4g61t.org
http://4g61t.org/forum/

To Stroke or Destroke for AWD?
http://4g61t.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=24943		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Natedog [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:48 pm ]
Post subject:  To Stroke or Destroke for AWD?
I figured I'd ask for the AWD opinions on this one :D

As some of you already know, I'm slowly gathering parts for an AWD project. Don't worry, because I can't bring myself to cut up my current Turbo Mirage.

Anyway I scored a lower mileage G4CS a while back and have been pondering for quite some time on exactly what to do with it. Given that an AWD CSM is going to be roughly 2700 pounds and a 1g dsm weighing roughly 500 pounds more. Wouldn't it make since to either stick to a 2.0 or perhaps go with a 2.1? Basically I'm thinking that a car that light that rev's higher (less torque) is going to be easier to hook.

Discuss... Thanks
Author:  CaptainTonus [ Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:39 am ]
Post subject: 
A 2.1 is a complete waste of money. Sure, they're cool on paper, but totally impractical if you ask me. You'll never have a tranny that can shift at THAT high of an RPM, or a cylinder head that will flow at that high of an RPM unless you have a budget like Shep or Rau.

With that said, I also dis-like strokers very much, but my reasoning behind that is more bias than anything. I'm a hardcore 4G63 purist, and I think there's nothing better than an 88mm stroke and a 1.7:1 rod ratio--that's just me.

2.0's are way cheaper to build, all the parts are off-the-shelf, and everyone and their brother has built one before, so I'd say stick with that. What kind of setup do you plan to run anyway?
Author:  Natedog [ Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:55 am ]
Post subject: 
I plan something in the 35R range. The car will be primarily a weekend car, with the occasional 1/8th mile pass.

I must agree on the 2.1 though. For the money its not really enough displacement gain. When you crunch the numbers its really a 2.06...

I feel a built 2.0 will be plenty for my goals of mid to low 7's. I was more so wondering what people opinions were from a torque perspective with an AWD CSM :D
Author:  CaptainTonus [ Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:01 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I feel a built 2.0 will be plenty for my goals of mid to low 7's. I was more so wondering what people opinions were from a torque perspective with an AWD CSM :D
A 35R with a 2.0 is a great combo. Both of my AWD Colt friends out here run a 35R. One of them has an FP3065, and the other has a full Garrett 35R with a .63 a/r hot side. They are both complete monsters, and their powerband is just fine on the 2.0. Their cars feel like they're going to split in half once they come on power. I can't even imagine what an extra 50 lb/ft of torque would do, but they wouldn't be as much fun up top if you ask me. Horsepower wins races.
Author:  turbotom20g [ Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Quote:
Quote:
I feel a built 2.0 will be plenty for my goals of mid to low 7's. I was more so wondering what people opinions were from a torque perspective with an AWD CSM :D
A 35R with a 2.0 is a great combo. Both of my AWD Colt friends out here run a 35R. One of them has an FP3065, and the other has a full Garrett 35R with a .63 a/r hot side. They are both complete monsters, and their powerband is just fine on the 2.0. Their cars feel like they're going to split in half once they come on power. I can't even imagine what an extra 50 lb/ft of torque would do, but they wouldn't be as much fun up top if you ask me. Horsepower wins races.

What's your take on a automatic though? I mean 2.3 doesn't have top end power but great on the low end. Being that if your using a auto, seeing that autos have great top end, would you think that would be a great combo? I'm curious because I was thinking going 2.3 stroker w/auto in my elantra and haven decided if that's a good combo,lol.
Author:  CaptainTonus [ Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Quote:
What's your take on a automatic though? I mean 2.3 doesn't have top end power but great on the low end. Being that if your using a auto, seeing that autos have great top end, would you think that would be a great combo? I'm curious because I was thinking going 2.3 stroker w/auto in my elantra and haven decided if that's a good combo,lol.
Strokers seem to work better with autos. All that extra torque will tear up a manual tranny pretty quickly, an auto would probably hold up longer. In general, I am a big hater on strokers though--that's just my opinion, lots of people swear by them.
Author:  turbotom20g [ Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Quote:
Quote:
What's your take on a automatic though? I mean 2.3 doesn't have top end power but great on the low end. Being that if your using a auto, seeing that autos have great top end, would you think that would be a great combo? I'm curious because I was thinking going 2.3 stroker w/auto in my elantra and haven decided if that's a good combo,lol.
Strokers seem to work better with autos. All that extra torque will tear up a manual tranny pretty quickly, an auto would probably hold up longer. In general, I am a big hater on strokers though--that's just my opinion, lots of people swear by them.

