I really don't see the point. I understand that going with a longer rod will put less pressure on the side of the cylinder wall, but you're losing displacement.

As my understanding goes, you'll lose tones of torque, and take longer to get into your power band. However, you'll probably have a wider power band, and stay in it longer.

I was playing in Desktop Dyno and compared the 2.4 vs the 2.0 and de-stroked the 2.0 to a 1.8l (I would have thrown the 2.2l in there, but I didn't know it's stroke or actual displacement). The 1.8 doesn't start to out-perform the 2.0 until 7500 rpm, and doesn't drop off quite as drastic. I compared with the crower3's, 11:1, 60mm TB, cams retarded 4*. It's max HP was never more than either of the other two.



I put boost to it and that 1.8l came alive. However, the 2.4l had as much as like 35hp more than the 1.8l earlier in the RPM range, and shit loads more torque:



Make your own assumptions, but I still think that displacement is key. You could gear the car completely differently to get up in your powerband quicker, but it's still got 40+ ft-lbs of torque less than the 2.4l all the way up to 4500 rpm.

**EDIT**
Fundamentally, isn't the 2.0L a de-stroked 2.4L? Same bore, but different stroke, but taller deck on the 2.4? Correct me if I'm wrong.

**EDIT 2**
If you used the 2.4 block and the 2.0 crank (if even possible, or machined to fit), then you'd need longer rods, which will improve the ratio and you'd probably be able to spin higher RPM's as well. Just a though, however.

~Luke
Facebook
1969 Cougar - 11.91 - 380HP
2007 GSXR 750
1999 OZ - SOLD - 15.26 NA - 14.71 on 75 shot