2.4L 8v hybrid?

[BadAssPerformance]

First off, being a 2.4L swap guy, I'm not really a big fan of hybrids as they dont make sense to me... BUT being an engineer I like to discuss crazy ideas and appreciate all those who have experimented with hybrids :clap:

Obviously the 16v heads have more flow potential than the non-cross flow 8v heads (which is why the hybrid swaps started) but the 2.4L blocks are arguably superior to the 2.2/2.5L blocks... and there are several 10 second 8v cars, and SPM went 9's, sooo, I gotta ask

Anyone ever put a 2.2L 8v head on a 2.4L block yet? :D

[mboyek]

I don't know the answer to your question, but some food for thought.

Stock DOHC head flows allot more than the 8v stock. Clean the DOHC up a little and its easy to flow 2x as much.

I like to compare the ability to spool a turbo as a good flow comparison. I have a Holset hy-35,or he1 whatever. I'm not sure exactly but its the 9cm housing, not the 12. The engine will start building boost at 2000 rpm with cam's zeroed timing wise. Right now I have my wastegate set at 5psi for break in, and I have that 5 psi by 2200. I also have a very crappy log manifold. Whywoody also has a similar setup and likes it allot, but runs real boost numbers. From what I have read about 8v guys bolting on this turbo is they get boost to build starting around 3000 rpm.

Also, external drains on the 8v head would be a little more complicated. It would be easier to do them in the front, but the block is angled away. Sides maybe, back too crowded. The 8v valve springs are like 2x as big as the 16v heads springs, I'm not sure if you gain efficiency going to 16v as there is more friction from 2x cams and 2x valvetrain but all that stuff is smaller and may have less friction?

In my silly head a 2.4 swap makes more sense than a hybrid. But now 2.4's are a dime a dozen and 2.5 common blocks are starting to dry up in some places. A few years ago you couldn't touch a full 2.4 for cheap and 2.5's were everywhere. I don't like the oil filter on the 2.4, but I had to relocate mine on my hybrid anyways, so that's not a valid complaint. :) 5 years ago when I got a 2.4 head, I thought this was going to be the cheap way to get TIII performance. At the time it was, but is not anymore. Do those 10 sec 8v's have the heads ported to flow as much as a stock 16v?

[BadAssPerformance]

Yes, all the 10 s 8v cars have ported heads... and again, this is not about using a 16V head! We all agree teh 16v head has mor potential :thumb:

This is rather about those that want to stay 8v (cuz many of us are sick like that) and what potential benefits would there be from a 2.4L bottom end. :thumb:

[turbo2point2]

Obviously the 16v heads have more flow potential than the non-cross flow 8v heads (which is why the hybrid swaps started) but the 2.4L blocks are arguably superior to the 2.2/2.5L blocks... and there are several 10 second 8v cars, and SPM went 9's


Ok, being that I am a hybrid guy, I think the benefit is in the 16v head only. I can't see any benefit to a reverse swap. The head will be the ultimate restriction. One of the reasons I gave up running 8v.

You're dead on, at least in my case where you pointed out the reason for doing hybrid in the first place. But, I still feel it is one of the best options for an upgrade. Especially if you have the tools, patience.

I agree 100% that the 2.4 is the more stout piece. That being said, what is the limit to the stock 2.4 bedplate setup. I see talk about a crank strap needed but at what point? Is it similar to how the commonblock should have 4 bolt mains installed?

[8valves]

Ok, being that I am a hybrid guy, I think the benefit is in the 16v head only. I can't see any benefit to a reverse swap. The head will be the ultimate restriction. One of the reasons I gave up running 8v.

You're dead on, at least in my case where you pointed out the reason for doing hybrid in the first place. But, I still feel it is one of the best options for an upgrade. Especially if you have the tools, patience.

I agree 100% that the 2.4 is the more stout piece. That being said, what is the limit to the stock 2.4 bedplate setup. I see talk about a crank strap needed but at what point? Is it similar to how the commonblock should have 4 bolt mains installed?

I'm curious about this myself.

[rbryant]

Yes, all the 10 s 8v cars have ported heads... and again, this is not about using a 16V head! We all agree teh 16v head has mor potential :thumb:

This is rather about those that want to stay 8v (cuz many of us are sick like that) and what potential benefits would there be from a 2.4L bottom end. :thumb:

That is pretty sick...

There are a couple of 2.4l SOHC 16v cars on neons.org. Even that is quite a bit of work to do...

-Rich

[turbovanman²]

I honestly don't see the point. You need custom mounts to put the 2.4 in then all the fab work to bolt on a turd of a head-which are also drying up unless you buy the new castings from Ebay. Why have the foundation for a sewer pipe and then use a straw, :confused:

[BadAssPerformance]

LOL, wow, and the 8v haters came by before the 8v lovers :D

As stated, the 16v is far superior in flow... thats not the question. Actually Brian got exactly where I was going


I agree 100% that the 2.4 is the more stout piece. That being said, what is the limit to the stock 2.4 bedplate setup. I see talk about a crank strap needed but at what point? Is it similar to how the commonblock should have 4 bolt mains installed?

Which is at what power level does the 2.4L bottom end become a benefit?

But this brings another question, again, for those that are sick and want to stay 8v... is there a better rod ratio using a 2.0L bottom end?

[rbryant]

LOL, wow, and the 8v haters came by before the 8v lovers :D

As stated, the 16v is far superior in flow... thats not the question. Actually Brian got exactly where I was going

Which is at what power level does the 2.4L bottom end become a benefit?

But this brings another question, again, for those that are sick and want to stay 8v... is there a better rod ratio using a 2.0L bottom end?

Isn't this like marrying a swimsuit model and forcing her to eat nothing but Twinkies and wear sweatshirts all the time? ;)

-Rich

[Ondonti]

I think the topic of cylinder wall strength is one you should consider.

If you developed an 8valve that couldnt hold without being filled, then you might go 8 valve 2.4 srt block (i wouldn't waste my time with a non srt-4 block if you are already cracking cylinders).

I know Chuck, who has the current stock srt shortblock record of 620whp is building a block with crank straps. What are those and when are they needed........

[BadAssPerformance]

Isn't this like marrying a swimsuit model and forcing her to eat nothing but Twinkies and wear sweatshirts all the time? ;)

-Rich

I dont get it :confused2"


I think the topic of cylinder wall strength is one you should consider.

If you developed an 8valve that couldnt hold without being filled, then you might go 8 valve 2.4 srt block (i wouldn't waste my time with a non srt-4 block if you are already cracking cylinders).

I know Chuck, who has the current stock srt shortblock record of 620whp is building a block with crank straps. What are those and when are they needed........

Good points. Add to that the idea that an 8V cannot flow as much so could use more pressure to make higher power levels thus needing a stout block.

[gkcooper]

Maybe I am just too plain dumb to understand WTF anyone would want to do this?

[t3rse]

I know Chuck, who has the current stock srt shortblock record of 620whp is building a block with crank straps. What are those and when are they needed........

They mill down the raised area on the bed plate at the crank mounting points and then make billet straps that bolt up against the bed plate. I was thinking that if this is really an issue, would it really be that hard to just make a billet bed plate?

Who was the guy who made over 1000 hp with the Srt4 land speed car? I thought he used a stock block/plate.

edit:


"It is amazing how well the car performed at over 220 mph when you consider that the body, transmission and engine block are exactly the same as the (street version) SRT4," said Moller. "We’ve got to hand it to the Dodge engineers for building such a great performance car. The 2.4L SRT4 motor is a fantastic platform to work from, and we have been able to create reliable 700–800 horsepower that survives the long five-mile runs at full power on gas,” Jorgen Moller said.

[BadAssPerformance]

Maybe I am just too plain dumb to understand WTF anyone would want to do this?

Again with the 8v haters... WTF!? LOL ;)

OK... There are 8v engines making ~500whp+... thats probably near the limits of the block. If you want a 8v street car and dont want to fill it, this would be a possibly alternative... also, as mentioned, 2.4L engines are easier to find than CB's... and then theres the question about the reving advantages of 2.0L's?

[BadAssPerformance]

Who was the guy who made over 1000 hp with the Srt4 land speed car? I thought he used a stock block/plate.

DCR... stock block/bedplate and crank at over 1000whp... crank came out. I dont think a common block would make it that far.

http://www.badassperformance.com/wallpaper/crawford_boom.jpg

[turbovanman²]

Isn't this like marrying a swimsuit model and forcing her to eat nothing but Twinkies and wear sweatshirts all the time? ;)

-Rich


I dont get it :confused2"




He did a twist on my analogy. Why take a wicked, powerfull 2.4 16 vavle setup and dumb it down, aka having a hot, big titted model and making her eat twinkies so she gets fat and the sweater covers up her assets, get it? ;)

[BadAssPerformance]

He did a twist on my analogy. Why take a wicked, powerfull 2.4 16 vavle setup and dumb it down, aka having a hot, big titted model and making her eat twinkies so she gets fat and the sweater covers up her assets, get it? ;)

Nope, still dont get it...

I guess the confusion is that the 8v haters view it as 'dumbing down' a 16v instead of how the question/discussion is posed whicj is taking a powerful 8v and build a stronger bottom end for it...

I guess the confusion is that only a few know how to build a badass 8v? ;)

[GLHNSLHT2]

yep all that work seems retarted to throw a 8v head on it. I love the 8v but if I'm gonna go 2.4 It's gonna be 16v for sure.

[BadAssPerformance]

Like I said, there are some of us that like the 8v... shiiit, most of us like uglyass omnis and minivans too! Can you say we're just a bunch of sickf---s!? and... most of the fast cars are still 8v :)

And... many said that the 16v head on a 2.2L was retarded, but we sure learned a lot from those that have gone there :clap:

[GLHNSLHT2]

who said a 16v on a 2.2 was retarded? Lot of work yes, worth it, yes. Guess it depends what 16v head you use. I think a whole 2.4 16v swap would be/is a lot easier than a hybrid setup though. I went the easy way, use a 2.2 setup and bolt on a prepped masi head to get 16v. .

[turbovanman²]

Nope, still dont get it...

I guess the confusion is that the 8v haters view it as 'dumbing down' a 16v instead of how the question/discussion is posed whicj is taking a powerful 8v and build a stronger bottom end for it...

I guess the confusion is that only a few know how to build a badass 8v? ;)

We are not haters, just looking at it cost wise, performance wise etc. It essentially is dumbing down, hehehhee!

You are right, only a few make some serious 8 valvers, and as we all know, it takes time, knowledge, a wicked flowing 8 valve head and some serious tuning.


Like I said, there are some of us that like the 8v... shiiit, most of us like uglyass omnis and minivans too! Can you say we're just a bunch of sickf---s!? and... most of the fast cars are still 8v :)

And... many said that the 16v head on a 2.2L was retarded, but we sure learned a lot from those that have gone there :clap:

We are still sick f*cks, just looking at it logically.

I don't think anyone ever thought putting a mass produced 16 valve head on was dumb, ;)

[BadAssPerformance]

who said a 16v on a 2.2 was retarded? Lot of work yes, worth it, yes. Guess it depends what 16v head you use. I think a whole 2.4 16v swap would be/is a lot easier than a hybrid setup though. I went the easy way, use a 2.2 setup and bolt on a prepped masi head to get 16v. .

There were (and always are) skeptics... Before anyone did it, I remember hearing "why would anyone want to even try to do that when Len Ayala (Hahn Racecraft) and Darrel Cox's 2.0L 16V neons are already running 10's"

[BadAssPerformance]

We are not haters, just looking at it cost wise, performance wise etc. It essentially is dumbing down, hehehhee!

You are right, only a few make some serious 8 valvers, and as we all know, it takes time, knowledge, a wicked flowing 8 valve head and some serious tuning.

We are still sick f*cks, just looking at it logically.

I don't think anyone ever thought putting a mass produced 16 valve head on was dumb, ;)

Logically? Cost and performance wise... full 2.4L swap, hands down.

But, we're a bunch of grass roots hot rodders who like to have crazyshit, and this is the 'hybrid forum' so...

8V fans! C'mon in and lets talk about how to put a stoutass bottom end under our primitive (yet commonly faster) 8v heads :D

[turbovanman²]

who said a 16v on a 2.2 was retarded? Lot of work yes, worth it, yes. Guess it depends what 16v head you use. I think a whole 2.4 16v swap would be/is a lot easier than a hybrid setup though. I went the easy way, use a 2.2 setup and bolt on a prepped masi head to get 16v. .

I agree, :wow1: but I don't think the hybrid is that hard to, if a guy can do it on the street with basic tools, then most can do it in a ship with ease.

Thats why I went TIII, it was fairly easy to do, maybe not a good cost wise issue but I couldn't be happier, :nod: :partywoot:

[turbovanman²]

Logically? Cost and performance wise... full 2.4L swap, hands down.



Exactly, your contradicting yourself. Why bother dumbing down a stout bottom end with an 8 valve head, ;)

[BadAssPerformance]

Exactly, your contradicting yourself. Why bother dumbing down a stout bottom end with an 8 valve head, ;)

Coming from the 16v minivan guy that is slower than a few 8v vans? ;)

[turbovanman²]

Coming from the 16v minivan guy that is slower than a few 8v vans? ;)

Not for much longer, better head now and now I have an Ostrich, its cal tweaking time, ;) :rockon: :partywoot:

And remember, there vans are lighter and NO a/c, ;)

[BadAssPerformance]

Not for much longer, ;)

And remember, there vans are lighter and NO a/c, ;)

OK, then go start the "10's or bust" thread and GTFO of the "Sick MoFo 8v hybrid" thread then, LOL :D

[turbovanman²]

OK, then go start the "10's or bust" thread and GTFO of the "Sick MoFo 8v hybrid" thread then, LOL :D

You started it, hehehehe!

And no 10's for me, I am not putting in a roll cage so its 11.50 or bust, :nod:

[WVRampage]

I see the point of what you are saying,it could be done although the oil drains would be a little harder but it would make a stronger block.I wonder if a person that realy wanted to stay 8v and hand the machine abilitys a nice set of 4 bolt mains with a bedplate that was a bout a half inch thick and bolted all the way around the botom on the block and then the pan bolted to it,If that makes any sence,it would be 8v and much stonger.

[turbovanman²]

I guess another question is? who is spitting out cranks and blocks with a high HP 8 valve? :D

[BadAssPerformance]

You started it, hehehehe!

And no 10's for me, I am not putting in a roll cage so its 11.50 or bust, :nod:

LOL, cool :thumb:


I see the point of what you are saying,it could be done although the oil drains would be a little harder but it would make a stronger block.I wonder if a person that realy wanted to stay 8v and hand the machine abilitys a nice set of 4 bolt mains with a bedplate that was a bout a half inch thick and bolted all the way around the botom on the block and then the pan bolted to it,If that makes any sence,it would be 8v and much stonger.

Really, I guess the question is what are the power limits of an unfilled CB vs. a 2.4L bedplate block?

[BadAssPerformance]

I guess another question is? who is spitting out cranks and blocks with a high HP 8 valve? :D

Same question regardless of number of valves, when does the (unfilled) common block break?

[turbovanman²]

Same question regardless of number of valves, when does the (unfilled) common block break?

Well going by memory, I only seem to recall 16 valvers spitting out blocks????

[Shadow]

Same question regardless of number of valves, when does the (unfilled) common block break?

IMO not untill 600+whp.....but we'll have to see, won't we. :D

[BadAssPerformance]

Well going by memory, I only seem to recall 16 valvers spitting out blocks????

I cannot recall any hp level vs. block breakage numbers from anyone... but my memory is pretty shitty! LOL!


IMO not untill 600+whp.....but we'll have to see, won't we. :D

Hell yeah! :thumb: and I think the HP capability level is also dependant on theweight of the car too... heavy cars makemotors work harder for sure!

[Shadow]

Hell yeah! :thumb: and I think the HP capability level is also dependant on theweight of the car too... heavy cars makemotors work harder for sure!

Agreed. Also the reason I chose a S/C for my build. I wanted a true street legal/street driven full body/interior car that I could run 10's with, knowing I would never "swiss cheese" it just to run faster. (If I'm going to swiss cheese something I'll build an all out drag car) If I would have started with a 3000lb car, I'd be in a bit of trouble right out of the gate.

[Shadow]

for those that are sick and want to stay 8v...

If we're sick, it's because of the reaction we get when onlookers at the track see an 8v trap over 130mph and run with the "fully built 16v crew" not to mention all the V-8 bracket cars. The look on their faces says it all, HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? Then they look your car up, down and sideways, trying to find the hidden NOS or some reasonable explanation of how such a simple basic build can possibly go that fast.....and drive home to boot! For this reason alone.......I will ALWAYS be an 8V'r! :amen:

[Ondonti]

Not sure what the point of posting here is if someone doesnt understand the point of the conversation.


I think the hp vs block failure info is not very useful.

Frenchie claimed to have cylinders fail at 575 crank hp (on an engine dyno) with his biggest 8 valve setup on what I assume to be 100% methanol, so Shadow is pretty much right on top of that failure number with....no failures.

His numbers also make me question why he made about the same power compared to Shadow with much much better parts.......
Which makes me think those dyno numbers he shared might not be right, or there was something totally wrong with his extravogant 8 valve setup.
Maybe all that work on raising the intake ports and his HUGE ports in general were totally fools gold. I still have no idea what he ran for a cam.

Now, if you invested yourself into an 8 valve enough to have blocks fail, I think it would be stupid to tell someone to "fill it" or "just switch to 16valve" when a little more work could have a block that handles the abuse.

If you arent trying to make enough power to break 2.2/2.5 blocks, then this isnt the thread to post about how much you prefer your cheap 16v hackjobs that make less power then someone's badass 8valve.

For someone who has made around 500whp in an 8 valve, its not gonna be too difficult to knock out a 2.4 8 valve setup to continue the quest.
For those struggling for years to get a car to run, yeah, it might seem stupid, but dont your struggles seem a little stupid too?

[turbo2point2]

I guess the confusion is that only a few know how to build a badass 8v?

Agreed. As I stated, I knew I was not up to the challange years ago:nod:


Frenchie claimed to have cylinders fail at 575 crank hp (on an engine dyno) with his biggest 8 valve setup on what I assume to be 100% methanol, so Shadow is pretty much right on top of that failure number with....no failures.

I remember those claims as well. We can look back and try to reason why the failure occured. Core shift? Thin cylinder walls? Tuneup? We may never know. But, as you said, Shadows car is there with zero failures.

One thing we do know know, a well prepared commonblock will withstand 900+ hp, ala Frenchie.

[BadAssPerformance]

True, the CB is beefy for sure :thumb: Frenchie made 900hp in a 2000lb car tho. add 500-1000lb more and that 900hp would be stressing parts a tad more?

[Directconnection]

DCR... stock block/bedplate and crank at over 1000whp... crank came out. I dont think a common block would make it that far.

http://www.badassperformance.com/wallpaper/crawford_boom.jpg


JT, the SMP (not SPM) car made around 1,000 hp, ran 8.0 and used a stock block with stock crank and lasted many seasons w/out a failure.

Don't quite talk yourself into thinking the 2.2/2.5 bottom end is less superior.

{edit} someone beat me to the punch:thumb:

[8valves]

Half the reason for the 4 bolt mains I do was from Brian reporting that his crank mains weren't a tight fit to the block after a year (correct?) of racing at his power level. That is good enough info to me to show that there is some flex going on that shouldn't be. Enough of that, regardless of the top end, will break stuff.

SMP ran a cam as last I knew for the 8V with .575" lift and around 290 duration. It used a custom rocker arm setup, although I don't know if that meant a modified stocker or a completely new piece.

His car either made more power than that, or he had a junk setup. Look at his breakdown for his 9 pass at 146 on the 8V. I don't know where the thread is but I think T3rse put up the 1/8 and 1/4 times and his car was bunk on the back end of the track, for something that light and boosted.


EDIT: Steve, as you know a LOT of "junk" motors will survive when they've got a full fill in them! :)

[Shadow]

His numbers also make me question why he made about the same power compared to Shadow with much much better parts.......
Which makes me think those dyno numbers he shared might not be right, or there was something totally wrong with his extravogant 8 valve setup.
Maybe all that work on raising the intake ports and his HUGE ports in general were totally fools gold. I still have no idea what he ran for a cam.

Frenchy was making that power on WAY less boost than me. 28psi if memory serves. That's a HUGE difference from 37psi! I've used BOOST as the great equilizer. At this point I really have to Q what would be more valuable. To tear down the block and see how everything is doing, or to continue on with a cam and header and see how far she goes untill Boom?

[1984rampage]

See how far she goes until BOOM!

[t3rse]

His car either made more power than that, or he had a junk setup. Look at his breakdown for his 9 pass at 146 on the 8V. I don't know where the thread is but I think T3rse put up the 1/8 and 1/4 times and his car was bunk on the back end of the track, for something that light and boosted.


http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=348292&postcount=27

A big reason that many of us don't stick with the 8v, is that it cost a hell of a lot more to make the 8v flow anywhere close to the 16v than it does just to drop in an srt motor or go hybrid, not saying that I hate the 8v, but I doubt I will ever mess with one again. 2000k port job vs some machining or fabricating motor mounts?

[turbo2point2]

Half the reason for the 4 bolt mains I do was from Brian reporting that his crank mains weren't a tight fit to the block after a year (correct?) of racing at his power level

Correct. It may have been slightly longer by a few months, but not much. The register lost it's press fit. And power level was not anything spectacular 450-475 with a filled block.


Frenchy was making that power on WAY less boost than me. 28psi if memory serves. That's a HUGE difference from 37psi! I've used BOOST as the great equilizer

Big difference in boost but similar power levels. We're not looking at efficiency...yet.


At this point I really have to Q what would be more valuable. To tear down the block and see how everything is doing, or to continue on with a cam and header and see how far she goes untill Boom?


Take it to the limit. If failure occurs, find out what broke and why and take steps to increase strength/ longevity.

[Shadow]

Take it to the limit. If failure occurs, find out what broke and why and take steps to increase strength/ longevity.

Prob what I've been thinking all along. Although, it's tempting to STOP at 500whp and let it live, knowing it's a Non-CB and that continuing on WITH a CB + 4 bolt mains SHOULD give me a +100WHP window (at least). Either way, the mtr owes me Nothing x 3 years, and I have to believe the stock rods will go first which SHOULD allow me to salvage most of the other components. Having said that, there's not even THAT much that I can't easily replace even if it did ALL go. :D

[BadAssPerformance]

Stock rods FTL :(

http://www.badassperformance.com/mrides/z/carnage/06_kaboom/thru_the_back.jpg

[BadAssPerformance]

So my question is still the same, but not to clarify, what are the limits of an un-filled CB? Both HP limit and Boost limit?

So in this hypothetical situation, unfilled CB strength vs. unfilled 2.4L strength? and not looking for "the 2.4L is stronger" but rather XXXhp and XXpsi boost for each.

[t3rse]

You are asking questions that no one has an answer to. There have been a hand full of people break the 500 barrier, so there is not a large enough sample to say "this fails at this power level." Even then, there have not been a whole lot of people to do much better on the 2.4, and most of them payed someone else to do the work for them. With a reasonable sample to draw data from, everything is just speculation.

[BadAssPerformance]

True it is all speculation until someone makes the power and breaks the parts.

So I'll change teh question from "what are the limits" to "what is the most HP someone has made with a stock unfilled block 2.4L"?

[t3rse]

640 whp, as Ondonti said...stock crank, block, pistons, rods...etc

[CSXRT4]

one "pro" for an 8v head on a 2.4l block would be a cheaper valvetrain. So it may be cheaper to build a high revving head, of course the rod ratio and stroke of the 2.4l kind of sucks so you would probably be limited by the bottom end :o

[BadAssPerformance]

640 whp, as Ondonti said...stock crank, block, pistons, rods...etc

OK, thats with stock rods/pistons... how about DCR, didnt they make more with better rods/pistons but still stock block/crank? (See crawford explosion pic)

But 640 is pretty damn good... so a 2.4L bottom end with a 8v G-head on it... What would have to be done to mate the two up?

[BadAssPerformance]

well one "pro" for an 8v head on a 2.4l block would be a cheaper valvetrain. So it may be cheaper to build a high revving head, of course the rod ratio and stroke of the 2.4l kind of sucks so you would probably be limited by the bottom end :o

True, 2.0L has a better ratio... what year 2.0L cranks interchange with what year 2.4L blocks?

[CSXRT4]

Ive never heard of anybody filling the block on an SRT-4 engine. Mike Crawford and DCR built a 1400hp+ SRT-4 hotrod and I have never heard any mention of filling the block, but you could probably e-mail DCR and ask or post on Srtforums

[CSXRT4]

True, 2.0L has a better ratio... what year 2.0L cranks interchange with what year 2.4L blocks?

I dont think the cranks interchange. I could be wrong on that but I thought it was just the heads that interchanged

[BadAssPerformance]

Ive never heard of anybody filling the block on an SRT-4 engine. Mike Crawford and DCR built a 1400hp+ SRT-4 hotrod and I have never heard any mention of filling the block, but you could probably e-mail DCR and ask or post on Srtforums

Thought the 1400hp motor was a built, billet crank, custom bedplate 2.6L? True on SRTforums... that site kinda bugs me but I'll go search there :thumb:

[BadAssPerformance]

I dont think the cranks interchange. I could be wrong on that but I thought it was just the heads that interchanged

OK, then, how much power has been made with a 2.0L bottom end? :thumb:

[turbovanman²]

Ok, so lets say you manage to get the 8 valve head on, rpm was just listed. We've brought this up before, what is the ceiling on a reliable 8 valve for rpm?

[CSXRT4]

Thought the 1400hp motor was a built, billet crank, custom bedplate 2.6L? True on SRTforums... that site kinda bugs me but I'll go search there :thumb:

Not sure on the 2.6L but I am pretty sure they are running stock bedplate w/crankstraps and the stock crank (Ion Nitride treated)


Here are some reference posts from darrell himself

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f169/how-much-hp-tq-before-stock-crank-breaks-407552/index2.html#post5600379

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f169/how-much-hp-tq-before-stock-crank-breaks-407552/index2.html#post5600408





OK, then, how much power has been made with a 2.0L bottom end? :thumb:

Dunno about that, but the answer may be on neons.org

[GLHNSLHT2]

Ok, so lets say you manage to get the 8 valve head on, rpm was just listed. We've brought this up before, what is the ceiling on a reliable 8 valve for rpm?
I'd say more than 8500rpms easy.

[Shadow]

My .02, The 8v head will be the limiting factor, not the block. ;)

[turbovanman²]

I'd say more than 8500rpms easy.

8500 on an 8 valve head???? :confused:

[Ondonti]

Another twist to the story.

Shadow is running a non CB
Maybe the cylinders have more integrity.
Or


Maybe Frenchy, like everyone else, was cheating to get more displacement and boring the cylinders out without telling anyone. A huge overbore could give him a little advangate, and filling the block has few downfalls for a track only car.
I doubt ANYONE ever challenged another to a motor inspection in HOTROD class because they all knew the other was cheating the same.
Just like everyone cheating with nitrous in the old nascar days.

I know people here want to argue about rod ratio and the bottom ends ability to make torque, but a 3.0 has bottom end measurements that should be reving to 12,000 and it still makes torque. Hondas constantly rev to 10,000 with rod ratios just as bad as any dodge 4 cylinder. You might lose a little bit of advantage but there are NO roadblocks to making high rpm power. Just uphill battles (steep or easy inclines).

No way Cox was using a 2.6L crankshaft and TELLING people about it. They had strict motor displacement rules that determine weight penalties.

[turbo2point2]

so a 2.4L bottom end with a 8v G-head on it... What would have to be done to mate the two up?


Same mods would need to be done as the 2.0/2.4 head on a commonblock. external oiling, external drains, timing components, etc.

[turbo2point2]

Shadow is running a non CB
Maybe the cylinders have more integrity.


Possible. I have never had much to do with non-cb's so I couldn't say. Anyone ever sonic a non-commonblock?


A huge overbore could give him a little advangate, and filling the block has few downfalls for a track only car.

Agreed. Sleeving might actually net an even slightly bigger bore due to availability of stronger/better materials. Maybe even some offset crank grinding? 3.500+" bore, hmm...

[Shadow]

FWIW I have NEVER bored a 2.2/2.5 more than .020. I have always had enough blocks that, anything that had to go that far (dropped a wrist pin clip ect.) I tossed out.

[Shadow]

A huge overbore could give him a little advangate, and filling the block has few downfalls for a track only car.

Do we know for sure that he used block fill because of failure? Maybe he (being a track only car, so why not) didn't want to take a chance and just threw it in for safety sake? After all, not nearly as much was know then about how much a 2.2 block would take.

[Ondonti]

Do we know for sure that he used block fill because of failure? Maybe he (being a track only car, so why not) didn't want to take a chance and just threw it in for safety sake? After all, not nearly as much was know then about how much a 2.2 block would take.

He very clearly said that he would shatter cylinder walls.
He tried partial fills and he would shatter the upper unfilled part still.
So he went full fill.
I think this discussion is quite interesting!


BTW, I agree with where you are taking that argument Brian!

stock 3.0 displacement is 2972cc and i have 3130 cc's (almost .2L more) just from a .096" overbore. I know others have bored even more and held double the power. For us, its the heads that flex from the larger bore (larger bores expose thinner parts of the deck on the head) and not block problems. my 12 valve heads have not flexed yet even though they have been decked more then I would have liked.

Sometime gaining displacement doesnt help things, but I think often it does, especially in racing classes that are very restrictive and you can break a few rules without getting caught.

Honda guys have great luck sleeving. But their sleeves are preformed.

I dont know how effective implanting a steel cylinder is with no other work.

I know someone looked into sleeving the 6g72 in order to try .200" overbores but I guess it didnt happen.

[BadAssPerformance]

Not sure on the 2.6L but I am pretty sure they are running stock bedplate w/crankstraps and the stock crank (Ion Nitride treated)

Here are some reference posts from darrell himself

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f169/how-much-hp-tq-before-stock-crank-breaks-407552/index2.html#post5600379

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f169/how-much-hp-tq-before-stock-crank-breaks-407552/index2.html#post5600408


Dunno about that, but the answer may be on neons.org

Good link to Cox's info, sounds like the 2.4L is pretty damn strong. Will have to check out the dot org to find the 2.0L limits :thumb:

As for revving? 20 years ago these 8v heads were reving past 8k :D

[8valves]

Good link to Cox's info, sounds like the 2.4L is pretty damn strong. Will have to check out the dot org to find the 2.0L limits :thumb:

As for revving? 20 years ago these 8v heads were reving past 8k :D

You would think after countless posts from multiple people trying to inform others of this that somebody would pick up and stop thinking the 8V head has to be put to the fire if you want to go past 7500 rpms. :o

And why do I find it nearly impossible to believe that DCR didn't fill their block? Why wouldn't you in a track only car?

[Ondonti]

especially when they might already be running an illegal crank for more displacement :P

In the end, Shadow may show us that block filling....might not be as important as we thought.

I think Corby is doint the same thing. Hoping it holds up.

Non CB..I would think its gonna have the same main caps problems though.

[turbo2point2]

In the end, Shadow may show us that block filling....might not be as important as we thought.


True, but for me, I think the benefits are worth it. I'll take any insurance I an get. As for Shadow, keep up the good work!


I think Corby is doint the same thing. Hoping it holds up.


I didn't realize his setup (hybrid?) was non-cb. He may have some good findings for our discussion in time.

[Shadow]

As for Shadow, keep up the good work!

Thanks, and back at you! Let's all keep it up! :thumb:

[turbovanman²]

You would think after countless posts from multiple people trying to inform others of this that somebody would pick up and stop thinking the 8V head has to be put to the fire if you want to go past 7500 rpms. :o


Again, just saying, sheesh and 8500????????

[Ondonti]

True, but for me, I think the benefits are worth it. I'll take any insurance I an get. As for Shadow, keep up the good work!



I didn't realize his setup (hybrid?) was non-cb. He may have some good findings for our discussion in time.

No sorry, I had bad order in my paragraph.
I assume he has a CB just because he is very very picky. :)

My fear is he will shatter cylinders if the myth is true.

[turbo2point2]

No sorry, I had bad order in my paragraph.I assume he has a CB just because he is very very picky.

My fear is he will shatter cylinders if the myth is true.

Gotcha. Wonder if he could chime in to confirm? I remember Russ Jerome broke a cylinder wall, but I'm not sure of the circumstances(cb?, tune, etc.).

[8valves]

Gotcha. Wonder if he could chime in to confirm? I remember Russ Jerome broke a cylinder wall, but I'm not sure of the circumstances(cb?, tune, etc.).

And Reeves had split the block behind #3 I think?

[turbovanman²]

And Reeves had split the block behind #3 I think?

I've done that, the water jacket split right across the back? :confused:

[Ondonti]

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f258/why-we-invented-dcr-crank-straps-485658/


Of course, they dont state at what HP it happens at. IMO, they try to get people to buy them before they are needed and the scare tactics work....

[BadAssPerformance]

Luckily for Cox a lot of guys in the SRT4 crowd are the "gotta have" mentality and will buy the crank strap for tehir 400hp build...

Would be nice to know the bedplate limits tho!

EDIT: so I posted some questions in that thead :thumb:

[Speedeuphoria]

I'd say 600HP on the 2.4 straps. They would like you to believe its 500HP, just like they say about oil pumps, among other things

[t3rse]

I wouldn't believe a word that comes from them anyways. From what DCR said, doesn't seem like they are needed until 1000 hp.

[CSXRT4]

Heres a post where darrell mentions when they fill the block, not sure if they ever had a failure or if they just filled it to "be safe".


Anything over 450whp the DCR Straps are needed or if your building and do not know how far its going to be pished then you might want to go ahead. Cars that track alot with even less horsepower need them due to the stress from drag racing and track conditions. No billet cranks available. We have our ION Cranks which are the only cranks proven to handle 1500+hp in the SRT4 engine. This is a stock virgin crank (never exposed to oil) ran thru a unique process to change the strength by up to three times. We cant break one lol. All of our B and Stroker motors come with these and we offer them as an upgrade. Our ProLite cranks come ION as well. We suggest going ION in 500whp and up builds.

Some of the pro car engines were filled blocks and some were not. We have done them both ways and is only needed above 1400hp. After 1400hp the cylinders try to explode from the shear pressure. Your answer wold be 1350-1400whp when to fill the block solid with H&H Hard Block.


I agree that they try to make it seem like you need crank straps at a much lower horsepower than what you do. ChuckSrt4 is running 630+ HP without crankstraps (stock bottom end actually!). I dont think the DCR hotrod even had a failure until 1000hp. Another company that makes crank straps also claims that they have had failures at 500hp though, I think it was TK MotorSports

[BadAssPerformance]

Intersting that you need a crank strap at 500whp but no filler till 1400whp? :confused2:

[BadAssPerformance]

I replied to SRTforum thread :)

[Ondonti]

hey guys, stop giving the scoundrels a hard time lol.

[turbovanman²]

Nice questions, I was wondering what they look like too, :thumb:

[black86glhs]

Someone make a cross flow 8 valve head so we can try that out.:thumb:

[BadAssPerformance]

Someone make a cross flow 8 valve head so we can try that out.:thumb:

Shhhh, don't give away my crazy ideas ;)

Looks like pics and info posted...

[black86glhs]

Shhhh, don't give away my crazy ideas ;)

Looks like pics and info posted...Ooops. Nevermind. LOL. As many on here would say, "since it doesn't exist, its a waist of time to even say it.....:blah:":thumb:

[Ondonti]

This might tell you why DCR wants to sell them. 10 dollar pieces of crap for 500 bucks, another 300 for ARP hardware. WTF

His are "RAW" brand straps. Whatever that means. His are machined metal. The others are just plan bar stock cut into pieces and drilled.


4340 Billet Steel "straps"

There is a "hollow" space below them in this picture, or at least there is stock. That area is filled with a metal filler, then the bed plate is machined to accept to the crank straps.

These bed plates are known for "dropping cranks"

This fixes that problem. Its not a DCR scare tactic, its been seen even locally.

Darrell charges around 800 for his WITH the ARP stud kit

Mine sells for 500 and they are actually machined pieces, not just flat stock cut (Which isnt flat by the way)

Mine
http://www.unknowncoatings.com/bleh/CIMG2098.jpg

DCRs 500 dollar kit (uses modified head bolts, ARP studs are another 300)
Ryan Warner and I determined the two sets he had from DCR, werent even flat, they are just stock, cut to the right length and then two holes drilled
http://www.unknowncoatings.com/bleh/Crank_Strap_Kit_2.jpg




Oh and here is another companies, they extended theirs to utilize the balance shaft bolt holes. But these are also just stock cut to length
http://www.unknowncoatings.com/bleh/srt4%20strap%20kit%20002.jpg

[Ondonti]

so I guess its the plate that fails, not the bolts..............

The crank tears itself out of the plate!

Obviously not a problem for 500hp cars lol.

[black86glhs]

so I guess its the plate that fails, not the bolts..............

The crank tears itself out of the plate!

Obviously not a problem for 500hp cars lol.I see how the bottom end is built now. Never had one apart or seen it before. :D
Not that it is necessary, but I think I would rather have aluminum welded in where the straps go. Then bolt it together and have it align honed. For those with less money than sense, lol, they obviously work.

[t3rse]

Bed plate is cast iron, so you won't be welding any aluminum to it...lol

[black86glhs]

Bed plate is cast iron, so you won't be welding any aluminum to it...lolOh, they arent aluminum? Stupid Mopar.:mad:
Like I said, never seen one whole or apart.:o

[t3rse]

It is a really good idea really, the crank is sandwiched with two halves of the block. That is why I think DCR is full of crap when they say you need reinforcement over 500 hp, considering that this design is probably stronger than a 4 bolt main.

[black86glhs]

I wouldn't have a problem using them on a lower HP engine, but doubt....no....not gonna pay 500 simoleons for bar stock with some holes drilled through it.:yuck:

[Ondonti]

me thinks you dont own an srt-4

Anyone here think they can produce some sets for 50-100 bucks (without hardware) just to piss some people off?
Or sell them for 300-400 and still make a killing.

[t3rse]

If enough people would buy sets, I could probably have them made for less than that even. The machining is minimal and material isn't ridiculous. If done, heat treating would be the most costly aspect. Arp hardware is going to cost.

I should have probably been more clear that meant that (I think that) they aren't needed until much higher power levels, and even so, I don't think it would be too extreme to machine an entire bed plate if one were to shoot for the moon.

[turbovanman²]

Oh, they arent aluminum? Stupid Mopar.:mad:
Like I said, never seen one whole or apart.:o

Smart Mopar, if they used aluminium, they'd be spitting them out regularly.

[Ondonti]

Smart Mopar, if they used aluminium, they'd be spitting them out regularly.
The aluminum top fuel blocks have like 8 bolts per main lol!

[GLHNSLHT2]

Looks like just re-inforcement. I like the one's that utilize the BS holes the best. I don't think it needs to be even within .005 flat but bar stock is usually within that. You could easily take a couple thousands off the block side and drill your holes from there and be golden.

As for the price? Well seems quite high. Our machine time is $165/hr i think now. That doesn't include programming or material costs. Also volume has a lot to do with price. If you're gonna make 50 sets (how many people are gonna be building 600+hp SRT motors?) the price is going to be higher than if you can sell 100 or 500 sets. Sure if you have a bridgeport at home in your garage and your time is worth nothing to you then you could make them pretty cheap as long as you have all the tools already. But custom and low volume parts means $$$. Now maybe a full set with bolts for $250 wouldn't be out of the question.

[turbovanman²]

The aluminum top fuel blocks have like 8 bolts per main lol!

Exactly, and they would be like 2 inches thick, lol! ;)

[Shadow]

Just an FYI, I know of 2 SRT-4's that are well above 700WHP and are both running the stock bedplate with no issues.....so far. I wouldn't consider it till 800+WHP on a properly built mtr.

[turboshad]

Though I agree I don't think they will necessarily break at 500 what you can't really see in those pics is that the area above the main journals isn't solid. It is a hollowed out section and I don't think it is quite as beafy as the TD mains in that area. Even though the beadplate gives it and the block more regidity I think the high stress area right above (or below, how ever you want to call it) the mains is weaker. When I pull my engine in the spring again I think I will make some straps because it is easy and I want to have a worry free 500 at the wheels.

2.4

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g103/turboshad/DSC01793.jpg


2.5

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g103/turboshad/DSC00221.jpg

[Austrian Dodge]

i had the same discussion with a friend of mine just yesterday when we went out and ripped apart the 2.4 engine i bought.

i won't get or make crank straps until i reach 600whp, i just don't think its nessecary.

someone tried to fill the hollowed out area with welds? :)

imho DCR is just pushing people to buy their stuff even it's not needed for their builds. thats why i'm still unsure about the oil pump issue.

[t3rse]

Though I agree I don't think they will necessarily break at 500 what you can't really see in those pics is that the area above the main journals isn't solid. It is a hollowed out section and I don't think it is quite as beafy as the TD mains in that area. Even though the beadplate gives it and the block more regidity I think the high stress area right above (or below, how ever you want to call it) the mains is weaker. When I pull my engine in the spring again I think I will make some straps because it is easy and I want to have a worry free 500 at the wheels.

2.4

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g103/turboshad/DSC01793.jpg


2.5

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g103/turboshad/DSC00221.jpg

The bed plate may be hollowed out above the mains, but it is stupidly stout compared to a common block main...look at all the material otherwise and the mounting points....no comparison.

I will say this with confidence: A four bolt main common block is not as strong as a stock bedplate srt motor, I'll bet money on it. The block flex is minimized with the bedplate and the 4 bolts can't achieve this same end goal.

Austrian: totally agree...DCR is full of ----. The oil pump mod seems to be a total hoax to me. The stock oil pumps fail because detonation resonates through the crank and causes fatigue on the gear. No detonation, no problem...ie: good tune equals no need for bullshit DCR parts.

[Shadow]

The stock oil pumps fail because detonation resonates through the crank and causes fatigue on the gear. No detonation, no problem...ie: good tune equals no need for bullshit DCR parts.

You hit the nail right on the head! We believed this from the begining. Stock longblock including balance shafts, with the exception of DCR oil modifyer. 50 trim with bolt-ons, 3 years running, Zero issues, Full bodied...no CF, only the spare taken out. 30 psi = 11.33@ 126mph. Car has an 11.1x in it but the mild street clutch started slipping. Daily driver.

[turboshad]

I think both mods, straps and oil pump, are for peace of mind. Very much like forged pistons. There is a local guy that was throwing over 30 psi and juice at his Mahles and they were holding fine. But you know what would happen with the slightest bit of knock. Same with the oil pump. You could easily run high numbers with no issue but when you have that one off day your engine is gone. With the mains I see it as, do I want to be able to say where the limit is or just spend an extra couple hundred (b/c I can make them myself) and not be worried about it. Just my .02

This guy was trapping 136 and they cracked. That should be putting him around 600HP assuming ~3000lbs

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f169/upgraded-main-bearing-cap-lower-block-available-carnage-pics-inside-340551/

This quote is kind of the way I was thinking about it.


If you're making giant power numbers the stock iron bed plate/girdle can flex and allow the crank to move. Over time it can allow the crank to develop micro cracks and fissures that can lead to it failing. What will more than likely happen first and is the other problem a strap kit can help prevent, which is the bed plate itself failing. Since the 2.4L uses that cast iron bed plate to directly support the crank and main bearings instead of a separate cap, under high loads they've been known to crack and fail.

Like you've probably heard, it isn't an issue of having to have one at an exact power level, but if you plan to make more than 500-600 whp it might be a good idea for long-term reliability.


All in all I do agree that DCR throws out scare tactics to sell their stupidly priced products. At the same time you need to keep and open mind and pick out the points of merit in some of the products he does sell and then figure out how to fabricate or do the concept yourself for cheaper.

DJ

[rbryant]

I think both mods, straps and oil pump, are for peace of mind. Very much like forged pistons.

In the case of the oil pump I read a good argument somewhere (neons.org or srtforums) that said that the oil pump issue is caused by too much restriction in the oil passages going to and from the oil filter, etc.

One thing I did (after talking to Ed Peters about it) was to port the snot out of the SRT oil filter adapter where it connects to the pan. It has some serious restriction in it that puts stress on the pump.

Perhaps both the new pump and the porting are good but the porting should be a first step. I drilled it with passages with a 9/16 drill bit and then worked on the inside of the adapter and smoothed everything out.

Notice that DCR runs a custom pan that connects the oil lines directly to the pump on their race car rather than going through the stock pan and adapter.

-Rich

[Ondonti]

Am I the only one who cleary sees that the mains are NOT HALLOWED OUT above the crank.

There are EXTRA arches added on top of the bedplate. Just because there are two skinny arches instead of one big arch, that doesnt mean they created a hollow spot in order to force you to need crank straps.

[Shadow]

Am I the only one who cleary sees that the mains are NOT HALLOWED OUT above the crank.

There are EXTRA arches added on top of the bedplate. Just because there are two skinny arches instead of one big arch, that doesnt mean they created a hollow spot in order to force you to need crank straps.

Who you sayin "only one" to! :nod:

[Ondonti]

Who you sayin "only one" to! :nod:

Its easier then figuring out who agrees among all the oil pump talk. :eyebrows:
Air conditioner is turned off and its like eighty billion degrees in this mexican house. You try using your brain here. :amen:

[turboshad]

Am I the only one who cleary sees that the mains are NOT HALLOWED OUT above the crank.

There are EXTRA arches added on top of the bedplate. Just because there are two skinny arches instead of one big arch, that doesnt mean they created a hollow spot in order to force you to need crank straps.

Oh but they do because the bottom of the arches is not flush with the bolt face. On the 2.5 the one big arch starts at the bolt face and is solid all the way through. On the 2.4 the two skinny arches don't stop at the bolt face but the the center goes past "hollowing" above the main journal. Stress is a function of force and cross sectional area. I would be curious to see what the cross sectional area of both is and if one is more or less than the other.

Once again please don't take this as me saying "straps are needed", just pointing out the differences between the two blocks.

Here are a couple more picks. The first you can really see how the hollow goes past the bold face. The second one shows how the girdle also narrows down and does not carry the width of the mains like it would seem looking at it from the top and previous picks. More of an information pic since there have been none of the bottom.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g103/turboshad/MainCap.jpg

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g103/turboshad/DSC01748.jpg

[t3rse]

So I beams are weak huh? The 2.5 doesn't have all the mains connected.

[Shadow]

Its easier then figuring out who agrees among all the oil pump talk. :eyebrows:
Air conditioner is turned off and its like eighty billion degrees in this mexican house. You try using your brain here. :amen:

That was funny when I read it........prob because it's -30 where I am and I was actually pondering what would have more of an adverse effect, the HOT or the COLD! :lol:

[Shadow]

I don't think there's any Q that the SRT-4 bed plate and BE is sig stronger than a 2.5 or 2.2. Now if someone wants to be x-tra safe than I really see no harm in making it beefier. I truely believe it has more to do with how well the mtr was built. If your engine builder is in Q or if your not going to go to the extent of balancing .....beef up the bedplate with a strap kit. If your going to balance your assembly and your builder has a good rep I think it's overkill below 800whp.

[Ondonti]

Well, I think we know there is a huge difference between someone making 620whp on a bone stock shortblock and

someone breaking a bedplate with 600whp on a built motor.

One person is playing things safe, one person is breaking their motor.

:P

I certainly wouldnt pay 500 bucks for straps and then 300 for bolts.

[turbovanman²]

You can really see how thin the main caps are on the bedplate with "turboshads" pictures.

Like its been said, DCR is recommending, not that I agree with some of his products and prices. Its like our engines, we can use forged, we can balance, we can port the head, many chose not to etc, :thumb:

[SebringLX]

Ive never heard of anybody filling the block on an SRT-4 engine. Mike Crawford and DCR built a 1400hp+ SRT-4 hotrod and I have never heard any mention of filling the block, but you could probably e-mail DCR and ask or post on Srtforums

They are filling the 2.4L block to create a 2.8L stroker now...

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f258/dcr-2-8-liter-big-block-project-black-hole-494075/

[BadAssPerformance]

Thats a big 4 cyl...

[WickedShelby88]

LOL, wow, and the 8v haters came by before the 8v lovers :D

As stated, the 16v is far superior in flow... thats not the question. Actually Brian got exactly where I was going



Which is at what power level does the 2.4L bottom end become a benefit?

But this brings another question, again, for those that are sick and want to stay 8v... is there a better rod ratio using a 2.0L bottom end?

^And here I thought you didn't care about rod ratio. I stand corrected. Stroker Ace for the win! Kinda like the big bore kits the yamaha banshee's use.

[BadAssPerformance]

When did I ever say that? :confused2:

Rod ratio is very important if you want to rev higher, but rod ratio is tpically more expensive and time consuming to change than many many other mods that will make more performance $/hp ...

[WickedShelby88]

Yeah I guess when you were referring to it we were talking about a tall deck versus say the 2.4 swap you did which in your case turned out to be more cost effective. So how bout a 2.4 head on a tall deck with custom rods! You know it would rev.

[minigts]

Hell JT, I'll do it. Just give me the stuff and I'll make it happen. :) I have a good flowing 8v head I can use as a test. :D

[BadAssPerformance]

Yeah I guess when you were referring to it we were talking about a tall deck versus say the 2.4 swap you did which in your case turned out to be more cost effective. So how bout a 2.4 head on a tall deck with custom rods! You know it would rev.

There was nothing 'cost effective' about the 2.4L swap... but the power potential is greater than the tall deck. if you want a better rod ratio... 2.0L crank in it somehow...

2.4L swap has more potential than a hybrid.... stronger bottom end. did you read any of this thread?

[BadAssPerformance]

Hell JT, I'll do it. Just give me the stuff and I'll make it happen. :) I have a good flowing 8v head I can use as a test. :D

LOL... maybe if I had the stuff to loan.

[WickedShelby88]

Just giving you crap. In the long run though the quest to more hp is cheaper with a 2.4 than it is with a 2.2/2.5, no?

[BadAssPerformance]

The question of this thread is how much HP you can make with an 8v head... and would it help to have a 2.4L bottom end? that is all.

[Ondonti]

I think overboring so much that they need to fill the block is a bit ridiculous. When exactly would you ever use this motor?

Now if they were sleeving it like the honda boys do, then I would be cheering them on.

For an 8 valve that has problems reving high because of valvetrain restraints, is maximizing rod ratio worth the $?
Could a lower rod ratio actually compliment the 8 valve?

[turbovanman²]

Just giving you crap. In the long run though the quest to more hp is cheaper with a 2.4 than it is with a 2.2/2.5, no?

The 16 valve swap has potential too make way more power than any 8 valve ever could and do it cheaper BUT the initial cost and necessary fab work scares people away. Some have done it very cheaply, some like JT, not so much. I did a TIII for simplicity sake and would do it again in a heartbeat, :thumb:


I think overboring so much that they need to fill the block is a bit ridiculous. When exactly would you ever use this motor?

Now if they were sleeving it like the honda boys do, then I would be cheering them on.


On the track, I can't see you ever needing this on the street but on the track, if they've maxed out a 2.4, then this is the next level, :nod:

If running pure methanol, the engine never gets hot so overheating isn't an issue.

[BadAssPerformance]

For an 8 valve that has problems reving high because of valvetrain restraints, is maximizing rod ratio worth the $?
Could a lower rod ratio actually compliment the 8 valve?

wow, coming from the 3.0L guy ;)

If 8v 2.2L based engines revved to almost 10k in the 80's... why cant they now?

[Ondonti]

cause we don't remember the old lessons :(
And have tiny juevos

[BadAssPerformance]

Lol...

[glhs0426]

OK, then, how much power has been made with a 2.0L bottom end? :thumb:

About 500HP turbocharged the block starts flexing is what I gather from the .org.

The n/a Super Touring Stratus blocks were never rebuilt. Chrysler would throw the block away come rebuild time. If I remember correctly, it was one race per block. Granted, they were spinning the crap out of them (10K?), but man did they sound sweet!


Hell JT, I'll do it. Just give me the stuff and I'll make it happen. :) I have a good flowing 8v head I can use as a test. :D

I have a 2.0L block in the garage. Minigts come pick it up; I need the space. A 2.0L 8 valve would be very different.

[black86glhs]

I know it would cost a fortune(nobody makes it) but I was thinking of a bedplate setup for the 2.2/2.5 CB. I'm thinking as strong or stronger than the 2.4. Hell it doesn't even have to be cast. Wish I had more $$$$, I would seriously consider making one and see how it worked. Pipe dreams....pipe dreams.:nod:

[BadAssPerformance]

About 500HP turbocharged the block starts flexing is what I gather from the .org.

The n/a Super Touring Stratus blocks were never rebuilt. Chrysler would throw the block away come rebuild time. If I remember correctly, it was one race per block. Granted, they were spinning the crap out of them (10K?), but man did they sound sweet!

Interesting... I guess i thought those were stronger but maybe only in light weight neons ;)


I know it would cost a fortune(nobody makes it) but I was thinking of a bedplate setup for the 2.2/2.5 CB. I'm thinking as strong or stronger than the 2.4. Hell it doesn't even have to be cast. Wish I had more $$$$, I would seriously consider making one and see how it worked. Pipe dreams....pipe dreams.:nod:

Thats why I was thinking 2.4 bottom end... plentiful!

[minigts]

About 500HP turbocharged the block starts flexing is what I gather from the .org.

The n/a Super Touring Stratus blocks were never rebuilt. Chrysler would throw the block away come rebuild time. If I remember correctly, it was one race per block. Granted, they were spinning the crap out of them (10K?), but man did they sound sweet!



I have a 2.0L block in the garage. Minigts come pick it up; I need the space. A 2.0L 8 valve would be very different.

What the heck? Who are you?! What.....Who?!!?!!? Another turbo-mopar owner in Memphis. I should plan for the end of the world or something. ;)

I have a spare head with a roller cam, computer, etc., hmmm..... Where are you located in Memphis? My name is Jon, btw.

[black86glhs]

Interesting... I guess i thought those were stronger but maybe only in light weight neons ;)



Thats why I was thinking 2.4 bottom end... plentiful!I agree, but it would be cool to make a 2.2/2.5 bed plate.

[glhs0426]

What the heck? Who are you?! What.....Who?!!?!!? Another turbo-mopar owner in Memphis. I should plan for the end of the world or something. ;)

I have a spare head with a roller cam, computer, etc., hmmm..... Where are you located in Memphis? My name is Jon, btw.

Are you not Jon Trotter? I'm John Roberts. We have met at Andy Stachar's place when you were hauling off the remains of the IROC R/T Andy was parting out. I saved a Spirit R/T from Andy's place just after he pulled the engine. I'm located about five minutes from Andy.

You got to move to Tipton county! Let's see, Andy (GLHS441), me (GLHS0426), James, and Kris (TFMech) all live within 7 miles of each other.

Now, are you going to pick up the 2.0L block and see about this combo are not?

[BadAssPerformance]

Wow, Memphis is full of members :thumb:

[minigts]

Are you not Jon Trotter? I'm John Roberts. We have met at Andy Stachar's place when you were hauling off the remains of the IROC R/T Andy was parting out. I saved a Spirit R/T from Andy's place just after he pulled the engine. I'm located about five minutes from Andy.

You got to move to Tipton county! Let's see, Andy (GLHS441), me (GLHS0426), James, and Kris (TFMech) all live within 7 miles of each other.

Now, are you going to pick up the 2.0L block and see about this combo are not?

Oh ok, I remember. I actually moved out to Fayette county, just outside Mason. I'll PM you. :thumb:

Well maybe I can do the test JT, but I will need some guidance. :D

[black86glhs]

Oh ok, I remember. I actually moved out to Fayette county, just outside Mason. I'll PM you. :thumb:

Well maybe I can do the test JT, but I will need some guidance. :DYou soon will have a good fuel rail to help with the testing...:thumb::D

[minigts]

You soon will have a good fuel rail to help with the testing...:thumb::D

I know, right? I need to get my fanny in gear and take that other one off. Been working on moving things around in the garage to make room for all my TIII stuff. :)

[black86glhs]

I know, right? I need to get my fanny in gear and take that other one off. Been working on moving things around in the garage to make room for all my TIII stuff. :)Hoping it will be there tomorrow.:D

[SebringLX]

I think overboring so much that they need to fill the block is a bit ridiculous. When exactly would you ever use this motor?

Now if they were sleeving it like the honda boys do, then I would be cheering them on.

For an 8 valve that has problems reving high because of valvetrain restraints, is maximizing rod ratio worth the $?
Could a lower rod ratio actually compliment the 8 valve?

Actually... turns out they are making a sleeved version of this 2.8L stroker that will retain full cooling...

Page 9: http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f258/dcr-2-8-liter-big-block-project-black-hole-494075/index9.html

I don't understand why they are calling it a "Big Block" though... Big Bore seems more appropriate... the block isn't any bigger. :confused2:

[turbovanman²]

Pics-anyone have a pic of a stock block, top side?

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/attachments/f258/44689d1241760091-dcr-2-8-liter-big-block-project-black-hole-img_2436.jpg

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/attachments/f258/44690d1241760260-dcr-2-8-liter-big-block-project-black-hole-img_2425.jpg

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/attachments/f258/44691d1241760260-dcr-2-8-liter-big-block-project-black-hole-img_2426.jpg

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/attachments/f258/44692d1241760260-dcr-2-8-liter-big-block-project-black-hole-img_2428.jpg

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/attachments/f258/44693d1241760260-dcr-2-8-liter-big-block-project-black-hole-img_2427.jpg

[Ondonti]

I agree, but it would be cool to make a 2.2/2.5 bed plate.

This doesn't really address the cylinder strength issue, and it seems 4 bolt mains take care of much of the bottom end problems. And that stuff is already available.

[turbovanman²]

Where did the pics go? :confused:

[black86glhs]

This doesn't really address the cylinder strength issue, and it seems 4 bolt mains take care of much of the bottom end problems. And that stuff is already available.Once again I agree. I still think it would be interesting to build one and see if the strength is any better or not. Who knows, it may fail drastically.

[tinyturbo]

This doesn't really address the cylinder strength issue, and it seems 4 bolt mains take care of much of the bottom end problems. And that stuff is already available.

What cylinder strength issue ? Is this being based off of one case wich could have been an anomaly, the guy could have wound up with a crappy block or his machinist could have screwed up trying to bore the block too quickly and stressed the cylinder out id think would be more likely, a lot of the machinists around here are just plain idiots that I wouldnt want sharpening the blade on my lawn mower

[contraption22]

Actually... turns out they are making a sleeved version of this 2.8L stroker that will retain full cooling...

Page 9: http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f258/dcr-2-8-liter-big-block-project-black-hole-494075/index9.html

I don't understand why they are calling it a "Big Block" though... Big Bore seems more appropriate... the block isn't any bigger. :confused2:

Because in the SRT world, its all about marketing and how good the name of the mod looks in your sig line.