Hmmmm...... Now you are making my gears turn,lol.
Author:  Mechacode [ Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: To Stroke or Destroke for AWD?
If you're going mostly 1/4mile or a ton of dd where you can use the extra torque, strokers are perfect for awd.
Author:  CaptainTonus [ Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: To Stroke or Destroke for AWD?
Quote:
If you're going mostly 1/4mile or a ton of dd where you can use the extra torque, strokers are perfect for awd.
I would argue that strokers are useless for 1/4-mile, but great for daily driving. In a full drag car you generally have a massive turbo and are spending lots of time in the higher RPM's. A stroker doesn't not do too well over 7,500rpm, no matter how huge your cams are or how much head work you have done. If you take a look at a majority of the successful drag DSM's, EVO's, and CSM's, very few of them are sporting stroker motors. Now for daily driving where you're going from stoplight to stoplight, all that extra torque and mid-range is great.
Author:  Mechacode [ Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: To Stroke or Destroke for AWD?
For awd drag, I'd take the extra torque to launch and set the stutter at 4500. Bet it would pull crazy 60' times.
Author:  CaptainTonus [ Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: To Stroke or Destroke for AWD?
Quote:
For awd drag, I'd take the extra torque to launch and set the stutter at 4500. Bet it would pull crazy 60' times.
Only if you're on slicks. It's the same thing as setting the stutter to 7,000rpm on a 2.0 and letting go. Also depends on what turbo you're running. Lots of people figure they'll go HUGE with a stroker because it will spool faster, but turbos like that need high RPM's to be fully taken advantage of, and you can't rev a stroker high enough to really take advantage of it, so I think you're better off with a good ole-fashioned 2.0 liter.
Author:  drewgray [ Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: To Stroke or Destroke for AWD?
There is a reason ALL of the fast guys run the 2.0 and not the 2.3 or 2.4.

If he already has the 2.4 crank, then the 2.1 isn't that far off budget as a lot of the better rods price is the same for an off the shelf unit as opposed to a custom one. Pistons aren't too expensive either. But the 2.0 can go as high as you'd like also. It's all preference.
Author:  CaptainTonus [ Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: To Stroke or Destroke for AWD?
Quote:
There is a reason ALL of the fast guys run the 2.0 and not the 2.3 or 2.4.

If he already has the 2.4 crank, then the 2.1 isn't that far off budget as a lot of the better rods price is the same for an off the shelf unit as opposed to a custom one. Pistons aren't too expensive either. But the 2.0 can go as high as you'd like also. It's all preference.
The 2.1 doesn't use a 2.4 crank, it uses a 2.0 crank in a 2.4 block with a 1mm larger bore to get a perfect square 88x88mm bore and stroke. It's a lot more expensive because you need custom rods and custom pistons, not to mention the extra machine work requires to put oil squirters in the 2.4 block (if you decide to run them.) 2.1's are really cool on paper, like I said, just not really practical in any way.
Author:  TrevTec [ Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: To Stroke or Destroke for AWD?
I built a 2.1 liter, 10:1 compression EVO engine. 4G64 block, EVO crank, custom pistons and rods. Picked up nearly 80ft lbs of torque over the 9:1 2.0 that was in it and it spooled 900 RPMs sooner. Im sure a little could be from the compression and a little from the displacment. He loves the car now, and on E85 and 34psi with 650whp/550 ft lbs(Mustang Dyno) and full boost by 4900 I dont blame him.

Its what I will probably use in my Mirage once I swap to a Borg S372.
Author:  TrevTec [ Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: To Stroke or Destroke for AWD?
It was an 87 bore X 88 stroke also
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC-05:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/