2.3 or 2.4 stroker + Big Turbos (Explain Driving Experience)
Aug 15, 2007, 03:25 AM
#31
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Afghanistan
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've run 2 liters with turbos up to 35r, and 2.3s with turbos up to T67. The 2.3s spool the turbo much earlier, and flow about 15% more air mass at the same boost. While the strokers don't rev as high, they don't need to. They move more air at lower rpm. The problem is that higher rev limits allow you to take advantage of lower gearing for more of the track's length, and good ET to MPH ratio has a lot to do with gearing.
What it comes down to as always is the intended use of the car.
-A stroker will spool a big turbo on the street, and move more air at less boost, which is absolutely key for pump gas HP (airflow is power potential, boost is heat. And on pump gas, heat is knock, which means less timing, which means less HP), along with excellent intercooling.
-A 2 liter will spool big turbos real late, but make up for it with a higher redline. The higher RPM potential puts you in lower gears for more of the track, which helps ETs. The reduced airflow to boost pressure ratio is simply made up for with more boost, which on race gas carries a much lower knock penalty for obvious reasons.
What it comes down to as always is the intended use of the car.
-A stroker will spool a big turbo on the street, and move more air at less boost, which is absolutely key for pump gas HP (airflow is power potential, boost is heat. And on pump gas, heat is knock, which means less timing, which means less HP), along with excellent intercooling.
-A 2 liter will spool big turbos real late, but make up for it with a higher redline. The higher RPM potential puts you in lower gears for more of the track, which helps ETs. The reduced airflow to boost pressure ratio is simply made up for with more boost, which on race gas carries a much lower knock penalty for obvious reasons.
excessive heat in the cylinder and hotspots leads to det. heat is great for the car provided we're talking about exhuast gas temps
just like he said; just like i said...what do you want your car for?
Last edited by blackevo110; Aug 15, 2007 at 06:56 AM.
Aug 15, 2007, 08:01 AM
#32
Evolving Member
what about for highway pulling power? Would a 2.0l be more desirable since you go higher into the rpm and take advantage of the top end or would a 2.3l be better for highway pulls? Also anyone use or have opinions on the 2.1 or 2.2l engines. They seem to give the best of both worlds with added displacement and the ability to rev till 9k.
Aug 15, 2007, 08:43 AM
#33
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Edwards
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I'm spoiled by my stock turbo which under most conditions hits full boost by 2800-3000 rpm. Even if it's a little off the 'big turbo' topic of this thread, I have wondered what a 2.3-2.4 liter with a 3076 or green turbo (upgrade but still fast spooling) would feel like. Would this be a way of getting near stock spool with more power potential?
Aug 15, 2007, 11:18 AM
#34
Newbie
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15% more air at what boost and RPM? the motors that whine out to 9K+ are moving more air than a stroker depending on the rod ratio and bore. i dont know the specifics, but i believe a built 2.0 at 9500 moves more air than the stroker at max efficency.
excessive heat in the cylinder and hotspots leads to det. heat is great for the car provided we're talking about exhuast gas temps
just like he said; just like i said...what do you want your car for?
excessive heat in the cylinder and hotspots leads to det. heat is great for the car provided we're talking about exhuast gas temps
just like he said; just like i said...what do you want your car for?
Aug 15, 2007, 12:17 PM
#35
Originally Posted by kjewer1
The 2.3s spool the turbo much earlier, and flow about 15% more air mass at the same boost.
The 2.3s spool the turbo much earlier, and flow about 15% more air mass at the same boost.
Boost, airflow, and displacement are all linked. Increase displacement and you will move more air at a given boost level, and max out a given turbo at a lower boost pressure. HP is directly proportional to mass airflow per unit time, and torque is directly proportional to mass airflow per revolution. Strokers can make the same HP as 2 liters, but making the same power at higher RPM makes 2 liters better suited to drag racing. As I said earlier, the airflow dissadvantage is compensated for by running higher boost to achieve the same airflow/power.
