run with my 2.3L... the ACT HD 6 puck might have to go though.
770whp and 637wtq on a stock Tranny and TC... WoW. How many miles were on the car before you went the 2.3 route and how many now?? I knew the QM 8 leg was a bad girl but WHOA. That's a crap load of tq on a stock TC bro. All of that said I guess I should be pretty confident in this Jacks Stage 2 TC that I've acquired to run with my 2.3L... the ACT HD 6 puck might have to go though.
Evolving Member
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
From: Vernon Rockville, Connecticut
I'm in the same boat as you and have been going back and forth between a 2.0, 2.2, and a 2.3L. From what I have collected and researched my conclusions thus far are:
2.0L= Lag depending on turbo, Rev 9k+, but increased longevity (which is what I want)
2.2L= Much less turbo lag, Rev 9k+, but decrease in longevity of motor (which is a bummer)
2.3L= Much less turbo lag, Rev 8k max, but increased longevity (the rev range kills for highway pulls...)
2.4L= I am also looking into this from ER since they have a 4G63 based 2.4L. If you look up Akash and ER on YouTube you will see what a monster this car is.
Someone correct me if I am wrong but I have gotten this information from MANY owners themselves who have had these motors or have them currently. I autocross/road-race occasionally so that is also a factor in my book.
2.0L= Lag depending on turbo, Rev 9k+, but increased longevity (which is what I want)
2.2L= Much less turbo lag, Rev 9k+, but decrease in longevity of motor (which is a bummer)
2.3L= Much less turbo lag, Rev 8k max, but increased longevity (the rev range kills for highway pulls...)
2.4L= I am also looking into this from ER since they have a 4G63 based 2.4L. If you look up Akash and ER on YouTube you will see what a monster this car is.
Someone correct me if I am wrong but I have gotten this information from MANY owners themselves who have had these motors or have them currently. I autocross/road-race occasionally so that is also a factor in my book.
2.0+ 6266 Gen 2= Good PowerBand and High Trap Speed... With all these "Fast Strokers" running around, Why does majority of the High 8s to Low 9s cars run 2.0?
And a simple way to resolve BOOST LAG is called Brake Boosting, turns a once laggy car into a instant rocket... Just my 2cents Zanka....
And a simple way to resolve BOOST LAG is called Brake Boosting, turns a once laggy car into a instant rocket... Just my 2cents Zanka....
