jheff

Ive been doing some research on different engine builds for a couple months now, and I still have not settled on what/how i want to build my motor when the time comes.

Personally, i do not like the idea of running a 2.3 or a 2.4 because the rod/stroke ratio and the side loading of the pistons.

Ideally I would like to build an under stressed that would sit around 550 whp on a smaller turbo and on 93. I have heard that 4g63s can spilt cylinder walls above 700 whp and so I have a predisposition to go 4g64, that would also minimize the downtime for the car. I like R/T Ernie's build and ideally would like to do something similar.

At this moment in time I like the idea of the 2.2 best because it will provide some more low end torque compared to the 2.0 but still can be revved out (If I do decide to go big turbo one day, I would like to have a motor that is up to the job).

Reading and reading can only get me so far, but as I contact shops and such I would prefer to have a little bit more of a direction as to which setup I would run and I though some feedback could probably solve that issue. Thanks in advance for your input!

kikiturbo

2.0 on g63 for huge power
2.2 long rod on g64 for high reving, wide powerband engine at the power you want (head gasket is iffy on g64 at super high power levels)

LetsGetThisDone

iTrader: (1)

2.2slr in the 4g63. 94mm crank, 153mm rods. It ends up at like 2.16L with .020" over bore.


The 4g64 block is fine, and is a good option. You just have to take the extra steps like oring'ing the head, adding oil squirters for the pistons, and timing them is a little more complicated then just putting the belt on. Also, the taller deck height somewhat complicates the install of most turbo kits.

jheff

Would the 2.0 have any possible increase in driveability? I was thinking that the 2.2 after I am done with it would have some more low end torque that would help without totally compromising the high end.

Doing the extra steps to make the 64 worth it seems like the path I am going to go on, I enjoy doing things like that. It also seems that the 2.2 will make power out of the same turbo sooner right?

LetsGetThisDone

iTrader: (1)

the only difference been a 2.2 in 63 vs a 64 is the bore size, so about 70cc of displacement. They will use the same 94mm crank. It might spool slightly faster. For me, not exactly worth the extra work, and fitment issues of other parts.

jheff

aren't there modifications that have to be done to the block to fit everything in the 63?

LetsGetThisDone

iTrader: (1)

Not the 94mm crank to my knowledge. Maybe some minor clearancing, but nothing like a 100mm crank

M4Lki3r

iTrader: (3)

Currently running Buschur's 4G63 2.3L block with FP Green on E85. Daily Driver. ~500hp

This is a very fun setup with the big stroke and fast spooling turbo. I wouldn't knock the 2.3s unless you're trying for sub-10s or something.

ExViTermini

iTrader: (25)

Never saw a mention of 2.4LR. Pretty good combo that can handle some RPM's.

The 6mm deck height change is not even worth mentioning as far as fitting up turbokits.

O-rings wouldn't be a requirement in my mind until the 700ish hp range. I've got a local on a 2.4lr 35r at 630whp for 10k miles now. No issues whatsoever.

jheff

I am a big believer in overbuilding engines so that the engine is understressed and also allows for room to grow. Ive thought about the 2.4LR, i guess i dont understand the difference between a 2.4LR and a 2.4. Do you change the pin location in the piston to allow for slightly longer rods? do you overbore?

I believe that it is super fun, its just not my personal preference because of what I stated in my original post. I stated that I dont like the idea of running a 2.3 for my car. Just my own opinion. I have also that the 2.3's can sometimes vibrate a lot, but i wouldn't know for a fact.

I guess am just hoping that if i run one of the engines i have listed and overbuild it I could have it last a while. I hope to eventually go to a different final drive but that is far in the future compared to the engine build.

ExViTermini

iTrader: (25)

2.4lr uses a 156mm rod with the wrist pin moved up like a 2.3. It is much smoother than a standard rod 2.4, engine wants to rev free-er than standard rod too.

jheff

So the rod/stroke ratio would be about 1.56 then compared to the normal 1.5? would the extra 6mm of stroke compared to the 2.2 have that much of a difference?

Bladey

Just finished building my 4g64 2.2.

Manley pistons,
Manley H tuff rods (156mm)
Eagle 94mm crank

Didn't need to clearance the block at all and they are rather large rods ( i clearanced it anyway but there was plenty of space

kikiturbo

you can even do a 156 mm rod 2.2 in g63... but also 162 mm rod 2.2 in G64

kikiturbo

no, 2.0 would not have more driveability...

2.2 is probably the best compromise between revs and low end.. but it is probably the most expensive...

2.4 in g64 might be best bang for the buck if you like low down tq.. it all depends on your taste and what your budget is..