EvolutionM - Mitsubishi Lancer and Lancer Evolution Community

Notices
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain Everything from engine management to the best clutch and flywheel.

2.1L vs 2.4L vs 2.3 Stroker

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 3, 2011, 04:29 PM
  #46  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
PlanoEvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: My House
Posts: 706
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by David Buschur
There is no better engine for an EVO than a 2.3, unless you are building a car for drag use only. The new 2.3RPM engine we build is simply fantastic.
Awesome I love my 2.3 although Map built it and I agree Dave the extra displacement spools larger turbos so much better.
Last edited by PlanoEvo; Sep 3, 2011 at 04:37 PM. Reason: too cocky
PlanoEvo is offline  
Reply Like
Old Sep 4, 2011, 09:37 AM
  #47  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
SmurfZilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Raleigh, Transplanted from Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,313
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by WW-GSR
Bigger displacement is a long-term goal for me, & even though I think I'd make a LITTLE more power with the 2.4, I'm leaning more towards the 2.3...for now...unless someone can provide a big enough arguement showing multiple benefits of going 2.4. Here's mostly why I'm geared more towards keeping it 2.3: Pulling the Evo 4G63 out & installing a non-Evo 4G64 block, in my mind at least, makes the Evo lose a big part of it's soul. It'd be like wanting to increase the displacement in your Integra Type-R motor, & pulling out the B18C5 & installing an H22 Prelude motor...it's just not a Type-R Teg anymore in all its essence! The B18C5 made the Type R legendary, just as the 4G63 did for the Evolution. I just wouldn't feel the same about my car driving it around with a foreign engine in it. Anyone else see it like I do?? IDK, I guess it's not as sacriligeous as dropping in an LS1 motor in or something like that, but still..

Have there been any documentation done as far as power gains the 2.4 offers over the 2.3 with the same mods?


Only problem about the type-r comparison is the 4G63 has been in many other vehicles besides the evo. The B18C5 was a lot more exclusive then the 4G63
SmurfZilla is offline  
Reply Like
Old Sep 4, 2011, 10:15 AM
  #48  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (22)
 
codgi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,491
Received 41 Likes on 37 Posts
Originally Posted by WW-GSR
Pulling the Evo 4G63 out & installing a non-Evo 4G64 block, in my mind at least, makes the Evo lose a big part of it's soul. It'd be like wanting to increase the displacement in your Integra Type-R motor, & pulling out the B18C5 & installing an H22 Prelude motor...it's just not a Type-R Teg anymore in all its essence! The B18C5 made the Type R legendary, just as the 4G63 did for the Evolution. I just wouldn't feel the same about my car driving it around with a foreign engine in it. Anyone else see it like I do??
I feel you on this one for sure. Its the same way I look at it....and why if I ever learn to out drive the 2.0, I'll go 2.3.

Originally Posted by SmurfZilla
Only problem about the type-r comparison is the 4G63 has been in many other vehicles besides the evo. The B18C5 was a lot more exclusive then the 4G63
The Evo's initial success in the 90s was tied to the 4G63 the same way the Type R was to the B18. That's the key, not whether it was in another car or not.
codgi is offline  
Reply Like
Old Sep 4, 2011, 10:31 AM
  #49  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
SmurfZilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Raleigh, Transplanted from Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,313
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Your comparing a mass produced motor (conquest/Starion, DSM's etc) to a motor that was hand built for a specific model of car. Not the same thing.

Putting a 4G64 in a Evo (only using the block for bigger displacement and keeping everything that makes the Evo an Evo) is not quite the same thing as putting a H22A in a Integra (heavier motor that puts out the same power as the one it replaces and is inferior in every way)
SmurfZilla is offline  
Reply Like
Old Sep 4, 2011, 10:52 AM
  #50  
Evolving Member
iTrader: (4)
 
BoostINurI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: colorado springs
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Starion/conquest is not a 4g platform.^^^^^^ a true rally car has a 2.0.....so yeah....but if its still a 4g its all gravy....my$.02
BoostINurI is offline  
Reply Like
Old Sep 4, 2011, 11:34 AM
  #51  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
mt057's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,529
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Starion/Conquest TSI has a G54BT engine. It is an SOVC, throttle body injected, 2.6L

The engine is commonly swapped into the Mighty Max pickup lol. I believe that it is the same engine used in the old montero's.
mt057 is offline  
Reply Like
Old Sep 4, 2011, 11:40 AM
  #52  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (11)
 
wreckless969's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Fort Riley, KS
Posts: 1,143
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Its also called a 4g54 so it is technically a 4g motor but the 4g is just used to denote a 4cyl gas motor by Mitsubishi the 4g54 is built on the astron series engine as opposed to the 4g63 which is a sirius series engine.

