I will take the displacement increase and the ensuing torque any day of the week. I will eventually go with some more displacement. Hell, if you could bore and stroke the 4G64 you may be able to pull out a 2.6! If you don't think that this could spin up to 8000 RPM with the right rods, pistons, and crank you need to go and read up. Our cars (and I do like my Evo) are dogs off of boost.

 

Sorry if this has already been answered but does the 2.4l gain the .4l by stroke alone? or is the bore larger as well? Thanks

 

There is no replacement for displacement. There is absolutely no reason to spin this engine so damn high, i.e. 8,500. Yeah, I know an F1 engine spins over 19K, CART engines spun well over 16K as well. Our engine could only benefit from getting the extra torque of a longer stroke engine. However, a larger bore translates into larger valve area!!!!

 

I have a Magnus 4g64 in my Talon. The motor is incredible. I get 30lbs of boost on my Gt40 T350 .82 ar t3/t4 by 4100 rpms. Its really like a 16g+ 150hp.

The low end is astounding for the size of the turbo I have. It revs up just as fast and as high as my 63. Although with a Mitsu tranny I have no idea why you would want to rev much past 8500 anyway. The thing is you will need big cams and a sheet metal intake manifold to be able to take full advantage of the extra displacement.

The road race guys are going to love it because you pick up so much torque its just silly. The drag race guys will love it becase you can spool bigger turbos and all that extra torque really helps a heavy car get off the line and ET real well.

 

Tomei also makes a 2.2L kit, I am personally going for 450hp/450ft lbs. I could get to the horse power easily with the 2.0L, and damn, I almost there now! But the only way to pick up the torque is to add displacement. At the end of the day it really all comes down to personal preference.

Greg

 

I would bet money that the 2.3 stroker kits offered by Bozz use the same 4g64 crankshaft that the US 2.3 storker kits use...

 

Tomei also makes a 2.2L kit, I am personally going for 450hp/450ft lbs. I could get to the horse power easily with the 2.0L, and damn, I almost there now! But the only way to pick up the torque is to add displacement. At the end of the day it really all comes down to personal preference.

Greg

Greg,

This is something I know almost nothing at all about, but I've heard it's been done before and I was just wondering if anyone has considered it. It has to do with your picking up more useable torque on this engine. Before I go any further, I just want to say please don't flame me! It's intrigued me for a couple of years, and this is the extent of what I know.

There are twin turbos and superchargers as we all know. I have talked to Rob, the owner of RPS clutches, and Rhyss Millen, both who know of cars that have run a supercharger and turbocharger together. Tom over at turbo city orange county, CA says he knows of mr2 in super street (I think) that had this set-up.

What's the benefit? Low end torque. It flattens the power band like a rotary engine. The problem they all say is overspinning the supercharger. The solution might be provided by what one of the tech guys at Wipple superchargers told me. He said if a clutch driven turbo off of a mercedes was used (he said this would probably the best match), the supercharger would come unhitched when the turbo hit full boil. Imagine 20 pounds of boost at 1500 rpm.

Another idea instead of the clutch would be to use the drive end off of a belt driven torque converter (yes from a go kart as the supercharger should suck no more than a few hp) mounted to the supercharger for constant speed.

I think there might be room for the supercharger behind the engine lower down with the drive near the pullys. The plumbing/valves etc. would have to be designed and plumbed in.

Ok, that's my pipe dream, but it's an alternative to stroking your engine.

I think I feel some heat coming....

 

More airflow = more torque. But you don't have to get it from extra displacement. Just turn up the boost.

 

if you check this thread over at club 3G, there was a guy doing a evo head swap on his 4g64

 

The 4g64 also has a slightly larger bore than the 4g63, so the increase is from both bore and stroke....but mostly from the stroke increase.

As a former 1998 Eclipse spyder GS (4g64 SOHC) owner let me say that my heavy assed convertible was way better off the line than my light little EVO. The spyder was at least 100 lbs heavier, but from a roll from 1000 RPM up to 3000 RPM it owned the EVO... LONG LIVE TORQUE!

Keith

 

i don't think anyone cought this one, but i'll answer it. ALL cars in jpan are capped at 280 (at least in those days) as per not so much a government or tax thing, but as a pact amogst the japanese auto makers so not to have an all out horsepower war (from what i recall reading). yes, even the spec v skyline had/has 280 bhp. BUT the jdm engines in those cars have astronomical tunning potential compared to USDM versions of the same car.

 

Also, the Skylines/Supras/GTO's seemed to be running Clydsdale horses instead of regular horses from the factory When dynoed they were making over 280 at the wheels stock even though only rated at 280 HP at the crank shaft.

Keith

 

the extreme evo engine is a 4G63 bored to 2.4l

 

Yes, I know about the cap. Who doesn't? However, the Japanese Supra and 3000GT really did get 280hp instead of the 320hp version we got.

 

didn't mean to be rude ....ummm..... MITSUBISHI RULES! *cue for everyone start cheering really loud* hehe