Racah15
Well-known member
2.5k full boost? very creative but not sure if its possible. 3k maybe. I thought you meant you wanted to spool by then not full boost. if you want full boost @ 2k rpm, do an ls7 swap. Hahaha
The Top Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 Resource
Join the best E39A 1991-1992 Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 community and document your GVR4 journey. Login to browse without most ads.
Theoretical utlimate street motor - 2k full boost goal.
- Thread starter tsitalon1
- Start date
pagosadsm
Well-known member
if money is no problem, why don't you supercharge with a turbo. Ray Peters on dsm tuners has a blog on his modd. There is no turbo lag with this set up. I think he had like 450 hp at 3500 rpm
Rick
Rick
EHmotorsports
Well-known member
Or twin charge using something like a 13b and Hx. Not a calculated idea just throwing out small quick spool turbo with a good flowing turbo for top end idea.
tsitalon1
Well-known member
pagosadsm - Ray Peters ride is impressive, though I wonder what can be done with just single charging..
Lets try this:
2.6L 4g64 @ 10:1 - 15psi
Cyclone intake
EvoX turbo manifold
93 octane
Cams (though not sure what...)
Cam gears?
Would this combo reach FULL boost (15psi) by 2.5k?
Would it achieve 400bhp on 15psi?
Lets try this:
2.6L 4g64 @ 10:1 - 15psi
Cyclone intake
EvoX turbo manifold
93 octane
Cams (though not sure what...)
Cam gears?
Would this combo reach FULL boost (15psi) by 2.5k?
Would it achieve 400bhp on 15psi?
cheekychimp
Well-known member
That was why I suggested the Borg Warner EFR 7064. Makes about 450 hp (perfect for the OPs goal) and is supposed to spool like a 13b. I don't think that this requires either a huge compression ratio or excessively high boost. The big question for me is what does the OP actually wish to accomplish by full boost at such low rpms? If it is a prerequisite for something specific then I guess we need to address it but given that the OP said this was a street motor I am wondering how driveable and reliable this will be.
In fact rather than stating "full boost" wouldn't it be more productive/constructive to ascertain what sort of hp the OP wants at 2000 rpms or what driving characteristics. 450 hp at 3500 rpms is definitely my kind of car believe me but I am betting that that means full boost was attained right about that point. As southcaliVR4 pointed out way back, a turbo that supports 400 bhp won't spool see full boost at 2K. In fact someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a variable vane turbo actually achieve it's purpose by achieving better spool at lower boost pressures? In other words I would suggest even a variable vane turbo won't be at full boost by 2K, it will just be more efficient at that point and the vanes will adjust as full/higher boost is reached.
I'm not trying to nit-pick here, I am just trying to understand better what net result the OP wishes to achieve in order to have a better idea of how to get there.
For example the torque curve above comes from a 2.0 long rod engine on a bigger turbo. That is the flattest torque curve I have seen so far. Hence my interest in a long rod engine. I personally would be interested to see similar or better torque curves from other configurations to see what other options are out there!
In fact rather than stating "full boost" wouldn't it be more productive/constructive to ascertain what sort of hp the OP wants at 2000 rpms or what driving characteristics. 450 hp at 3500 rpms is definitely my kind of car believe me but I am betting that that means full boost was attained right about that point. As southcaliVR4 pointed out way back, a turbo that supports 400 bhp won't spool see full boost at 2K. In fact someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a variable vane turbo actually achieve it's purpose by achieving better spool at lower boost pressures? In other words I would suggest even a variable vane turbo won't be at full boost by 2K, it will just be more efficient at that point and the vanes will adjust as full/higher boost is reached.
I'm not trying to nit-pick here, I am just trying to understand better what net result the OP wishes to achieve in order to have a better idea of how to get there.
For example the torque curve above comes from a 2.0 long rod engine on a bigger turbo. That is the flattest torque curve I have seen so far. Hence my interest in a long rod engine. I personally would be interested to see similar or better torque curves from other configurations to see what other options are out there!
Last edited:
EHmotorsports
Well-known member
Quoting tsitalon1:
pagosadsm - Ray Peters ride is impressive, though I wonder what can be done with just single charging..
Lets try this:
2.6L 4g64 @ 10:1 - 15psi
Cyclone intake
EvoX turbo manifold
93 octane
Cams (though not sure what...)
Cam gears?
Would this combo reach FULL boost (15psi) by 2.5k?
Would it achieve 400bhp on 15psi?
If the turbos airflow will alow 400hp at 15 psi.
pagosadsm - Ray Peters ride is impressive, though I wonder what can be done with just single charging..
Lets try this:
2.6L 4g64 @ 10:1 - 15psi
Cyclone intake
EvoX turbo manifold
93 octane
Cams (though not sure what...)
Cam gears?
Would this combo reach FULL boost (15psi) by 2.5k?
Would it achieve 400bhp on 15psi?
If the turbos airflow will alow 400hp at 15 psi.
Jesus_Negros
Well-known member
Only problem with a 2.6 is finding a someone who balance it perfectly and what cam choice would you pick?
My preference will always be a destroked 2.4 to 2.2 with 159mm rods and a 3586 size turbo and a well built head. Awesome rod ratio great 2.3 like lowend and 2.0 or better like reving. Dont want it to have too much horsepower just a great powerband and response mmmm
My preference will always be a destroked 2.4 to 2.2 with 159mm rods and a 3586 size turbo and a well built head. Awesome rod ratio great 2.3 like lowend and 2.0 or better like reving. Dont want it to have too much horsepower just a great powerband and response mmmm
tektic
Well-known member
I like the idea of a destroked 2.4. if I had a block before I had my machine work done that's how I would have done it.
I have eagle 150mm rods and 94mm crank with Manley stroker pistons. To be mated with gsc 268 Cams, portedhead, ported stock 2g manifolds, 16g turbo, Chinese 7cm hot side w/ 34mm wg ported for creep reduction, JDM cyclone manifold, 2g Maf, and ets intercooler.
My goal was off boost torque and over all pumping efficiency. I'll let you know how it turns out. If I ever get my engine back from the builder.
I have eagle 150mm rods and 94mm crank with Manley stroker pistons. To be mated with gsc 268 Cams, portedhead, ported stock 2g manifolds, 16g turbo, Chinese 7cm hot side w/ 34mm wg ported for creep reduction, JDM cyclone manifold, 2g Maf, and ets intercooler.
My goal was off boost torque and over all pumping efficiency. I'll let you know how it turns out. If I ever get my engine back from the builder.
Jesus_Negros
Well-known member
The added deck height of the 2.4 block will let you go with long rods up to 162mm, which will be a pain in an ass to fit but will fit none the less. R&R 159mm rods cost me $838 custom made.
CutlassJim
Well-known member
Theoretical utlimate street motor - 2k full boost goal?
Twin turbo LSx?
Twin turbo LSx?
Racah15
Well-known member
Quoting Turbro_Negro:
Only problem with a 2.6 is finding a someone who balance it perfectly and what cam choice would you pick?
My preference will always be a destroked 2.4 to 2.2 with 159mm rods and a 3586 size turbo and a well built head. Awesome rod ratio great 2.3 like lowend and 2.0 or better like reving. Dont want it to have too much horsepower just a great powerband and response mmmm
Any reputable shop could do it. It's no different than balancing a 2.3 etc. Balancing is balancing. Also, with the correct balance, that setup should be able to hit 7k no problem. The OP wants a flat torque curve, not a top end engine. I completely agree that a long rod 2.2l is a very balanced setup with torque and top end, but in this case it may not be the answer.
OP: I would recommend this setup. Now everyone please,for future reference, this is just MY recommendation, it's not the end all be all, it's an opinion.
-2.4L G4CS block stroked to 2.6L *comes as a kit with crank rods and pistons*-
-ARP L19 headstuds
-Felpro Permatorque headgasket(requires 50RA finish on head)
-2g Head
-Stainless steel ENGNBLDR valves (Includes 3g lifters and valve guides)
-Kiggly beehives/Supertech dual valve springs
-Kelford 264/264 cams/FP3Xs
-Billet Evo316g* (Can be purchased through TL/A or FP) (*Evo 3 16g has made 405 on a 2.3L stroker here at 6200ft on a Dyno Dynamics dynometer. So 400hp is possible on these turbos)
-Possible port job on the head
-And if you can afford it (It will probably be out soon), The kiggly Mivec in a dsm 4g63 setup, although it requires a custom intake cam by comp, so maybe buy a FP3x exhaust cam instead
Only problem with a 2.6 is finding a someone who balance it perfectly and what cam choice would you pick?
My preference will always be a destroked 2.4 to 2.2 with 159mm rods and a 3586 size turbo and a well built head. Awesome rod ratio great 2.3 like lowend and 2.0 or better like reving. Dont want it to have too much horsepower just a great powerband and response mmmm
Any reputable shop could do it. It's no different than balancing a 2.3 etc. Balancing is balancing. Also, with the correct balance, that setup should be able to hit 7k no problem. The OP wants a flat torque curve, not a top end engine. I completely agree that a long rod 2.2l is a very balanced setup with torque and top end, but in this case it may not be the answer.
OP: I would recommend this setup. Now everyone please,for future reference, this is just MY recommendation, it's not the end all be all, it's an opinion.
-2.4L G4CS block stroked to 2.6L *comes as a kit with crank rods and pistons*-
-ARP L19 headstuds
-Felpro Permatorque headgasket(requires 50RA finish on head)
-2g Head
-Stainless steel ENGNBLDR valves (Includes 3g lifters and valve guides)
-Kiggly beehives/Supertech dual valve springs
-Kelford 264/264 cams/FP3Xs
-Billet Evo316g* (Can be purchased through TL/A or FP) (*Evo 3 16g has made 405 on a 2.3L stroker here at 6200ft on a Dyno Dynamics dynometer. So 400hp is possible on these turbos)
-Possible port job on the head
-And if you can afford it (It will probably be out soon), The kiggly Mivec in a dsm 4g63 setup, although it requires a custom intake cam by comp, so maybe buy a FP3x exhaust cam instead
tsitalon1
Well-known member
Quoting cheekychimp:
That was why I suggested the Borg Warner EFR 7064. Makes about 450 hp (perfect for the OPs goal) and is supposed to spool like a 13b. I don't think that this requires either a huge compression ratio or excessively high boost. The big question for me is what does the OP actually wish to accomplish by full boost at such low rpms? If it is a prerequisite for something specific then I guess we need to address it but given that the OP said this was a street motor I am wondering how driveable and reliable this will be.
In fact rather than stating "full boost" wouldn't it be more productive/constructive to ascertain what sort of hp the OP wants at 2000 rpms or what driving characteristics. 450 hp at 3500 rpms is definitely my kind of car believe me but I am betting that that means full boost was attained right about that point. As southcaliVR4 pointed out way back, a turbo that supports 400 bhp won't spool see full boost at 2K. In fact someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a variable vane turbo actually achieve it's purpose by achieving better spool at lower boost pressures? In other words I would suggest even a variable vane turbo won't be at full boost by 2K, it will just be more efficient at that point and the vanes will adjust as full/higher boost is reached.
I'm not trying to nit-pick here, I am just trying to understand better what net result the OP wishes to achieve in order to be better advise how to get there.
For example the torque curve above comes from a 2.0 long rod engine on a bigger turbo. That is the flattest torque curve I have seen so far. Hence my interest in a long rod engine. I personally would be interested to see similar or better torque curves from other configurations to see what other options are out there!
Hey Paul, to be 100% honest, I'm not sure what I'm after. Just curious to see what's possible.
I think we are on the same page in that we would like to have as much torque as possible as soon as possible, thus eliminating any lag.
I'm looking for as much power throughout the largest powerband we can get without raising the rpm limit. Ideally I would like 300+ ft/bs from 2.5k-7k.
My application is purely DD street car. Sure it could also be used for other aaplications (autoX) but I would only be using it for DD duties, at least for now.
I have no experience and haven't read at all about the Borg Warner turbo, but I like what you said about it's ability to provide adequate airflow for 450BHP yet spool like a 13b. Not sure how it's doing it...it's not BB or VV right?
In any event, what would happen if we pair the following:
2.6 Stroker @9:1 compression
Borg Warner EFR 7064
Cyclone intake or Kiggly mivec (or both)
93 octane
The more I read about the 2.6 stroker, the more I like it for DD duties. I just don't know how smooth of a motor it would be. As I mentioned before, I hated the vibration caused by the 2.3 Magnus motor I had. I do not want to go through that again!
