When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Hey everyone! I just recently blew the motor in the evo, 2nd gear 5500 rpms and white smoke + oil trail line believing that I threw a rod. Turbo was literally on fire. Anyways,
I’m now looking to start from scratch. Trying to figure out what shortblock to buy. I’m thinking of trying out a 2.1 4g64 (Buschur) with 4g63 head. Plan on pairing it with a fp black dbb and a map 02 dump. If there is a better option you can think of, please, give me words of wisdom. The car will be strictly street. May take it to the track once or twice but that would be it. It’s an ‘03 with 44k miles original so I don’t drive it often. Any advice I’ll take. I would like to be about 700ish whp. Thanks in advance!
If you are using the 4g64 block (which is a good choice), I would do either a 2.2LR or a 2.4LR. This will spool your turbo faster. If you are set on a 2.1, go with a 2.1 LR for the best rod ratio.
Will I run into crank issues with a 2.4LR at 700whp?
There is someone on here making 800+ whp with a 2.4LR and OEM 100mm crank. 700whp is safer in a 2.2LR than a 2.4LR, but it depends on what kind of rod ratio and torque you are after. I have a 2.4LR sitting on the engine stand right now, but my concern isn't longevity as much as it is fun. If this is going in a DD, 2.4LR will be fine, if it is going in a track car, a 2.2LR will be happier. You've got a few choices:
Get an eagle 100mm in a 2.4LR and it'll be fine at 700whp.
I have a yellow car here in vegas making 857whp/679wtq and it runs 180mph in the 1/2 with a 2.4LR and a 6466. Hasn't had any issues. We also rev it to 8400.
You can do a 94mm crank and rev it to 9400 if you want. But at 700whp you won't have the turbo for the kind of rpm.
A 2.1 is pointless. The "better" rod ratio simply isn't needed. Then you get all the headgasket complications and down pipe fitment issues of a 2.4 with none of the displacement. English racing rev's 10,500+ on a standard rod 4g63. There is literally zero need for a longer rod on an 88mm crank.
Last edited by letsgetthisdone; Jul 9, 2019 at 11:53 AM.
Then you get all the headgasket complications and down pipe fitment issues of a 2.4 with none of the displacement. English racing rev's 10,500+ on a standard rod 4g63. There is literally zero need for a longer rod on an 88mm crank.
Ah crap, that's right! I completely overlooked this part. The exhaust flange on the cylinder head moves up about half a centimeter which could cause the down pipe to impact the oil pan
Get an eagle 100mm in a 2.4LR and it'll be fine at 700whp.
I have a yellow car here in vegas making 857whp/679wtq and it runs 180mph in the 1/2 with a 2.4LR and a 6466. Hasn't had any issues. We also rev it to 8400.
You can do a 94mm crank and rev it to 9400 if you want. But at 700whp you won't have the turbo for the kind of rpm.
A 2.1 is pointless. The "better" rod ratio simply isn't needed. Then you get all the headgasket complications and down pipe fitment issues of a 2.4 with none of the displacement. English racing rev's 10,500+ on a standard rod 4g63. There is literally zero need for a longer rod on an 88mm crank.
Get an eagle 100mm in a 2.4LR and it'll be fine at 700whp.
I have a yellow car here in vegas making 857whp/679wtq and it runs 180mph in the 1/2 with a 2.4LR and a 6466. Hasn't had any issues. We also rev it to 8400.
You can do a 94mm crank and rev it to 9400 if you want. But at 700whp you won't have the turbo for the kind of rpm.
A 2.1 is pointless. The "better" rod ratio simply isn't needed. Then you get all the headgasket complications and down pipe fitment issues of a 2.4 with none of the displacement. English racing rev's 10,500+ on a standard rod 4g63. There is literally zero need for a longer rod on an 88mm crank.
I am in the process of building a new motor and was torn between a 2.2LR and 2.4 LR. Realy wanted the displacement for spool and street driving but also was wanting reliability and ability to rev to 9k safely, I am looking at 750-800 whp application. Currently has a GTX3582R gen 2 but going to a different setup with a xona 8264S. What did you mean by you can run a 94mm crank for more rpm. Wouldnt that be a 2.2? 94mm crank with a 156 or 162 rods? I assume thats what you were referring too. Not a 2.4LR. Really need help deciding so hoping you provide input. I alos live in vegas so pleas hot me up as I would love to discuss specific things as related to vegas and tuning and who to use.
Full admission, I'm an LS chevy guy and more displacement normally always ment more power. Hence the reason most of us stroke our motors to get more CI out of the motors. From what I am reading here and understanding, these motors don't like biger displacement?
I am hoping someone can politely educate me on why you would want a 2.2 and not a 2.4L motor?
Full admission, I'm an LS chevy guy and more displacement normally always ment more power. Hence the reason most of us stroke our motors to get more CI out of the motors. From what I am reading here and understanding, these motors don't like biger displacement?
I am hoping someone can politely educate me on why you would want a 2.2 and not a 2.4L motor?
Big turbos need a lot of gas flow to spool up. You have to be high in the RPM range to produce lots of exhaust gas. Smaller displacement engines can rev higher.
Full admission, I'm an LS chevy guy and more displacement normally always ment more power. Hence the reason most of us stroke our motors to get more CI out of the motors. From what I am reading here and understanding, these motors don't like biger displacement?
I am hoping someone can politely educate me on why you would want a 2.2 and not a 2.4L motor?
Yea, this isn't so much a displacement debate as a turbo vs NA one. The smaller the displacement, the higher you can rev and the more HP you can make.
Increasing the displacement will end up with more power under the curve at lower RPM but being limited to 7500-8000 RPM vs reving out to 9000+RPM makes a difference.
Even in V8 land, "smaller" displacement engines have shown to be better for turbo applications in drag racing in particular. There is a reason a lot of really fast LS guys are running "small" displacement LS setups.
In my head, this really comes down to use case. If you build an engine for 100% street fun, more displacement will probably be good. If you are building an engine to drag race, that lower RPM power doesn't matter and you want all the high RPM power.
Big turbos need a lot of gas flow to spool up. You have to be high in the RPM range to produce lots of exhaust gas. Smaller displacement engines can rev higher.
This makes a lot of sense when you say that the turbo takes gas to make power. I never thought of it that way before. But in the case of big turbos do you still compliment them with more of a radical cam or do you just ride the turbo lag wave untill the boost hits?
Yea, this isn't so much a displacement debate as a turbo vs NA one. The smaller the displacement, the higher you can rev and the more HP you can make.
Increasing the displacement will end up with more power under the curve at lower RPM but being limited to 7500-8000 RPM vs reving out to 9000+RPM makes a difference.
Even in V8 land, "smaller" displacement engines have shown to be better for turbo applications in drag racing in particular. There is a reason a lot of really fast LS guys are running "small" displacement LS setups.
In my head, this really comes down to use case. If you build an engine for 100% street fun, more displacement will probably be good. If you are building an engine to drag race, that lower RPM power doesn't matter and you want all the high RPM power.
That is True that junkyard 5.3 blocks are super popluar with guys running large boost numbers but I never really understood why. I normally run a 5.7 nitrous car so boost never really mattered as nitrous creates it own atmosphere when used.
In the case of reving, is the rev really only used to spool the turbo? I guess what I'm getting at is could you run a bigger displacement motor with a smaller turbo and get the same output/outcome as running a smaller displacement motor and then running bigger turbos? I'm asking as over reving was always something that we were told never to do on a V8.
I'm super curious to know the differences.
Thanks again for taking the time to educate me. It is greatly appreciated.
