RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

Why did you ask the question if you are going to doubt and question the feedback?

best of luck to you.

kaj

iTrader: (60)

assuming you are referring to me, i didn't question anything. i agreed.

alpinaturbo

iTrader: (5)

Bryan
Since you are in limelight again with this cool 2.0 vs 2.3 stroker comparison, and used less timing with 2.3 vs 2.0: can you shed some light, how much timing advance for track-safe tune you run at peek torque and how much at top end, on 2.0 and 2.3, maybe both 91&E85?

Its to "feel" the safe-edge of tuning.

In my personal experience, the 2.3 is 30% stronger (torquier) than 2.0 up to 3000rpm, than the difference tapers off up to redline with seemingly minimal top end difference between the two (2.0 vs 2.3 stroker).
This on stock frame, HKS and BBK-B.
Both experiences seemed to reflect turbo-limitation on top end, not engine limitation: i.e. same turbo produced nearly the same power at same boost on top end on 2.0 and 2.3. Spool in contrast is hugely improved with 2.3.

For road car a 2.3 is really great. For track-race-car I think that stroker holds less value, except helping to spool a large turbo up that otherwise would spool far worse.
However, in the 5000 to 8000 rpm range typical of track cars, to me it feels that the limitation and actual power is all in the head/cams and especially turbo.
Your graph suggests otherwise, at least in the 5000-6500rpm, than nearly converging up at 7500+rpm.

RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

Depends on turbo, boost, Compression Ratio, Cams, Evo 8 or 9, etc

CBRD

iTrader: (60)

Over the past few years we have come to the conclusion that we like 2.0's- with lightweight assemblies for track work-

None of the cars we have ever built to go road racing ever see much below 4000rpm- and its always nice to not have to upshift- then downshift again in between short spurts----

I have a preference now for them to be high revving as opposed to the 2.3's with more peak torque etc-

but its all personal preference- for the street sometimes the strokers are nice-

cb

alpinaturbo

iTrader: (5)

For race-only car 2.0 high revving setup is great, but for street car the high revving setup, which requires cams that work at high RPM (GSC S3, Kelford 280, etc), coupled to track-oriented large-frame turbo, conspire to produce really poor low-end torque and thus an awful street car.

Blame the exceptional 4G63 capabilities to produce power: lesser engines that can rev do not have such stout low-end torque, and thus do not feel as compromised when optimized for high rpm power. Our Evo motor on the other hand feels compromised, in comparison to stock and stock-frame turbo tuned, power band.

kaj

iTrader: (60)

Luckily I run a smaller turbo & cams and only rev to 8k
My setup is surprisingly right where I wanted. So much that I've decided to keep it instead of going 2.3L. I'm modulating out of turns as it is....more torque may not be what I need.

EvoTurboTurk

Can you rev past 8k rpm safetly? Say 8500? Or 9000

kaj

iTrader: (60)

The piston speeds would be really high. Typically, any stroker engine will rev lower than it's original counterpart while destroked engines rev higher.
It looks like the long rod versions rev better than a basic stroker, though.

EvoTurboTurk

Very true makes sense, so would 8k be too much or that would be the limit?

kaj

iTrader: (60)

I'm not the one to ask on that; I'm honestly not sure. There is a thread somewhere that has all that info...I can't find it though. It listed all the technical differences between engine options.
I think Buschur's website list the limits and recommendations of the different builds. Maybe it was AMS.

Roadrunr

iTrader: (24)

http://highboostforum.com/forum/show...for-your-build

EvoTurboTurk

8500rpm limit