That was why I suggested the Borg Warner EFR 7064. Makes about 450 hp (perfect for the OPs goal) and is supposed to spool like a 13b. I don't think that this requires either a huge compression ratio or excessively high boost. The big question for me is what does the OP actually wish to accomplish by full boost at such low rpms? If it is a prerequisite for something specific then I guess we need to address it but given that the OP said this was a street motor I am wondering how driveable and reliable this will be.
In fact rather than stating "full boost" wouldn't it be more productive/constructive to ascertain what sort of hp the OP wants at 2000 rpms or what driving characteristics. 450 hp at 3500 rpms is definitely my kind of car believe me but I am betting that that means full boost was attained right about that point. As southcaliVR4 pointed out way back, a turbo that supports 400 bhp won't spool see full boost at 2K. In fact someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a variable vane turbo actually achieve it's purpose by achieving better spool at lower boost pressures? In other words I would suggest even a variable vane turbo won't be at full boost by 2K, it will just be more efficient at that point and the vanes will adjust as full/higher boost is reached.
I'm not trying to nit-pick here, I am just trying to understand better what net result the OP wishes to achieve in order to be better advise how to get there.
For example the torque curve above comes from a 2.0 long rod engine on a bigger turbo. That is the flattest torque curve I have seen so far. Hence my interest in a long rod engine. I personally would be interested to see similar or better torque curves from other configurations to see what other options are out there!
Hey Paul, to be 100% honest, I'm not sure what I'm after. Just curious to see what's possible.
I think we are on the same page in that we would like to have as much torque as possible as soon as possible, thus eliminating any lag.
I'm looking for as much power throughout the largest powerband we can get without raising the rpm limit. Ideally I would like 300+ ft/bs from 2.5k-7k.
My application is purely DD street car. Sure it could also be used for other aaplications (autoX) but I would only be using it for DD duties, at least for now.
I have no experience and haven't read at all about the Borg Warner turbo, but I like what you said about it's ability to provide adequate airflow for 450BHP yet spool like a 13b. Not sure how it's doing it...it's not BB or VV right?
In any event, what would happen if we pair the following:
2.6 Stroker @9:1 compression
Borg Warner EFR 7064
Cyclone intake or Kiggly mivec (or both)
93 octane
The more I read about the 2.6 stroker, the more I like it for DD duties. I just don't know how smooth of a motor it would be. As I mentioned before, I hated the vibration caused by the 2.3 Magnus motor I had. I do not want to go through that again!
tsitalon1
Well-known member
Quoting Racah15:
Quoting Turbro_Negro:
The OP wants a flat torque curve, not a top end engine. I completely agree that a long rod 2.2l is a very balanced setup with torque and top end, but in this case it may not be the answer.
OP: I would recommend this setup. Now everyone please,for future reference, this is just MY recommendation, it's not the end all be all, it's an opinion.
-2.4L G4CS block stroked to 2.6L *comes as a kit with crank rods and pistons*-
-ARP L19 headstuds
-Felpro Permatorque headgasket(requires 50RA finish on head)
-2g Head
-Stainless steel ENGNBLDR valves (Includes 3g lifters and valve guides)
-Kiggly beehives/Supertech dual valve springs
-Kelford 264/264 cams/FP3Xs
-Billet Evo316g* (Can be purchased through TL/A or FP) (*Evo 3 16g has made 405 on a 2.3L stroker here at 6200ft on a Dyno Dynamics dynometer. So 400hp is possible on these turbos)
-Possible port job on the head
-And if you can afford it (It will probably be out soon), The kiggly Mivec in a dsm 4g63 setup, although it requires a custom intake cam by comp, so maybe buy a FP3x exhaust cam instead
Yep, starting to head in the 2.6L direction..
Though Paul's thoughts on the Borg Warner turbo are very interesting.
Quoting Turbro_Negro:
The OP wants a flat torque curve, not a top end engine. I completely agree that a long rod 2.2l is a very balanced setup with torque and top end, but in this case it may not be the answer.
OP: I would recommend this setup. Now everyone please,for future reference, this is just MY recommendation, it's not the end all be all, it's an opinion.