Originally Posted by mt057
Starion/Conquest TSI has a G54BT engine. It is an SOVC, throttle body injected, 2.6L

The engine is commonly swapped into the Mighty Max pickup lol. I believe that it is the same engine used in the old montero's.
wreckless969 is offline  
Reply Like
Old Sep 4, 2011, 12:07 PM
  #53  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
mt057's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,529
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by wreckless969
Its also called a 4g54 so it is technically a 4g motor but the 4g is just used to denote a 4cyl gas motor by Mitsubishi the 4g54 is built on the astron series engine as opposed to the 4g63 which is a sirius series engine.
Interesting.... I used to own an 1989 and I have never heard it called a 4g54.

Well just found this on wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Astron_engine

I never knew. lol

I personally like the extra head room the 2.1L would give. I find myself burning through tires and driving a little to agressively with extra torque. So I like the 2.1/2.0.
Last edited by mt057; Sep 4, 2011 at 12:12 PM.
mt057 is offline  
Reply Like
Old Sep 4, 2011, 06:28 PM
  #54  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
PlanoEvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: My House
Posts: 706
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by mt057
I find myself burning through tires and driving a little to agressively with extra torque. So I like the 2.1/2.0.
Wider tires help a lot
PlanoEvo is offline  
Reply Like
Old Sep 4, 2011, 08:28 PM
  #55  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
SmurfZilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Raleigh, Transplanted from Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,313
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
OK. LOL. Bad example. My point is the 4G63 is nothing THAT special. We've had it in eagle talons and eclipses. the B18C5 has only been in one car.
SmurfZilla is offline  
Reply Like
Old Sep 5, 2011, 01:43 AM
  #56  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (11)
 
wreckless969's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Fort Riley, KS
Posts: 1,143
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by mt057
Interesting.... I used to own an 1989 and I have never heard it called a 4g54.

Well just found this on wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Astron_engine

I never knew. lol

I personally like the extra head room the 2.1L would give. I find myself burning through tires and driving a little to agressively with extra torque. So I like the 2.1/2.0.
Yeah I have owned 3 88 Starions and an 87, also an 84 d50 with a carbonated 4g54.
wreckless969 is offline  
Reply Like
Old Apr 29, 2013, 08:25 AM
  #57  
Newbie
 
gIGoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 91
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by David Buschur
There is no better engine for an EVO than a 2.3, unless you are building a car for drag use only. The new 2.3RPM engine we build is simply fantastic.
DB, when u say "unless you are building a car for drag use only", that catches my attension. I'm in the midst of building a full time drag car. so far i've tried 2.2 (with 93mm 4d68) crank and the power was shocking.

What about a full drag motor? which setup is recommended? a stroker? long rod? 64 or 63? really need help as i don't know where to start. Any of you could recommend which kinda setup is good for a full drag car please let me know. I'm so confused with either to have a massive torque or a flat curve torque for full time drag.

please help. btw i'm using evo3.
gIGoN is offline  
Reply Like
Old Apr 29, 2013, 01:04 PM
  #58  
Newbie
 
MaxStreets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
u brought this thread out from the dark
MaxStreets is offline  
Reply Like
Old Apr 29, 2013, 01:06 PM
  #59  
Newbie
 
MaxStreets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
well i gotta 3g eclipse my piston flew out about three days ago looking to fully built it with a dohc head but a little confused on the internals between long rod and 100mm crank.
MaxStreets is offline  
Reply Like
Old Apr 29, 2013, 01:27 PM
  #60  
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
 
nismo3183's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 133
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I ended up going with a 153 mm rod and 94 mm stroke in my 63 block. I was originally going with a 159mm rod and 94 mm stroke in a 64 block but I was a little worried about headgasket sealing myself. Piston speed and cylinder wall loading will be higher in my 63 setup but I'm ok with that considering i'm not revving to 10k. I'll probably see 9200 max. I will be happy to let you know how my setup turns out as soon as English Racing is done with my block.
nismo3183 is offline  
Reply Like



Advanced Search
Quick Reply: 2.1L vs 2.4L vs 2.3 Stroker


Reply Closed Thread Share

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:19 PM.