One of the magazines this month, (SS, IT, or SCC) has a story on someone installing a stroker kit in their EVO. The crank comes from a Delica truck which uses a 4G64T. The argument for more displacement might bode well for some one who is more instrested in a daily driven stock motor. I am curious if the the likes of David Buschur, Sean Glazer or John Sheppard use stroked motors, as they are the pinnacle of DSM tuning.

This whole JDM fad is cute when it comes to Hondas, but it doesn't really apply well to Mitsubishis. No body really cares about JDM style Galants and Mirages, and since the Eclipse is an American born ride we can't JDM them anyway. 3000 guys can just slap a GTO badge on the back and call it a day. With the EVO we've already got years of American ingenuity behind the engine, so it just comes down to wether you'd pay twice as much for a Tomei or JUN kit, or get a reman bottom end from a '94 Galant GS from a local tuner and have the similar, if not the same results.

 

This was done in the 80's by Fiat/Lancia in the Monte Carlo 037 and Integrale.

Very effective, much to Audi's surprise.

And Rhys didn't mention that ?
Shame on him... :-)


Charles

 

If you increase displacement on an EVO motor, do it by the bore, do not **** with thee stoke. If you do, you will limit its topend and WHP performace, as a small stroke is needed to move at high RPMS, ask an supra owner. But the 2.4 would give better low end and a way smoother powerband, but a 2.0 would ned more whp, a 2.4 more torque and a flatter curve.

 

You can't bore a 4G63 out by much or else the cylinder walls get too thin.

 

Yeah I know, would it be possible to get a 2.2 outa the bore? Maybe a 2.1? I really do not wana go with the stroke as it'll ruin the engine characteristics.

 

But even with using the 2.4L crank, don't you only end up with about 2.3L? I do not know what the true cc's would be. I can't see the point of boring it out just to get .1 of a L and running the risk of compromising your block's integrity.

 

Does a car's rev limit decrease if you increase its displacement?

 

I heard about the 2.4 but it will be on the RalliArt Edition Lancer not the EVO. But then again, Mitsu. can change their minds.

 

Don't do anything at all. It just isn't worth it. Boring will give you squat.

Magnus Motorsports is now building 2.3L strokers for Evos:
http://www.magnusmotorsports.com/pro...CatalogueID=84

 

Okay we are all talking about Power increases from putting in a bigger 4g64 but what happens to the weight balance and handling characteristics of the Evo? How much heavier is the 4g64 compared to the 4g63?

Also this would be an awesome modification because then you build up this engine (pistons, crank, and cams) and you could have displacement w/ high redline. And an increadebly fun car to drive!

Why are people so stuck to some ways because they call it cheating or because "in Japan , THEY do it so and so..." Hey like that kid from Toykyo, Japan just said that Japanese love the Skyline because of the increased displacement.

Don't get me wrong I love the 4g63 but I'm thinking about this as long as it doesn't murder the Evo's handling. Maybe a 4g63 with built bottomend and built topend.

I know David Bushur does not believe in Stroker motors, I respect his opinions inmensely but Does he mean that a Stroker motor is bad for the quater mile killer or for everyday driver. Yea, you may not mind a huge turbo w/ lag as long as it brings on the horsepower. but for an everyday driver you know.... I think he believes in only boring the engine to a true 2.0liter.

Also I've driven an SRT-4 and it has a 2.4L engine. And a VERY small turbo boosting 12-14lbs. The engine response is crazy. It doesn't feel like it has a turbo at all. I mean I tried looking for the turbo lag but couldn't find it. Only a little bit when I had it at about 1000 rpm and started droping the clutch very slowly.
^^^^^^^
But handling wise its no Evo of course. It feels like it wants to understeer alot at fast highway turns with all that front weight and front wheel drive.

So yea thats my novel
later
Omar

 

That's a pretty good novel dude. You raise a number of good questions that people can discuss as soon as they wake up in the morning.

 

The 4G64 probably only weighs a few lbs more than a 63. The block is a little taller, but it is partially offset by the larger bore.

 

you get a 2.4, you limit your topend potential and MAX WHP, rev limit is lowered, engine is NOT as balanced nor rev happy. YOU WILL get a more confident daily driver, better torque cuv, better spoolup, but limit the HP.

Stick with the 2.0, damn near the same bore and stroke as the 2JZ-GTE, those engines make MASSIVE WHP, why? Because you gots a short strok that';; rev like crazy and a massive flowing head to make that unbeatable topend, but yeag you get some laggyness.

Look at the LT1, massive low end torque with its short stroke, 5.7 liters, but it limits topend and you kill them with such a small moter.


Look ast the lS1, smaler stoke, WAYYYY BETTER flow design, engine revs higher and makes power till red.


I know EVO and Vette comparo but the theory is sound.


SHort stroke will pull up top. Lambo and ferrari does it, so does porsche. Think about it, a V12 displacing only 5.7 liters yet making 600+ HP, why? HOw when a V8, 4 less pistons yet larger displacement, it is the stroke and the ability to rev quickly.


A bigger displacment 2.4 would be awesome for 0-60, a smaller stoke higher reving motor would be better for 60-160MPH.

My 2 cents

 

You guys crying about redline would have to build your head to safely raise the redline as is. As stated in the thread, redline is virtually identical. Magnus has seen gains of 50whp and 130 ft/lbs of torque. If you are replacing the bottom end there really isn't a drawback to building a 2.4. The blocks are virtually identical. Something tells me that you guys wouldn't be crying if mitsu sold a 4g64 evo. Actually you probably would as the new car would have more *****.

 

small stroke better for 60-160????? Not if having a smaller stroke loses you some 50 extra whp.