-2.4L G4CS block stroked to 2.6L *comes as a kit with crank rods and pistons*-
-ARP L19 headstuds
-Felpro Permatorque headgasket(requires 50RA finish on head)
-2g Head
-Stainless steel ENGNBLDR valves (Includes 3g lifters and valve guides)
-Kiggly beehives/Supertech dual valve springs
-Kelford 264/264 cams/FP3Xs
-Billet Evo316g* (Can be purchased through TL/A or FP) (*Evo 3 16g has made 405 on a 2.3L stroker here at 6200ft on a Dyno Dynamics dynometer. So 400hp is possible on these turbos)
-Possible port job on the head
-And if you can afford it (It will probably be out soon), The kiggly Mivec in a dsm 4g63 setup, although it requires a custom intake cam by comp, so maybe buy a FP3x exhaust cam instead
Yep, starting to head in the 2.6L direction..
Though Paul's thoughts on the Borg Warner turbo are very interesting.
Last edited:
PJGross
Well-known member
300 ftlb tq @ 2500 rpm = 142 hp
300 ftlb tq @ 7000 rpm = 400 hp
Just putting things into perspective as far as what a flat tq curve will get.
Why not just throw a 50-XX shot of nitrous on an a 16G setup and be done with it?
Yes, daily driver considerations.....
1) WOT switch
2) window switch from 2250-3500 (or where ever you intersect the spool up curve for non-nitrous)
I wouldn't imagine you would go through that much nitrous and you wouldn't have to do anything exotic.
How many times a day would you be dropping the hammer at so low rpm anyway? But with such a small RPM window you wouldnt be on the gas too much, and you would have a great chemical intercoolering effect, too.
-PJ
300 ftlb tq @ 7000 rpm = 400 hp
Just putting things into perspective as far as what a flat tq curve will get.
Why not just throw a 50-XX shot of nitrous on an a 16G setup and be done with it?
Yes, daily driver considerations.....
1) WOT switch
2) window switch from 2250-3500 (or where ever you intersect the spool up curve for non-nitrous)
I wouldn't imagine you would go through that much nitrous and you wouldn't have to do anything exotic.
How many times a day would you be dropping the hammer at so low rpm anyway? But with such a small RPM window you wouldnt be on the gas too much, and you would have a great chemical intercoolering effect, too.
-PJ
tsitalon1
Well-known member
No, no power adders.
I don't just want this low rpm power for WOT.
If we can actually get 300ft/lbs at 2500, it will significantly improve driveability and part throttle response.
I don't just want this low rpm power for WOT.
If we can actually get 300ft/lbs at 2500, it will significantly improve driveability and part throttle response.
4thStroke
Well-known member
Just buy a Holset, all of your wildest early spool and high horsepower dreams will come true.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hsugh.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hsugh.gif
Jesus_Negros
Well-known member
Quoting tsitalon1:
If we can actually get 300ft/lbs at 2500, it will significantly improve driveability and part throttle response.
Sound like you need a v8 brah
If we can actually get 300ft/lbs at 2500, it will significantly improve driveability and part throttle response.
Sound like you need a v8 brah
cheekychimp
Well-known member
Quoting tsitalon1:
Hey Paul, to be 100% honest, I'm not sure what I'm after. Just curious to see what's possible.
I think we are on the same page in that we would like to have as much torque as possible as soon as possible, thus eliminating any lag.
I'm looking for as much power throughout the largest powerband we can get without raising the rpm limit. Ideally I would like 300+ ft/bs from 2.5k-7k.
My application is purely DD street car. Sure it could also be used for other aaplications (autoX) but I would only be using it for DD duties, at least for now.
I have no experience and haven't read at all about the Borg Warner turbo, but I like what you said about it's ability to provide adequate airflow for 450BHP yet spool like a 13b. Not sure how it's doing it...it's not BB or VV right?
In any event, what would happen if we pair the following:
2.6 Stroker @9:1 compression
Borg Warner EFR 7064
Cyclone intake or Kiggly mivec (or both)
93 octane
The more I read about the 2.6 stroker, the more I like it for DD duties. I just don't know how smooth of a motor it would be. As I mentioned before, I hated the vibration caused by the 2.3 Magnus motor I had. I do not want to go through that again!
tsitalon1,
Before we start what's your name? I feel stupid calling you "tsitalon1".
