I've gone ahead and ordered the 2.4... but wanted to hear peoples opinions on these two engine specs. I'm no expert and have to admint when I was doing a lot of searching a few weeks ago I did not understand all of what I read.

But from my understanding, and what I concluded, was that there was not any benefit in the 2.3 over the 2.4. However, the 2.4 has an advantage of the longer rod length which creates a less acute angle in relation to the crankshaft journal. This reduces piston side-loading issues associated with the shorter rods in the 2.3 spec.

Otherwise they seem very similar to me. Anyway I'm preparing to be enlightened here with more info so hit me up!

 

for the most part, with off-the-shelf parts, without breaking the bank, most 2.3's & 2.4's are built using the same length rod, ~150mm in length / 5.90".

the piston pin height is different when using a 100mm stroke in either a 4g63 or
4g64 block.

yeah, you can source out longer rods, utlizing a shorteer pin height in the piston to increase your rod ratio a bit, but it's going to cost quite a bit more.

a lot people favor the 2.3, cause it uses your current block, it has piston squirters & you dont ave to worry about making a waterpump plate to use a evo pump on a 4g64 block, just to name a few things.

i am in favor of a 4g64 because the bore size is already larger = more valve area, less unshrouding of the valves....

i wish someone who has the surplus of damaged blocks, cut 1 up & measure the bore thickness of a evo engine to find out the wall thickness vs using a sonic measuring device. Sonic measuring is very accurate, but i would feel better inspecting the bore pieces by hand.

 

Thanks for the info. I've signed up for the 2.4 at Magnus which does use the longer rod I believe. Uses similar piston as the 4G63 stroker piston I believe.

In terms of bore size... the 63 block is 85mm and the 64 is 86.5mm. Now most people say don't bore the 63 block out more than .040" I think... which is about 1mm if my math is correct.

So is it safe to assume that the 64 block is going to have less bore to bore thickness than a .040" oversized 63 block?

 

I believe the Magnus 2.4 Long Rod assembly uses a 162mm rod, which would give correct deck height when used with a piston similar to the 4g63 stroker piston. This raises the rod stroke ratio from 1.5 to 1.62.

About boring - the best way to determine what is practical is to have the bores sonically tested. Casting variations (cylinder wall thickness variations) can make some blocks better than others where significant boring is desired. And I might mention that some blocks can be bored significantly, then sleeved. This is not a casual operation, but I know some who are experienced with this (not with 4G63s) and are very successful with it.

 

Hey Ted glad you're around as I trust your opinion.

So no drawbacks to the 2.4 spec of Magnus versus say your average 2.3 out there?

 

On the contrary, I'd say the Magnus configuration 2.4L is the best 100mm stroker option.

 

Thank you

Man this is gonna be a long 6 weeks

 

+1

 

What's you opinion on the Brian Crower 2.4L stroker kit?

 

Not sure about the EVO blocks, but some poeple with the DSMs were cracking cylinder walls on 4g64 blocks, which are the same basic casting IIRC with different machining (namely 060 over bore compared to 2.0 and 6mm taller deck). I ran a 060 over 2 liter block with the 2.4 crank and didn't have any trouble, but I was only making around 550 whp.

2.4 block with stroker pistons (of correct bore size) is what results in the extra room for longer rods. The pistons are still pretty basic stroker pistons, nothing special. The extra 6mm goes to the 156mm rod length.

 

As for the Brian Crower kit, I recall one forum member having a *great* deal of trouble with it. Based upon the nightmare account I saw here, I would be very cautious.

 

do people sleeve iron blocks? i always see it in aluminum but i guess if they make sleeves out of super strong stainless or something it'd be viable as an option

 

Yes they do. Those who I know that do bore the block quite far, then install sleeves and finish to the final bore size. They also fill about 25% of the lower water jacket with a compound (like concrete) that keeps the bottom end rock steady. AFAIK, this does not noticeably affect cooling.

 

The only thing with a Mangus 2.4, is they do not use oil squiters. Some people love them and keep them and others say they are not needed when building a motor with forged pistons.

On a street car, I prefer them to assit in keeping piston temps down, but that is only my $.02 cents.....

Are you using a Evo 8 or 9 head?

 

I'm not sure about the oil squirters... I just sent an email to Marco asking.

The head will be new and I assume an Evo 8 one as I wanted to keep my engines here together.... so I did not send any cores. My car is an Evo 6 so I would assume I'd need to do a lot of fiddling to get Mivec working on a six.

The spec is 2.4 long-rod, std size valves, mad spec piper cams, 8.5:1 CR.

I can't wait! I got to stop thinking about it