Smaller stroke higher reving motors are better for topend, as why the F1 guys make over 1000HP on a 3.0 liter V10, yeah, many small stroke pistons reving massively high, only has 300FP of torque though.


BIHG stroke and torque, great for a 1/4 mile.,, Just how it is done.

 

Yo Umiami80:
hold up bro, I don't think that increasing the displacement will limit its whp. If you go for the 2.4 and give it the "engine building treatement" You know work on the head and bottom end, pistons, crank, etc. you will get nothing but performance.

But the fact of the matter is that we all have something speacial: (what is it omar? ) Its ALL WHEEL DRIVE. This beauty lets you bypass turbo lag and drop the clutch and smoke the other car. That is anouther reason I didn't mind the turbo lag on the Evo. Also I didn't mind It because I knew I could also reduce it by exhause modifications and other things. So turbo lag will mean absolutely jack-S&*t to a drag racer since the engine will never see anything under 4-5000rpms. If you don't believe me, there was a guy here that posted the dyno run of anouther guy that dropped the clutch at 5000rpm because he didn't care what the engine made below that. The car produced around 500-570hp (don't remember exactly). All I know is that that little whip ran 10's. Do a search and maybe you guys can find it.

but anyway.....jeje
For a daily driver yea it would be more fun, to have more power down low of course. But I said it....don't touch my Evo's handling.
So if you're saying that more displacement = less revs. Only if stroked alot (is stroked the word.... ) but if the bore and stroke are kind of balanced its all good.

Anouther point:
go to:

Mitsu: Engine spec's

That should come out to the misubishi's Evo's engine spec page. and if you look at the bore and stroke. The Evo's engine is Undersquare. It has more stroke than bore (by a little bit) and it still rev's like it does, and that is also the reason it makes 273torque and 270hp. Anouther performance engine like this is in the Lamborghini Gallardo. It is also underquare and revs like to the the high 7's or low 8000.

So the 4g63 is 'theoretically' kind of stroked already. So in the 4g63's engine you can see more stroke than bore working beautifully.

I think its interesting how there is all these different set ups of engines.

^^^^^^^^
Oh and my last point.....
Isn't there a guy here that has a DSM stroked and is running 11's. I talked to him and he said that it was all good....the care was fun as hell to drive, and it ran low 11's at the track. (I think it was 94talon or 94tsi, something like that) YO---to Who ever it was: MAD PROPS!

So you don't need to rev to 8000 if you have 500-550 at 7000!

Anouther reason to respect that guy w/ the Stroked DSM running low 11's or mid 11's, he took action and got results and was badass at it. We are all talking here but until we take action its nothing. Also don't DSM people stroke the motors all the time and why are we arguing about it for the Evolution??

Also I really want to see that guy that said he is going to make 600-700hp actually do it, too. Don't just talk caca. jeje
Novel #2 finished
I'll be at Barnes and Nobles signing copies
PEACE!
omar

 

I Agree that a stroker on pump gas would be a healhy altenative to a daily driver under 20PSI, but IMHO it would ruin th characteristics of the engine, wouldn't feel the same and I still feel that the 2.0 servs a better purpose, especially when built and reving past 8500RPMS on 30PSI, just what I like.


Bt for a daily driver on pump gas, you iz correct.

 

With the 2.0 block, you will make more topend hp, with a stroke, you will have a flatter torque curve and mid range, but the 2.0 owns the topend on similar turbo and mods other then the stroke.

 

wait wait wait umiami80, you mean to tell me that if the mclaren f1's 6litre v12 had a smaller displacement and the same stroke... it'd have a higher top end? more so than 253mph?... i mean the car only redlines at 7500 rpm and puts it's max hp of 627 @ 7400rpm or so... i think you're wrong sir ;x

 

How many 4g64 evos have you raced???? What i was trying to say is that a 4g64 with the same turbo and redline will make more power than a 2.0. I say redline because with a fully built and balanced motor you cold probably rev the 2.0 past 9k, while the 4g64 maxes out at 8500. Both significantly higher than stock. Not only that but the extra 100+ lb/ft of torque would be nice around town huh?

 

Nice opinion, and your happy to it.

Again, F1 Car use only a 3.0 NA motor, tiny tiny stroke, 1000WHP+++ Accelaate faster then Bikes and hit 240+MPH.


Where did you get 253MPH on the MF1 fast car, saw them ring it out to a max of 231 on an oval.

Remember the Top Secret Supra, remember they put in a 2.0 I4? Why? 10,000+ RMS and topend, set a speed record they did, also di it for handling and weigh savings.


2.4 to 9,000+ Would be a stretch, it would be highy unstable and unbalanced, smaller stroke yeailds better topend performance.

Larger stroke yeailds better daily drivability, spoolup, and throttle response and I agree would be a great option on pump gas.


Again tell me why a 3.0 supra with a small stroke yeilds 1000WHP on stock internals, and the Evo motors hit 700Plus in 2.0.