First, it is no crime to not know what you want out of the car. Dyno figures are dyno figures. Two cars can put down similar power figures and be completely different to drive. So some of this is going to boil down to how happy you are with how the car feels rather than what the specs are on paper.
Second, there is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, sometimes it net results, sometimes it doesn't. No big deal, often these threads reveal a ton of information even if not all of it is directly relevant to the original post. We all learn from it so as long as the discussions remain constructive and respectful we all gain.
Now that said, I don't think there is anything wrong with what you are trying to do but you need to either understand or if you already understand then you need to stop and think about the implications of what you are saying.
"Full boost" is a meaningless term. Up to a point getting full boost at even 2K is actually possibly. Use a small enough snail, enough displacement and the correct cams and you can spool pretty much instantaneously. But you are going to run out of that powerband very, very quickly.
You asked about that 2.6 litre stroker on the EFR 7064. Well like yourself I'm skeptical that a true 450 hp turbo can spool like a 13b but lets just say it produces more power than an E316G and spools faster. Couple that with a high(er) compression 2.6 litre engine, Cyclone and even a MIVEC head and yes I think you'll get lots of low down torque but I don't necessarily think you'll get that long flat torque curve. I think you will spike, put an absolute sh**load of strain on your drivetrain (gearbox, transfer case, axles, clutch etc) right off the bat and then you'll start to tail off in short order.
Now if ultimately at 7,000 rpms or whatever you are still making 300 ft/lbs and you are happy with that (i.e. just getting more in the midrange) then fine, but I personally am not sure that it's going to feel as smooth. Look at the two graphs below.
This is a 2.3 litre 4G63 on a GT3076 at 30 psi.
And this is the 2.0 litre long rod at 30 psi on an HTA 3582.
Now before I get criticized for being a "long rod nutswinger", I personally have reservations that the torque curve a long rod motor produces is any better than the one a regular 2.0 litre lump does, they just rev higher (potentially). Then again anything over 8,000 rpms is kind of a moot point on a street motor.
My point is that strokers are often said to be great street motors but I think if you go that route in a desperate attempt to get low down spool you could mess up the dynamics across the rest of the powerband. I also think you run a very strong risk of building something that isn't that nice to drive ... but I could be wrong.
Hey Paul, to be 100% honest, I'm not sure what I'm after. Just curious to see what's possible.
I think we are on the same page in that we would like to have as much torque as possible as soon as possible, thus eliminating any lag.
I'm looking for as much power throughout the largest powerband we can get without raising the rpm limit. Ideally I would like 300+ ft/bs from 2.5k-7k.
My application is purely DD street car. Sure it could also be used for other aaplications (autoX) but I would only be using it for DD duties, at least for now.
I have no experience and haven't read at all about the Borg Warner turbo, but I like what you said about it's ability to provide adequate airflow for 450BHP yet spool like a 13b. Not sure how it's doing it...it's not BB or VV right?
In any event, what would happen if we pair the following:
2.6 Stroker @9:1 compression
Borg Warner EFR 7064
Cyclone intake or Kiggly mivec (or both)
93 octane
The more I read about the 2.6 stroker, the more I like it for DD duties. I just don't know how smooth of a motor it would be. As I mentioned before, I hated the vibration caused by the 2.3 Magnus motor I had. I do not want to go through that again!
tsitalon1,
Before we start what's your name? I feel stupid calling you "tsitalon1".
First, it is no crime to not know what you want out of the car. Dyno figures are dyno figures. Two cars can put down similar power figures and be completely different to drive. So some of this is going to boil down to how happy you are with how the car feels rather than what the specs are on paper.
Second, there is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, sometimes it net results, sometimes it doesn't. No big deal, often these threads reveal a ton of information even if not all of it is directly relevant to the original post. We all learn from it so as long as the discussions remain constructive and respectful we all gain.
Now that said, I don't think there is anything wrong with what you are trying to do but you need to either understand or if you already understand then you need to stop and think about the implications of what you are saying.
"Full boost" is a meaningless term. Up to a point getting full boost at even 2K is actually possibly. Use a small enough snail, enough displacement and the correct cams and you can spool pretty much instantaneously. But you are going to run out of that powerband very, very quickly.
