cheekychimp
Well-known member
Quoting turboaddict:
all of this is great in theory but it is alot of work for just running a 16g. in my mirage I am dropping boost from 35psi to 25psi beginning at 6500 and 10psi of boost lost by anything north of 7000rpm. Also please don't mess with the amg manifold if you are going to run an evo3/2g head just use the evo3 intake manifold(and for god sake sell the amg to me
. also you are going to loose some bottom end with the longer rod. (if I under stand your setup of stock pistons, and aftermarket rods) the reason is the rod angle with the longer rod is not as great and thus torque goes down. this is how you can rev higher; to regain this people were going with the 92-94mm crank to overcome the loss and then some.
Again I am not trying to piss on your campfire but a stock 2.0 will be perfectly fine with what you are trying to accomplish and last for a long time. (it seems that you are trying to hard. or just think too much about what could be (as most of us do). I myself dream of a 4g61t with 11-1 compression on E85 for power and mpg's.
I think you make some very good points and I think you are quite correct that at the end of the day, for what I want, the stock rebuild option will work just fine. I feel very strongly however that even though the "don't fix what ain't broke!' philosophy has a lot of merit, if no-one had deviated from the tried and tested path many years ago we would all be using EVO III 16G manifolds and turbos, there would be no strokers or super long rod motors, and this board would have long since become very boring.
Often the end conclusion of discussions like this is far less significant than the information that is spawned as a result of them. I've never heard of a Hyundai Sonata. I don't think I've ever seen one in Asia. But in fact if I want to see the effects of the AMG Cyclone mated to a 2G head this offers me a perfect opportunity to try it out and it's completely reversible. That sort of info is actually pretty awesome.
Also we tend to look at these threads individually, when in fact quite often the information in one can be cross referenced with that of another. Perhaps building a 1.8 litre super long rod 4G64/4G63 hybrid turbo engine doesn't have a great deal of merit, but it has given me a lot of ideas nonetheless. Jeff mentioned above that even taking into account the trade offs a lot of these engines would probably still perform better than a stock 2.0 litre. My 2WD 1.8 Galant GLS in the UK puts out a pathetic 89 hp. There are a lot of insurance liabilities for increasing capacity above that of the stock 1.8 litre capacity over there. But I bet a 4G61 crank in a 4G64 block an AMG Cyclone Manifold and AMG head (plus fuel injection and an 8800 rpm redline) would make close to 150 hp with a decent header and exhaust! I also highly doubt that even if I went for the 1.7 litre 4G61/4G63 combo that the bottom end would be any more soggy than that of the 89 hp stock 4G37.
all of this is great in theory but it is alot of work for just running a 16g. in my mirage I am dropping boost from 35psi to 25psi beginning at 6500 and 10psi of boost lost by anything north of 7000rpm. Also please don't mess with the amg manifold if you are going to run an evo3/2g head just use the evo3 intake manifold(and for god sake sell the amg to me
. also you are going to loose some bottom end with the longer rod. (if I under stand your setup of stock pistons, and aftermarket rods) the reason is the rod angle with the longer rod is not as great and thus torque goes down. this is how you can rev higher; to regain this people were going with the 92-94mm crank to overcome the loss and then some. Again I am not trying to piss on your campfire but a stock 2.0 will be perfectly fine with what you are trying to accomplish and last for a long time. (it seems that you are trying to hard. or just think too much about what could be (as most of us do). I myself dream of a 4g61t with 11-1 compression on E85 for power and mpg's.
I think you make some very good points and I think you are quite correct that at the end of the day, for what I want, the stock rebuild option will work just fine. I feel very strongly however that even though the "don't fix what ain't broke!' philosophy has a lot of merit, if no-one had deviated from the tried and tested path many years ago we would all be using EVO III 16G manifolds and turbos, there would be no strokers or super long rod motors, and this board would have long since become very boring.
Often the end conclusion of discussions like this is far less significant than the information that is spawned as a result of them. I've never heard of a Hyundai Sonata. I don't think I've ever seen one in Asia. But in fact if I want to see the effects of the AMG Cyclone mated to a 2G head this offers me a perfect opportunity to try it out and it's completely reversible. That sort of info is actually pretty awesome.
Also we tend to look at these threads individually, when in fact quite often the information in one can be cross referenced with that of another. Perhaps building a 1.8 litre super long rod 4G64/4G63 hybrid turbo engine doesn't have a great deal of merit, but it has given me a lot of ideas nonetheless. Jeff mentioned above that even taking into account the trade offs a lot of these engines would probably still perform better than a stock 2.0 litre. My 2WD 1.8 Galant GLS in the UK puts out a pathetic 89 hp. There are a lot of insurance liabilities for increasing capacity above that of the stock 1.8 litre capacity over there. But I bet a 4G61 crank in a 4G64 block an AMG Cyclone Manifold and AMG head (plus fuel injection and an 8800 rpm redline) would make close to 150 hp with a decent header and exhaust! I also highly doubt that even if I went for the 1.7 litre 4G61/4G63 combo that the bottom end would be any more soggy than that of the 89 hp stock 4G37.
Last edited:
