2.7 Gt42r
Jan 9, 2006, 09:30 AM
#61
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: in front of your car
Posts: 2,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looks like you might have the most powerful car out there. how much different would it be for you to use a GT45 instead of a 42? will you have issues with cylinder wall clearances being too thin or anything like that?
Jan 12, 2006, 08:27 PM
#65
Originally Posted by GPTourer
I think we would have seen a 2.7L DSM by now if this was possible/feasible.
Going from 2.0 to 2.7 would be like taking a Chevy 350 all the way out to like 469 ci. Different engines, I know, but still waaay more then has ever been done. I think I've heard 426 small blocks. I just don't think there is enough block material for that kind of bore.
Going from 2.0 to 2.7 would be like taking a Chevy 350 all the way out to like 469 ci. Different engines, I know, but still waaay more then has ever been done. I think I've heard 426 small blocks. I just don't think there is enough block material for that kind of bore.
454c.i. small block chevy. It can be done. Just takes time, money and R&D.
EVOlutionary
Jan 13, 2006, 07:09 AM
#67
Evolved Member
Originally Posted by EVOlutionary
http://www.worldcastings.com/
454c.i. small block chevy. It can be done. Just takes time, money and R&D.
EVOlutionary
454c.i. small block chevy. It can be done. Just takes time, money and R&D.
EVOlutionary
Okay that's awesome, but that engine uses an aftermarket block, not a stock Chevy. RnR is trying this with a stock Mitsubishi block. And although that's big, its stil not 469 ci to be equal to the percentage gain from 2.0 to 2.7.
Last edited by GPTourer; Jan 13, 2006 at 07:12 AM.
Jan 13, 2006, 10:19 AM
#69
Evolved Member
Originally Posted by 4G63>OOOO
They're not going from 2.0 to 2.7, they're using a 2.4L block.
Last edited by GPTourer; Jan 13, 2006 at 10:22 AM.
Jan 14, 2006, 05:00 PM
#72
Originally Posted by GPTourer
<sigh> I've already said, a 4G64 and 4G63 are cast from the same core. The '64 has more deck height for extra stroke, on top of the fact that it has a bigger bore. It doesn't gain anymore additional thickness or meat on the block for an even bigger bore. In other words, the 4G64 is a factory stroked 4G63.
EVOlutionary
Last edited by EVOlutionary; Jan 15, 2006 at 05:18 AM.
Jan 14, 2006, 05:36 PM
#73
I have an EVO 4G63T motor, from a JDM EVO 7. I also have a 4G64 block from a 2000 Galant. its the same 4G64 that RNR uses. i physically compared them, side by side, and used a caliper to check the thickness between the cylinders, the cylinder walls on the 4G64 are thinner then the 4G63. it is the same exact block casting. so essentially to make a 4G63, they take a 4G64 casting, deck it shorter and bore it smaller. I know that Magnus Motorsports took an older 4G64, bored it .060 over and used a stock 63' crank and longer rods and it came out to something like 2.3XX with a 10,000 redline. the cylinder walls do get really thin with that large of a bore, sleeving wont do much, because you need to bore out the block bigger to install the sleeve which is still overall, making it weak. its very possible to do it, its just a matter of how much of a useable powerband you have. This whole project appears to be in effort to make a big T4 turbo "streetable" I like the fact that its thinking out of the box, but when it comes down to it, who is daily driving on a GT42R or 45, if you need a turbo that big, its obvious your looking to make over 700whp, with that much power, your either building a race car or a dyno queen, not a daily driver
Jan 15, 2006, 09:07 AM
#74
Evolved Member
^^^^What he said.^^^^
Originally Posted by EVOlutionary
So are you saying the cylinder walls on the 4G64 are thinner because they are bigger but no material added?