You asked about that 2.6 litre stroker on the EFR 7064. Well like yourself I'm skeptical that a true 450 hp turbo can spool like a 13b but lets just say it produces more power than an E316G and spools faster. Couple that with a high(er) compression 2.6 litre engine, Cyclone and even a MIVEC head and yes I think you'll get lots of low down torque but I don't necessarily think you'll get that long flat torque curve. I think you will spike, put an absolute sh**load of strain on your drivetrain (gearbox, transfer case, axles, clutch etc) right off the bat and then you'll start to tail off in short order.
Now if ultimately at 7,000 rpms or whatever you are still making 300 ft/lbs and you are happy with that (i.e. just getting more in the midrange) then fine, but I personally am not sure that it's going to feel as smooth. Look at the two graphs below.
This is a 2.3 litre 4G63 on a GT3076 at 30 psi.
And this is the 2.0 litre long rod at 30 psi on an HTA 3582.
Now before I get criticized for being a "long rod nutswinger", I personally have reservations that the torque curve a long rod motor produces is any better than the one a regular 2.0 litre lump does, they just rev higher (potentially). Then again anything over 8,000 rpms is kind of a moot point on a street motor.
My point is that strokers are often said to be great street motors but I think if you go that route in a desperate attempt to get low down spool you could mess up the dynamics across the rest of the powerband. I also think you run a very strong risk of building something that isn't that nice to drive ... but I could be wrong.
Last edited:
tsitalon1
Well-known member
Sorry Paul,
I also didn't want to continue to call you "cheeky", and I saw that you left your name in a previous post. My name is James. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
I also must apologise for using terms like "full boost". I took the lazy way out in this discussion as I understand fully that airflow dictates power and not boost which is a byproduct of airflow restriction. My only point was that I would prefer my setup to reach it's targeted boost levels by 2500 and maintain them by 7k. Of course we know that the power at said boost levels will vary with actual airflow.
Looking at your 2.3 with GT3076 graph is interesting. I would like to move this powerband to the left about 1000-1200 rpm, and I absolutely do not need 500+whp.
So, I'm certain a e316g turbo on this motor would spool much quicker. Do you know what compression that motor is running? Maybe we can gain spool there as well. Also if it's not running a cyclone, we might gain some there as well.
Assuming the graph of the 2.3 motor you posted is running 8:5:1 compression and doesn't have the above mentioned mods, I would think we could easily move the spool area 1500. - Do you agree?
Now to address the fact that a e316g on a 2.3 might run out of breath on the top end. Maybe we can find a good compromise on cams that would not affect spool *too much* yet provide some breathing up top. Also couple that with a decent port job on the head and maybe we could crack 400-450BHP (not WHP) at 7k.
Thoughts?
I appreciate your warning on to much torque to soon. I do see that as a problem so some of these components might need to be worked as well.
You don't think the motor I'm proposing would be fun on the street? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
James
I also didn't want to continue to call you "cheeky", and I saw that you left your name in a previous post. My name is James. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
I also must apologise for using terms like "full boost". I took the lazy way out in this discussion as I understand fully that airflow dictates power and not boost which is a byproduct of airflow restriction. My only point was that I would prefer my setup to reach it's targeted boost levels by 2500 and maintain them by 7k. Of course we know that the power at said boost levels will vary with actual airflow.
Looking at your 2.3 with GT3076 graph is interesting. I would like to move this powerband to the left about 1000-1200 rpm, and I absolutely do not need 500+whp.
So, I'm certain a e316g turbo on this motor would spool much quicker. Do you know what compression that motor is running? Maybe we can gain spool there as well. Also if it's not running a cyclone, we might gain some there as well.
Assuming the graph of the 2.3 motor you posted is running 8:5:1 compression and doesn't have the above mentioned mods, I would think we could easily move the spool area 1500. - Do you agree?
Now to address the fact that a e316g on a 2.3 might run out of breath on the top end. Maybe we can find a good compromise on cams that would not affect spool *too much* yet provide some breathing up top. Also couple that with a decent port job on the head and maybe we could crack 400-450BHP (not WHP) at 7k.
Thoughts?
I appreciate your warning on to much torque to soon. I do see that as a problem so some of these components might need to be worked as well.
