So why not have a contest where you pick some poor Evo owners to test out this stroker for a couple of years and then report back?

 

ME ME!

I'll track it for ya guys!

 

Martin what turbo did you run at 22 psi to be satisfied with it's performance on the 2.3RR? It's an interesting dilemma going with this short block, all the while, using 93 pump gas. On one hand you have a magnificent motor, and on the other hand you need a turbo where your sweet spot needs to be 20-22 psi, which usually means a stock type turbo. A bigger turbo (GT3582R) will not get to its best efficiency range until after 22psi. On pump, its kind of defeating the purpose of the 2.3RR. IMO, if one were to use the 35R at 22 psi, with this motor, it would be a dog.

It would seem to me that this truly is a race motor that requires C16, or some other high octane gas, or Meth if you must. Because in order to get the maximum benefit out of this motor one will need a higher octane in order to reach maximum benefits, on a bigger turbo, for which this motor was built.

 

That would not be a wise decision for your combination.

Realize that greater boost easily trumps higher compression where power production is concerned. Higher compression is only beneficial to you if octane is not an issue. With 93 octane + meth injection, octane remains an issue.

 

What would you say to using twin rails, one rail with 1600's sprayin E98 and the other with 1000's spraying 93 on 10.25:1 with 35-40psi and 120 shot nitrous?

 

One rail using 1600s and E98 negates the use of 93 octane. If E98 is used as a supplement, for 93 octane, there is no use for a second rail and/or 1600s.

 

Okay but you still didn't answer the question, so you think it is possible then. The reason I asked is because the vehicle in question does not run on E98 all the time. The E98 rail only activates after 18psi, so to my understanding the car will be able to run low boost setting not using its alky supply.

 

*breaks out letter to Santa*

 

haha...I read this and thought I spoke with a guy a brotherz racing that was going to do that
your project is quite similar to a lean burn system designed by a few MIT guys as there senior project a few years back, onloy difference being they were direct injected.
It can be done, and depending on how much air you are running you won't need dual sets of 1600's. Get smaller injectors for the primaries and have your secondaries come on at a lower boost...it will also keep the cross over point more out of a performance level and not hinder any actual driving. It will also keep you averaged octane at a higher level and your injectors more appropriately sized.

to really find out work out your mass fuel balance and work an averaged octane level and then work out your fuel cooling you can find out rather easily...what is the latent heat of vaporization for e98 (I have e85's values) and its octane rating (motor prefferably). I ask because I know you aren't kidding. Find the heat rise through pressure increase and volume decrease...latent heat of the block and the residual exhaust gas are the hard part to get right.

Martin, if you don't mind me asking, what is so difference in dimensions between this and the regular 2.3. If it is your trade secret, then don't feel entitled to answer.
-Micah

 

I think anything is possible, so long as one has the time and patience to get the physical part working right, then has the time to tune it. I am assuming he is going to have a sizable E98 reservoir somewhere in the rear of the car.

 

ted from what he had told me when I met him, he planned on running dual tanks.

 

 

so, back to the RR...martin, so are you guys keeping the internal specs a secret?
Just really curious what makes this different from the regular 2.3, other than a billet crank.

 

It uses a shorter stroke, longer rod, and lighter weight reciprocating components than the typical 100mm crank configuration.

 

this thing looks badass. just seems like if you blow a motor on the track you better have some reallllly deep pockets.

maybe someday ill have the money to support that but its a bummer theres no core exchange.

is the reason for no exchange the fact that you are using a different block that is just based of the 4g63?