4g63 or 4g64 for evo 8
#1
4g63 or 4g64 for evo 8
Hey everyone! I just recently blew the motor in the evo, 2nd gear 5500 rpms and white smoke + oil trail line believing that I threw a rod. Turbo was literally on fire. Anyways,
I’m now looking to start from scratch. Trying to figure out what shortblock to buy. I’m thinking of trying out a 2.1 4g64 (Buschur) with 4g63 head. Plan on pairing it with a fp black dbb and a map 02 dump. If there is a better option you can think of, please, give me words of wisdom. The car will be strictly street. May take it to the track once or twice but that would be it. It’s an ‘03 with 44k miles original so I don’t drive it often. Any advice I’ll take. I would like to be about 700ish whp. Thanks in advance!
I’m now looking to start from scratch. Trying to figure out what shortblock to buy. I’m thinking of trying out a 2.1 4g64 (Buschur) with 4g63 head. Plan on pairing it with a fp black dbb and a map 02 dump. If there is a better option you can think of, please, give me words of wisdom. The car will be strictly street. May take it to the track once or twice but that would be it. It’s an ‘03 with 44k miles original so I don’t drive it often. Any advice I’ll take. I would like to be about 700ish whp. Thanks in advance!
#2
If you are using the 4g64 block (which is a good choice), I would do either a 2.2LR or a 2.4LR. This will spool your turbo faster. If you are set on a 2.1, go with a 2.1 LR for the best rod ratio.
The following users liked this post:
auffy16 (Jul 9, 2019)
The following users liked this post:
auffy16 (Jul 9, 2019)
#5
There is someone on here making 800+ whp with a 2.4LR and OEM 100mm crank. 700whp is safer in a 2.2LR than a 2.4LR, but it depends on what kind of rod ratio and torque you are after. I have a 2.4LR sitting on the engine stand right now, but my concern isn't longevity as much as it is fun. If this is going in a DD, 2.4LR will be fine, if it is going in a track car, a 2.2LR will be happier. You've got a few choices:
https://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/st...basics.461017/
https://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/st...basics.461017/
#6
Get an eagle 100mm in a 2.4LR and it'll be fine at 700whp.
I have a yellow car here in vegas making 857whp/679wtq and it runs 180mph in the 1/2 with a 2.4LR and a 6466. Hasn't had any issues. We also rev it to 8400.
You can do a 94mm crank and rev it to 9400 if you want. But at 700whp you won't have the turbo for the kind of rpm.
A 2.1 is pointless. The "better" rod ratio simply isn't needed. Then you get all the headgasket complications and down pipe fitment issues of a 2.4 with none of the displacement. English racing rev's 10,500+ on a standard rod 4g63. There is literally zero need for a longer rod on an 88mm crank.
I have a yellow car here in vegas making 857whp/679wtq and it runs 180mph in the 1/2 with a 2.4LR and a 6466. Hasn't had any issues. We also rev it to 8400.
You can do a 94mm crank and rev it to 9400 if you want. But at 700whp you won't have the turbo for the kind of rpm.
A 2.1 is pointless. The "better" rod ratio simply isn't needed. Then you get all the headgasket complications and down pipe fitment issues of a 2.4 with none of the displacement. English racing rev's 10,500+ on a standard rod 4g63. There is literally zero need for a longer rod on an 88mm crank.
Last edited by letsgetthisdone; Jul 9, 2019 at 11:53 AM.
#7
Ah crap, that's right! I completely overlooked this part. The exhaust flange on the cylinder head moves up about half a centimeter which could cause the down pipe to impact the oil pan
The following users liked this post:
auffy16 (Jul 10, 2019)
Trending Topics
#8
Get an eagle 100mm in a 2.4LR and it'll be fine at 700whp.
I have a yellow car here in vegas making 857whp/679wtq and it runs 180mph in the 1/2 with a 2.4LR and a 6466. Hasn't had any issues. We also rev it to 8400.
You can do a 94mm crank and rev it to 9400 if you want. But at 700whp you won't have the turbo for the kind of rpm.
A 2.1 is pointless. The "better" rod ratio simply isn't needed. Then you get all the headgasket complications and down pipe fitment issues of a 2.4 with none of the displacement. English racing rev's 10,500+ on a standard rod 4g63. There is literally zero need for a longer rod on an 88mm crank.
I have a yellow car here in vegas making 857whp/679wtq and it runs 180mph in the 1/2 with a 2.4LR and a 6466. Hasn't had any issues. We also rev it to 8400.
You can do a 94mm crank and rev it to 9400 if you want. But at 700whp you won't have the turbo for the kind of rpm.
A 2.1 is pointless. The "better" rod ratio simply isn't needed. Then you get all the headgasket complications and down pipe fitment issues of a 2.4 with none of the displacement. English racing rev's 10,500+ on a standard rod 4g63. There is literally zero need for a longer rod on an 88mm crank.
#10
Get an eagle 100mm in a 2.4LR and it'll be fine at 700whp.
I have a yellow car here in vegas making 857whp/679wtq and it runs 180mph in the 1/2 with a 2.4LR and a 6466. Hasn't had any issues. We also rev it to 8400.
You can do a 94mm crank and rev it to 9400 if you want. But at 700whp you won't have the turbo for the kind of rpm.
A 2.1 is pointless. The "better" rod ratio simply isn't needed. Then you get all the headgasket complications and down pipe fitment issues of a 2.4 with none of the displacement. English racing rev's 10,500+ on a standard rod 4g63. There is literally zero need for a longer rod on an 88mm crank.
I have a yellow car here in vegas making 857whp/679wtq and it runs 180mph in the 1/2 with a 2.4LR and a 6466. Hasn't had any issues. We also rev it to 8400.
You can do a 94mm crank and rev it to 9400 if you want. But at 700whp you won't have the turbo for the kind of rpm.
A 2.1 is pointless. The "better" rod ratio simply isn't needed. Then you get all the headgasket complications and down pipe fitment issues of a 2.4 with none of the displacement. English racing rev's 10,500+ on a standard rod 4g63. There is literally zero need for a longer rod on an 88mm crank.