|
There are a few reasons that I would not go with a 2.2. First, it is a small 2.2, but since we don't go into the hundredths place when talking displacement, 2.2 it is. Also, They use the same rods as the short stroke motor, which can create a suboptimal rod angle. In the 4G63 camp, you rarely see a stroked 2.0 with a 2.0 crank and 2.0 rods. Rather, they start with the 4G64 crank and 4G64 style rods, as the rods are longer. This creates a better rod angle that puts less lateral stress on each rod as the motor is producing power.
Think of it this way:
you have a 3" stroke, and your rods are 6" long. You stroke the crank, so that your rods are still 6", but your stroke is 4". Picture the angle that the rod is at while it is at 90*... the shorter stroke will be a higher degree angle then the longer stroke, which translates into the force being transmitted more straight through the rod. This is why I like the 2.4 swap better, as the rods are longer, and the rod angle is the same (actually, ever so slightly better) then the 2.0. At this point, all that needs to be worried about is piston speed, since the piston travels the circumpherance of the stroke each rotation of the crank. The distance is a constant, but this means that a long stroke will never rev like a short stroke, and it is best to make your power at a higher RPM, as you will be able to take advantage of gearing.
But now I am rambling. The 2.0 is a slightly rev-happier motor then the 2.4, which should be (by my measurements) slightly more rev happy then a stroked 2.0. It's all in what you want. -=B-=
Dude, Boeing called. They want their wing back.
|