Rom

I went through the discussions with Tom, and ended up at the 2.3 because of my intended use. The extra low down torque will be really useful after hard braking in to a low speed corner (like turn 11 at Laguna!), and I don't need super high RPMs so the stroke limiting the rpm is not a big deal for me (limiting myself to about 7500-7800). Also, the extra displacement should allow me to build exhaust flow quicker, improving turbo spool. Also, the car will be daily driven, and the 2.3 will generally feel better on the street (because of the extra low torque).

I'll take a look at the race fab - looks interesting!

Thanks!

S.

3gturbo

iTrader: (4)

Wow glad I still have my old school green in my garage then, it made 350/350 at 21psi but it did that by 2500 rpms on my 2.4.

ReaperX

iTrader: (5)

You can use the 4g63 for the 2.1, costs a bit more than the 4g64 since it takes a 94mm billet crank.

killerpenguin21

iTrader: (20)

i respect tom and he does good work, but he is not a road racer. the cars i have seen him build are more focused on big power and 1/4 mile times.

just want you to be fully informed. i think there are a large group of us track guys that would vote against a 2.3 even though we would all probably enjoy the higher torque and faster spool. i think i said it before, but i personally saw 2 high end shop built 2.3's last 2 events or less in a time attack format, not HPDE long sessions.

LetsGetThisDone

iTrader: (1)

I don't think those are what hurt the 2.3 setup. They're definitely a facotr, but I think it's piston speeds above 7500ish that are what hurt it, or maybe even in general. That being said, it'll still be reliable, it just might need a little more frequent refreshes. But, building true racecar, the motor should be getting gone through annually, at a minimum. Check ups prevent failures that ruin weekends.

killerpenguin21

iTrader: (20)

yeah theres multiple factors, and considering you spend the majority of a track sesion at almost 5k or higher you just cant expect a reasonable lifespan out of a 2.3 imho.

i can tell you on my setup im often looking for MORE rpm to extend gears out, if i had to drop the rev limit 1000rpm, i would not be happy.

nemsin

iTrader: (19)

2.0 and 2.2 4g63's seem to have proven the most reliable for circuit track use. I have mainly heard of 2.1 being used for 1/4 mile racing for high rpm limits to spin huge turbos.

kaj

iTrader: (60)

For anyone interested:

I found a California supplier for oil pans. The closest comparison would be the RaceFab pans. They will have the same features with exception of moving the oil pick up, the international shipping, wait, and cost LOL. They are not vendors, so i won't post pricing, options, etc. Just letting everyone know. PM me if you are interested.

ridenrunwv

I'm so glad you bumped this thread. I've been looking for a do it all build that can reliably be beaten on for extended periods of time and was looking at a 2.4.

A 2.4 LR hasn't been mentioned here. Would it be worth it to sacrifice spool and go 2.1 to have the most reliable setup? I do not have a block for a core but my stock crank might actually be fine because I just broke a rod.

LetsGetThisDone

iTrader: (1)

Put a 94mm crank with 159mm rods in the 2.4 block. You'll get a 2.235L motor that will be plenty reliable.

ridenrunwv

Think it would be worth the added cost if my stock crank is good?

LetsGetThisDone

iTrader: (1)

Yes, it's an extra 150cc of displacement.

Grimgrak

iTrader: (3)

I personally will be adding a swirlpot to help with cooling and increase the amount of coolant in the system. 2.3's never stand the durability test for road course stuff. Personally i'm sticking with 2.0L just to play it safe harmonics wise.

kaj

iTrader: (60)

i had the same thoughts. I heavily considered a 2.3 for road course work. I almost bit the bullet. The 2.0 just seemed to make the most sense. I didn't feel it was necessary.