Aug 15, 2007, 12:36 PM
#36
Evolving Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: south fl
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ams has a new block out seems very impressive,AMS EVO VIII/IX 2.3RR motor
seems you can rev it out pretty hi even though its stroked ,i think with a 35 r this would be the best street/strip motor..heres a link
http://www.amsperformance.com/store/...oducts_id=1639
seems you can rev it out pretty hi even though its stroked ,i think with a 35 r this would be the best street/strip motor..heres a link
http://www.amsperformance.com/store/...oducts_id=1639
Aug 15, 2007, 01:05 PM
#37
Strokers can make the same HP as 2 liters, but making the same power at higher RPM makes 2 liters better suited to drag racing. ... higher rev limits allow you to take advantage of lower gearing for more of the track's length, and good ET to MPH ratio has a lot to do with gearing.
Aug 15, 2007, 02:06 PM
#38
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The extra capacity can help a little bit but it is amazing how revvy these combos can be... I dont have any experience with the Cossie 2.2 yet, but a friend has a Jun 2.2 shortblock, cossie head, hks kansai manifold, autotronic and a AMS GT42R kit... it manages to spool this huge turbo decently and still be able to rev it well over 9000 rpm... (made 888whp on a mustang dyno by the way on VP Import and 3.5bar)
i believe such combo with a GT35R or even a GT37R which are much more smaller turbos than the GT42R would be a killer...
the only problem is the MEGA MONEY it costs as a already pre-assembled Cossie 2.2 shortblock goes for around 9500 grand plus the head...
Aug 15, 2007, 02:29 PM
#39
I have a 2.4 4g64 with a gt3076r turbo. I know that turbo would be considered "small" in this thread, but I thought I'd put in my 2 cents for comparison. with the 3076 and 2.4, the spool rate feels identical to the spool rate of the stock 16g turbo on the 2.0. I havent even had the car professionally tuned yet, but it will hit 20+ psi at 3200 rpm and does NOT taper off at 7k like the stocker does. This setup will give a broad powerband from 3.2k to 8k. Good setup for autocross, road racing, and still decent at the drag strip.
JB
JB
Aug 15, 2007, 08:47 PM
#44
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Afghanistan
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we'll say some random mods on the 2.3 is spooling a 4067 (single scroll) and full boost hits at about 5000 and we'll say (because i dont know...) it hits peak VE at 8k, after that youre headed on a down slope with your power/air moving efficently so you shift and stay in your power...i dont know how long youre in gear but here is my arguement i guess
a 2.0 (built) is supported well enough to spool the same turbo to full boost by 5600. if youre running that motor out to 9500 before its out of volumetric efficency and you need to shift...who is in gear longer moving more air?
i didnt even think about it... forget all the mods...if the motor was NA who would be able to move more air for longer? dont get me wrong im a fan of quite a few set-ups. like i said, i have a 2.4l stroker...of course i do see the error in my ways, but at the same time itll spool a big turbo sooner on the street and on the track...either way im not a driver...im certainly not strong about any one facet of the automotive world...but im working on it.
at the end of the day it does and always will come down to what the driver wants.
Last edited by blackevo110; Aug 16, 2007 at 03:18 AM.
Aug 15, 2007, 09:11 PM
#45
Evolving Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the only real difference between the 2.3 and the 2.0 is where they natrually have there peak VE's occur and what they can be rev'ed to why still carrying out VE's via turbo, cams, head job, and both manifolds...
personally I don't like either...off the shelf the 2.2 sounds like the motor I would most like...really middle ground for the two. I really wouldn't take any of them as I can think of a setup that would be a good bit better IMO.
personally I don't like either...off the shelf the 2.2 sounds like the motor I would most like...really middle ground for the two. I really wouldn't take any of them as I can think of a setup that would be a good bit better IMO.