2.3 strocker

hey i have a spare 4g63 laying around and i was thinking of doing the strocker kit then droping the engine in my car. if someone could tell me the plus and minus of the kit that would be great thanks

Well with a 2.3 you get more displacement which means more power but you can't rev quite as high as a 2.0 but the difference is minimal. It will spool larger turbos faster than a 2.0. But It can be more expensive to build a 2.3 stroker, as opposed to just building it up as a 2.0

Unless you are shooting for 600+ hp, I wouldnt.

okay so dont do it? and i was reading the desciptions of some of these kits and they r saying that ill red line at 8500 instead of 7000.

If you plan on building a stroker then you better plan on getting DSMlink, and with that you can set the rev to whatever you want, so technically you rev to what you want. Like everyone else said, you'll have more displacement which will spool large turbos faster, but unless you're going for monster power, there isn't really a purpose in it. The stock 6-bolt will easily handle 450hp and 500+ if you know what you're doing.

I have a stroker and it's great. I say do it, it's not that much more than building a 2.0 block. My evoIII 16g spools instantly. The reving issue doesn't matter, if you think about it you will have to build the transmission for a higher reving 2.0. It's really up to you and where you want to go with your car...

I'd go stroker without thinking about it. The stage 2 kit from sbr will handle over 900awhp and is less than $1500 with free shipping

:1: i would stroke so fast! the power/torque is sweet...:cool:

:1: i would stroke so fast! the power/torque is sweet...:cool:
:rofl:

That sounded so wrong. :lol:

:rofl:

That sounded so wrong. :lol:
:evillol:

what one is better? 2.3 or 2.4 stroker? 2.3 is more commen i noticed.

2.4 Is more expensive and not worth it IMO

2.4 is more for high end torque i think? and 2.3 for better low end and better 1/4 mile?

EDIT* also is there any difference between the 6 and 7 bolt strokers since you are using different crank and bearings? Should not be any crankwalk issues in the 7 bolt block correct?

are talking about the difference between a 4g63 storker and a 4g64 or a 2.4 4g63?

um not sure lol, the 4g63 block as a 2.3 or a 2.4 stroker

NO crankwalk issues tho to worry about since you are using different crank and bearings?

None that I know of. the only 2.4 kit for the 4g63 that I've seen is the brian crower kit and thats $3000+ and will only handle 600hp and the $3500 kit will handle 800 crank hp whereas the $1500 stage II 2.3 kit will handle 900awhp for $1500

or, black knight, you could sell the motor to me :-D

I haven't heard of any 2.3's walking, and I believe that 90% of the strokers out there are 7 bolts anyways. I'm going to go with the 6-bolt stroker when I do mine though, not sure why, I've just always had a gut instinct to do a 6-bolt stroker.

About the 2.4 stroker...I think you're getting things mixed up. The 2.3 stroker utilizes a crankshaft from a 2.4 motor and therefore some people get it mixed up and call it a 2.4 stroker motor, when in reality when you measure the displacement, it's actually a 2.3.

You can however throw in a 2.4 block with a 4g63 head. That is a 2.4, not necessarily a stroker, but you can end up with 2.4l displacement.

You can however throw in a 2.4 block with a 4g63 head. That is a 2.4, not necessarily a stroker, but you can end up with 2.4l displacement.

This is true, but it's MUCH more fun to do the 2.3 stroker. :D

:lol: Yeah... if I were to put a high displacement engine in the Talon, it would definately be a 6 bolt 2.4. Hmmmmm....

SBR actually sells a 2.4L stroker kit for the 63 that utilizes a 86mm bore

7 bolt strokers dont walk??? THATS AWSOME!!! *idea*

7 bolt strokers dont walk??? THATS AWSOME!!! *idea*

Anything can technically walk, but I've never heard of one walking.

for example my buddies ranger walked on him

There are plenty of 7 bolt strokers that walked. I wouldn't attempt to stroke a 7 bolt unless it has not walked yet and doesn't seem like it will (high mileage). If I go this route in the EVO I won't have a choice, but the EVO 7 bolts are obviously not the same as the early 2g 7 bolts in the crankwalk department. :)

A full 2.4 is really still a 2.35 unless it's been bored. A 2.0 block bored 60 over will result in the same exact displacement, which makes sense since a 2.4 is the 100mm stroke with the 86.5 bore, same thing aside from the 6mm change in the piston/deck.

The only real reason I see to go to the full 2.4 is to use the stroker style pistons with the longer rods for a long rod motor, which magnus started several years ago. They are reving them pretty high, around 9k rpm. You can also use this same block to do the 2.1, which is really a 2.14, or about half of the usual .3l gain, without the rpm penalty. People are tossing rod bearings in these things lately though in the EVOs. Always a compromise I guess. :)

I think it goes without saying that I'm a stroker fan. My last three motors were strokers. It's the only way to run a huge turbo without a ton of lag on a daily driver. And you also get 15-20% more airflow at the same boost, which is important for pump gas power.

early 2g 7 bolts in the crankwalk department. :)
Are you saying early 2g's (95-97) are more likely to walk then the later 2g's? (97-99)?

That is correct. There was a thrust bearing design change in 97 for the 98 model year, and the later 2Gs seems to walk far less often. I used to just think it was because the mileage was much lower, but now they have obviously been around long enough to get up to the same mileage the early 2Gs tend to shit the bed at.

SWEET! thats REALLY REALLY good info to here kevin. thanks!:iceslolan

well im happy to hear that...im sure its still something to watch out for though. at least the odds are lower.

:1: