2.4L 4G64 Built Short block setup, anyone with their Evo 8/9

N33d4sp33d · Feb 5, 2010, 12:36 PM

I am thinking of 2.4L 4G64 Short block setup for my mivec head...would like 800hp Safely...anyone has similar setup, which internals are good for the build, any recommended shops ? Idea of how much it cost to build one by reputable shop ?

Any info helps !

andrewzaragoza · Feb 5, 2010, 12:40 PM

there are a couple of shops who offer this. i know buschur does this as well as maperformance. there are a couple of threads around regarding these 4g63 builds.

*Evil Evo* · Feb 5, 2010, 12:51 PM

BR, 2.4, high hp/high rpm build? here is what id recommend. on page 11 is a link to the build and on the last page of that link the owner does a nice review after driving with the new engine for a couple weeks

JohnBradley · Feb 5, 2010, 12:54 PM

We just did one as well with a Black. Change the rods to Turbo Tuffs or an I beam of some other build, add Large turbo, profit.

JohnnyTSi · Feb 5, 2010, 04:19 PM

The 2.4 block rod/stroke ratio isn't particularly rev friendly (8000 is probably about the safe max rev limit). Going with a turbo capable of 800 will put you in a situation where your useable powerband is pretty small.

A long rod 2.4 can help offset the rev limitations some.

John-

JesseB · Feb 5, 2010, 04:23 PM

I think its more than fine with a good crankshaft, better than a 2.3. Look what the 2.4L K series with 100mm stroke rev to.

N33d4sp33d · Feb 5, 2010, 04:31 PM

I know SBR is known for building these 2.4L short blocks...but aside from the block, what needs to be modified to work with the mivec head ????

JohnnyTSi · Feb 5, 2010, 05:34 PM

really only three things that are "odd" with this build:

Oil supply for the MIVEC head Aaron (JohnBradley) posted some pics of an oil supply line here: (JohnBradley's 2.2 long rod build)
Water Pump needs modified or an adapter plate used
Head Gasket choices are slim, the Power Enterprises looks to be the best bet

The only other item of interest is to have the block machined for oil squirters or not. (I went with no squirters on mine)

John-

ryno529 · Feb 5, 2010, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseB

I think its more than fine with a good crankshaft, better than a 2.3. Look what the 2.4L K series with 100mm stroke rev to.

The rod ratio of the stroker 2.3 4G63 and rod ratio of the 2.4 4G64 are the same. 100mm stroke with 150mm rods. The rod ratio of the engine really determines RPM. There are ways around it like a lighter rotating assembly,stronger assembly or do a longer rod in the 4G64 which would change the rod ratio. The biggest difference between the 2 builds is cost a 4G64 core is a lot cheaper than an Evo core. This is why you see more people trying the 4G64 block.

JohnBradley · Feb 5, 2010, 06:34 PM

Ryno knows of what he speaks as does Johnny (he is def not a noob to the 4G63/4) I'd like to throw out there that I might know one or two things...not much more.

R/s is a small part of the equation I am starting to think and has been confirmed by a lot of the OGs that know what is going on (4G specific or not). Piston speed is far more critical than I used to think, well fully attribute anyway. Like Ryno says, get the weight out of the reciprocating mass.

R/TErnie · Feb 5, 2010, 06:46 PM

I would say that Ryno isn't making a fair comparison to say that the R/S ratio for the 100mm 4g63 would be the same as the 100mm 4g64.

Given the same compression height of the pistons (which is really what you want to keep constant...NOT rod length when you have a taller deck) You end up with a 6mm longer rod...making the R/S ratio better. There is a benefit to a taller deck and that is the R/S ratio...which means you'll be applying a much smaller load to the con rod @ BDC. The higher you rev the larger this load is and the harder it is to keep bearings in your engine.

Run a longer rod in a 4g64 block with the 100mm crank... it will live longer given the same rev's and loads.

SeanC · Feb 5, 2010, 08:19 PM

http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp...ion/index.html

ryno529 · Feb 5, 2010, 08:37 PM

I was just comparing the standard 2.3 stroker kit to a standard 4G64. Yes as i mentioned there are ways around the "bad" rod ratio of both set ups. You would need custom pistons and rods which are available to build a longer rod version of the 4G64. The standard 4G63 2.3 L and standard 4G64 share the same 1.5 rod ratio and even with custom pistons and rods you get a very minimal increase to 1.56 still not very good. I would rather see something around 1.7 + like the stock 4G63 or the 2.2 or 2.1 versions of the 4G64. For me personally the 2.3 and 2.4 are great street engines(torque) and even in long rod for should stay around 8500RPM max which is perfect for 95% of the Evos out there anyway. Shooting for 800 whp without spinning it up may prove to be difficult but i myself am actually trying it with a 2.3 lightweight crank,aluminum rod ,custom piston stroker on an earlier 6 bolt 4G63 for my Galant

N33d4sp33d · Feb 5, 2010, 09:05 PM

what abt these ingredients:

2.4L EVO VIII race block
OEM 100 MM crank
Manley I beam rods
Wiseco 8.8:1 .020"
ACL race bearings

AWD Motorsports · Feb 5, 2010, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N33d4sp33d

what abt these ingredients:

2.4L EVO VIII race block
OEM 100 MM crank
Manley I beam rods
Wiseco 8.8:1 .020"
ACL race bearings

8.8:1 compression IMO was for sometime long ago before good tuning and fuel was available.. 10:1 minimum is the only way i would be build an 800hp car today..

Below is a link to our 2.4L Mivec Evo.. Tomorrow we tune on FP BLACK..

AWD Motorsports " Bastard " Evo 8.5 makes 552whp/552tq on BBK Full!!!!