rev limit of built 2.3 stroker???

just wanting to know some educated opinions on what the rev limit of a built 2.3 stroker block is... any info would be helpful... im wondering because my buddy can rev his 2.0 to 10.5 and was wondering if u could rev the 2.3 anywhere close to that

thanks

 

[Terry Posten]

I would love to see a 4G63T rev to 10.5K and - 1 live longer than a few pulls, 2 - shift into the next gear.


Now, it all depends on what you mean by "built"? That term is so over played and means nothing.

Without a girdle, you may see 8K but if you want it to live, don't go past 7.5K very often.

With a girdle, 8.5K.

Can 2.3s rev more? Yes, but it wont last.

 

[jared50438]

and depending on what your turbo setup and whats in your cylinder head for parts.

 

[BadVr4]

i've seen them rev pretty high, 9k rpms is not uncommon in a built 2.3

 

[3rdstrikedsm]

10.5 on a 2.0 is doable if built right, Most 2.3 rev 9k when properly built but I prolly would not make a habbit of it our oil pumps don't like to sustain high rpm opperation.

 

my buddy has only hit 10.5 once but his motor is just fine... he normally revs it to 9.5-10...

i would ideally like to rev somewhere in between 8k-9k...

hks272s and buscher stage 3 head would be in the picture..

garret 60trim for now but i would like to go bigger...

im just trying to compare the 2.0 and the 2.3 blocks in what would be best for me...

i love the low end torque for driving of the 2.3 but if i cant rev as high as i want and its of course more expensive than just a 2.0 then its not worth it..

basically my car is dragstrip/street/weekend fun car so yes some reliability is wanted

 

[Terry Posten]

I will not do another 2.3 if I was to do it all over again.

Stay 2.0 and it will last longer if all other specs are the same.

 

[boostedinaz]

So you are building your motor around a redline RPM. I don't see any of this lasting long.

Why not build a motor and turbo so they compliment each other, dyno it and see what the power curve looks like. Once that is done then base how far you pull the engine on were it makes power and max torque.

To many people just want to say, "I pull it to 11teen billion RPM," for no good reason.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif

 

^ Very good point. Regardless of what displacement engine you build, our trans don't like to shift at high rpm so who really cares if you can rev it to 10k. I don't take my 2.3 past 7,500rpm and it's a BLAST to drive. Makes gobs of power between 3500-7500 and for a street/strip car that's perfect.

 

exactly, its all about usable power or power under the curve. You can be very fast and only rev to 8k. Like posted above though, if you have cams and a valvetrain, but for safer high rpm fun you should also consider the weight of your pistons and rods, if you have a girdle or not, arp mainstuds, etc. I personally prefer a 2.0 but I can see the appeal of a stroker. It all depends on what you want, if you want to have a fast car then biuld your engine accordingly and dont rev it past its limits, if you want to show off and tell everybody you rev your stroker to infinity-grand rpm, then go for it, just accept the consequences (when they soon follow).

 

[boostedinaz]

Just to add to what other have said. If you want a stroker and want to spin it then you need to pony up for better parts. The idea of a stroker, IMO, is to make more power under the curve. You could possibly can make the same 500 AWHP as a 2.0 with less RPM and a better curve. While it is fun to say I pull to 10 rpm that is VERY hard on any motor and will affect its longevity.

 

like i said before i never wanted to rev to 10k.... only like 8-9... and the only reason im wanting to rev that high is because eventually i want to get past the 60 trim and go to a 4202r which will take a little to spool... making 6-700 would make me happy... but my ultimate goal is a street car that can run 10s all day long and still have ability to drive to the track...

im not trying to be flamed or critisized on my goals (which is why i never stated them in the first place) i just wanted useful and educated information...

couldnt get to all the points i wanted to say because im being rushed but ill get back to it after more responses

thanks

 

[Brianawd]

If later down the road you really are going to got to a 4202 then stay 2.0. A 2.3 will rev to 9k but its life will be shortened because of the rod ratio and the load its putting on the piston. Your best bet would be to go 2.0 or 2.4

Forgot to add you can also look at the 2.1 and 2.2 as they have a better rod ratio's. But they are going to cost you big $.

 

[strokin4dr]

Quoting Brianawd:
A 2.3 will rev to 9k but its life will be shortened because of the rod ratio and the load its putting on the piston. Your best bet would be to go 2.0 or 2.4




A 2.3 stroker and a 2.4 have the same rod ratios, piston speed, etc, the only difference would be the bore size.
I have a stroker setup and I would say stick with a 2.0 if you want to rev the hell out of it.

 

dont exactly want to rev the hell out of it... just thought it would be better to rev higher for the bigger turbo...

if the 2.3 reving to 7.5-8k with that setup brings the better power/powerband than a 2.0 reving to 8.5-9k or more then that also helps make the decision

 

The 2.3 has 15% larger displacement than the 2.0. I would expect it to produce 15% more exhaust gas to drive the turbo than the 2.0 at any given RPM, assuming same compression ratios. So it should be able to accomplish at 8500 RPM what a 2.0 can do at 10,000 RPM, in terms of spinning a turbine and compressor. HP will be different because it will occur at a lower RPM compared to the 2.0 but may be offset by higher torque.
Mike R.

 

thats useful information... so in that same equation a 2.0 at 9k would be comparable to a 2.3 at 7650... granted i know its not the same but its a nice comparasin

 

Quoting mj_rosenfeld:
The 2.3 has 15% larger displacement than the 2.0. I would expect it to produce 15% more exhaust gas to drive the turbo than the 2.0 at any given RPM, assuming same compression ratios. So it should be able to accomplish at 8500 RPM what a 2.0 can do at 10,000 RPM, in terms of spinning a turbine and compressor. HP will be different because it will occur at a lower RPM compared to the 2.0 but may be offset by higher torque.
Mike R.



I'm not sure you can draw a linear relationship. To my knowledge, the 2.4 makes more torque in part because the combustion event acts longer on the piston due to the increases stroke. But all things being equal, when comparing the 2.0L to the 2.3L, the combustion area is still the same. Then again, at the same compression ratio for each engine, the 2.3L will have more air to mix with fuel.

 

I also don't think that anybody has ultimately made more power with a stroker than a 2.0L. I could be wrong though.

 

The 2.3 won't make more max HP because it runs at lower RPM. HP = Torque*RPM (with constants for units consistency). It will make more torque due to longer crank throw, so at a given RPM it may make about the same HP. But it won't go as high.

My point was that an engine is an air pump and the 2.3 puffs 15% more air through it at any given RPM than a 2.0. It is the volume of expanding combustion gasses that drives the turbocharger, so a 2.3 should be able to drive a turbo of a given size and producing compression at a given CFM and pressure at 15% lower RPM than a 2.0. All other things being equal such as compression ratio, amount of fuel proportioned to the volume of intake air, etcetera.

Mike R.