Look up why the LT1 gets pissed all over on by the LS1, a smaller displacement (Slightly) with smaller stroke.


This has been proven over and over again, I do not know why it is being argued, But I do agree that a stroke would be great in a street car, but would ruin its characteristics.


Again, the Drag speed record in a 4G63 is held by a 2.0, and probably will continue to be true.

 

You can't compare differnt engines as the head design differs, as well as number of cylinders. If the Ls1 and Lt1 used the same heads then i could almost understand. You can't just compare differnt engines and expect it to be fair.
To the best fo my knowledge, fomula 1 cars are turbocharged (I know indy cars are.
The company put the 3sgte (2.0 mr2 motor) in the supra for packagine, weight advantages in handling. They also did it to be different, as it is difficult for tuning firms to stand out in Japan with all the competition. Your arguement is also flawed in that you are sying a smaller stroke makes power when you should be saying that it is better to have a higher rod ratio, as it will rev higher. The 4g63 and the supra rod ratio are similar (4g63 may even be a little better). You see a lot of people with 1000 hp supra's but not as many 700 hp 4g63s. If it were honeslt better to have the 3sgte in the supra for high end performance, then you better call the boys that run the Solara drag cars with the supra motors who are trapping 200mph.

 

It is funny you mention this. It seems that in all the Toyota Supra JGTC cars (Japan Grand Touring Championship) they all use the 3SGTE, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. Of course there are horsepower limits 300 and 500+ classes, but it is a widely used tuning trick for several companies, not just Top Fuel. I did not realize that someone looking for all out top speed would use it too. I think JUN had the record for about a few minutes with a 2JZGTE powered Supra with 1100hp, until somebody with a twin turbo small block Chevy took it away from them.

Even still I think the 2.0 will win out overall because so much R&D is behind it, even thought the 2.4 is practically the same, it isn't. There is so much more to engine design that we have only touched on. If Japanese laws had been different and 2.4 was the cap, we'd be talking about 2.8L's or whatever. I think a big turbo, a ported head and a built bottom end on a 2.0L will always be the top gun in the drag racing world.

 

Yes, I know I am bring back an old thread but I think I have some things that I can add that can help calrify some issues.

1) The reason that the JGTC Supra's use 3S-GTE engines and not 2JZ-GTE engines is because of weight and size not because of power. Those cars as previously mentioned are limited to a HP figure so if both are capable of achieving the power the assumption is that you would go with the smaller, lighter engine. I assume that the reason that the high-end cars would go with the 3S-GTE would be along the same lines (all power issues being equal, lighter and smaller is better), also a quicker revving engine may be a factor, but that is just my speculation.

2) From a previously posted item, the Supra in Japan was lower on power than the USDM or EDM Supra. The JDM Supra came with a smaller turbo than both the US and European Supra's, and other issues like intercooler size, I believe, where also changed. The European Supra was the most powerful, then the US, then the Japanese market one.

3) In my very humble opinion, I believe that their will not be a 2.4L in the Evolution for a couple of reasons. The first is that Mitsubishi is not in the same position as Subaru economically. Subaru is trying to gain market share. This requires them to be more aggressive in drawing in buyers. They needed to have a leg up on the competition (Evo). Also the 2.5 engine (without the STi head) is finding applications throughout the Subaru line up. There is no other application within the DSM lineup for a 2.4L engine (besides the one in the SRT-4 which would be a huge step technologically backward). Mitsu is also not in the same market position as Subaru where creating a new engine alone for the Evo would be economically benefical. Creating a new engine even when it is just "slapping" together a block and head that are already in production, is not as easy as it sounds. It would not be economical to create this new engine when they can sell the current one at a larger profit. Its not like the Mitsu is doing poorly in reviews against the STi even though it is down on power.

 

Yeah I realize they use the 3S-GTE for weight issues (and balance because they can mount the smaller four further back in the car) but despite the power caps, the fact remains when you've got all of the top gun tuners trying to squeeze every last bit of power out of the motor (and getting a flat torque curve) everybody benefits, even somebody who want 600+ out of their MR2 street car. That's why I think the 2.0L motor will always win because Mitsubishi puts all of their engineering dollars behind it and so do all the tuners.

The Neon's 2.4 is not a 4G64 BTW, I don't think you said this or not, but someone did earlier and the 16g is NOT a "very small turbo" People have gotten into the 11's with them.

 

More power is more power.

I would put a Hemi V8 in the EVO with a turbo if I could!

 

Please do not say a 2.0 is top gun of drag racing. The No.1 most winning motor is the Dodge Hemi in V8 fashion. Imports are still catching up in drag racing. NHRA even made imports in a class of there own called sport compact!

I love Imports but please stick to what we know like turns and drfting.

 

That's incorrect. 2.0 engines are monster drag racers too. Look at DSMs for example.

 

Please keep the "can't" attitude out of the Evo community. It doesn't belong here.