You don't think the motor I'm proposing would be fun on the street? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
James
cheekychimp
Well-known member
I don't know, I mean I'm a huge fan of cars and bikes built for low to mid range power (which is where strokers really shine) but with too short a power band I think you will end up short shifting into 5th and then just staying there. You see if you shift the power band to the left, logically it would start tailing off even earlier.
Like you said the trick would be getting the turbo to spool earlier whilst extending the power band. Cams 'might' help. There are a lot of custom grinds about these days and some research might net you something. Generally of course cams tend to shift the power band one way or the other but trying something like a 264/272 combo might net you a bit more top end without hurting bottom end too much. I certainly don't think that you will be able to find a cam that helps you spool faster AND extends the power band. Your best bet will be with something like a 264 intake cam that doesn't 'hurt' your spool too much and then use compression, displacement and a cyclone intake to make the turbo spool faster.
The cyclone is underrated because it is 20 year old technology and has in effect been made redundant by stuff like MIVEC. I think however a modified cyclone could net you very good results. Think about a cyclone with runners designed similar to a tubular exhaust manifold (much longer) and a plate that opens at a certain rpm directing air into really short 2" runners going straight into the head. Even an AMG cyclone as against the regular JDM VR4 cyclone makes a difference.
Do I think your proposed setup would be fun? Yes, actually I do. My thoughts on that setup (seriously) are to stop getting fixated on when you hit a certain boost pressure. Like I said before I don't even think a variable vane turbo actually achieves full boost earlier. I think it is just adjusts so that it is more efficientat at lower boost and then adjusts again to allow more flow as boost pressure does increase. The setup you are proposing will spool just fine and produce (even in my opinion) sufficient power down low. What you will need to do is look at ways to stop it running out of breath too soon. Cams are a possibility (including MIVEC) as is modifying the cyclone.
Finally, I will tell you if I had my time all over again and had the same amount of money to spend on building the perfect street VR4, I wouldn't start on the engine, I would start on the gearbox. Albins Off Road Gear can build you a 6 speed box with custom ratios that fits in a standard VR4 transmission housing.
I absolutely guarantee that some thought and research put into planning a good transmission would be a far far better foundation for what you are trying to do and would compliment everything you subsequently do with the engine. You could make those first two gears short to get into boost faster and then extend 5th and 6th to give you more gear before you run out of rpms.
Like you said the trick would be getting the turbo to spool earlier whilst extending the power band. Cams 'might' help. There are a lot of custom grinds about these days and some research might net you something. Generally of course cams tend to shift the power band one way or the other but trying something like a 264/272 combo might net you a bit more top end without hurting bottom end too much. I certainly don't think that you will be able to find a cam that helps you spool faster AND extends the power band. Your best bet will be with something like a 264 intake cam that doesn't 'hurt' your spool too much and then use compression, displacement and a cyclone intake to make the turbo spool faster.
The cyclone is underrated because it is 20 year old technology and has in effect been made redundant by stuff like MIVEC. I think however a modified cyclone could net you very good results. Think about a cyclone with runners designed similar to a tubular exhaust manifold (much longer) and a plate that opens at a certain rpm directing air into really short 2" runners going straight into the head. Even an AMG cyclone as against the regular JDM VR4 cyclone makes a difference.
Do I think your proposed setup would be fun? Yes, actually I do. My thoughts on that setup (seriously) are to stop getting fixated on when you hit a certain boost pressure. Like I said before I don't even think a variable vane turbo actually achieves full boost earlier. I think it is just adjusts so that it is more efficientat at lower boost and then adjusts again to allow more flow as boost pressure does increase. The setup you are proposing will spool just fine and produce (even in my opinion) sufficient power down low. What you will need to do is look at ways to stop it running out of breath too soon. Cams are a possibility (including MIVEC) as is modifying the cyclone.
Finally, I will tell you if I had my time all over again and had the same amount of money to spend on building the perfect street VR4, I wouldn't start on the engine, I would start on the gearbox. Albins Off Road Gear can build you a 6 speed box with custom ratios that fits in a standard VR4 transmission housing.
I absolutely guarantee that some thought and research put into planning a good transmission would be a far far better foundation for what you are trying to do and would compliment everything you subsequently do with the engine. You could make those first two gears short to get into boost faster and then extend 5th and 6th to give you more gear before you run out of rpms.
Last edited:
