F24 Reliability and failures
12-17-2018, 07:07 AM
#23
That midrange torque, good lord
12-17-2018, 08:20 AM
#25
Will be interesting to see.
BC stage2 cams could keep you competitive.
I have a 2.4L CNC Speedshop kit that I also had tuned by Jeff Evans. I ended up with 273HP/201TQ : Custom intake, 80mm ktuned TB, Skunk2 Ultra Race IM (K-series, ported by 4piston, with CNC Speedshop K series to F adapter), Urge 2.4 Stroker header, and Urge Gernby exhaust). The larger plenum of the Skunk2 Ultra Race IM really opened everything up for me.
BC stage2 cams could keep you competitive.
I have a 2.4L CNC Speedshop kit that I also had tuned by Jeff Evans. I ended up with 273HP/201TQ : Custom intake, 80mm ktuned TB, Skunk2 Ultra Race IM (K-series, ported by 4piston, with CNC Speedshop K series to F adapter), Urge 2.4 Stroker header, and Urge Gernby exhaust). The larger plenum of the Skunk2 Ultra Race IM really opened everything up for me.
12-26-2018, 10:46 PM
#27
Well its been a year since I made this post, I just got done installing my F24. So far so good, the car feels great, although I haven't had it tuned yet, and no I haven't done hard accel yet either and I wont until its tuned. but for the time being and to make sure everything is ok I modified Evans tune to add more fuel. (it was running very lean off the previous tune). I left all of Evans safety protocols in the ecu and only modified the fuel map to richen the mixture. I'm going to get the car tuned by Evans Tuning in Jan of Feb depending on when I can get an appointment.
Mods before the stroker was installed are as follows
Made 222 RWHP and 144 lbft torque
70mm T-body
t-body port matched stock manifold
Ballade sports intake tube with velocity stack filter in stock gutted airbox
Ballade sports header, test pipe
Borla dual exit exhaust
BC stage 2 cams
BC dual valve springs with retainers and seats
just added
Kings performance 2.4 stroker kit with 11.1 compression
HKS High power single.
wish me luck. hoping to see 270 RWHP, but it will probably be closer to the 250-260 range
Mods before the stroker was installed are as follows
Made 222 RWHP and 144 lbft torque
70mm T-body
t-body port matched stock manifold
Ballade sports intake tube with velocity stack filter in stock gutted airbox
Ballade sports header, test pipe
Borla dual exit exhaust
BC stage 2 cams
BC dual valve springs with retainers and seats
just added
Kings performance 2.4 stroker kit with 11.1 compression
HKS High power single.
wish me luck. hoping to see 270 RWHP, but it will probably be closer to the 250-260 range
01-04-2019, 05:05 PM
#28
Isn't airflow the limiting factor, the reason the 2.15 AP2 is 8200 while the 2L AP1 is 9000. With the right breathing (heads, intake, TB, cams) and valvetrain (valves, springs, retainers, keepers, rockers(?)) is there any reason 9k or 10k wouldn't be reasonable. The bottom end shouldn't have a problem. An aggressive cam needs aggressive springs and that puts a strain on valve stems (dropped valve heads can destroy an engine, nearly everything), retainers, keepers, and rocker arms).
Otherwise, wouldn't the extra displacement just shift the power curve to lower engine speeds?
Otherwise, wouldn't the extra displacement just shift the power curve to lower engine speeds?
01-05-2019, 09:10 AM
#29
Isn't airflow the limiting factor, the reason the 2.15 AP2 is 8200 while the 2L AP1 is 9000. With the right breathing (heads, intake, TB, cams) and valvetrain (valves, springs, retainers, keepers, rockers(?)) is there any reason 9k or 10k wouldn't be reasonable. The bottom end shouldn't have a problem. An aggressive cam needs aggressive springs and that puts a strain on valve stems (dropped valve heads can destroy an engine, nearly everything), retainers, keepers, and rocker arms).
Otherwise, wouldn't the extra displacement just shift the power curve to lower engine speeds?
Otherwise, wouldn't the extra displacement just shift the power curve to lower engine speeds?
From the dynos that I've seen, the power curve does typically shift to lower engine speeds, which isn't a bad thing. I wouldn't say that it "just" shifts the curve as it always increases torque and pretty much always increases peak horsepower. There definitely seem to be downsides but i'd say it is much like the move from the AP1's 2.0 to the AP2's 2.2. The 2.4 is objectively "better" than the 2.2 in just about every way, like the 2.2 and 2.0. It should not be physically capable of revving as high but will put down power well and in generally a more usable range. That is my layman's interpretation of the things I've seen and they make sense. I'm sure you can find a post or article about rod/stroke ratio and sidewall loading. I actually think the Ballade 2.4 deck plated thread gets into it. A drawing helps visualize it a lot.
01-05-2019, 11:06 AM
#30
I don't think the biggest challenge with revving an s2k higher is the head. The stock head has more than enough revs for most setups and can easily be built to handle more. As I understand it, the real limitation with the revs is the rod angle which has a huge impact on how much of a load the pistons put on the side walls at the bottom of the stroke. Stroking the engine more only increases the rod angle, loading the bores even more.
From the dynos that I've seen, the power curve does typically shift to lower engine speeds, which isn't a bad thing. I wouldn't say that it "just" shifts the curve as it always increases torque and pretty much always increases peak horsepower. There definitely seem to be downsides but i'd say it is much like the move from the AP1's 2.0 to the AP2's 2.2. The 2.4 is objectively "better" than the 2.2 in just about every way, like the 2.2 and 2.0. It should not be physically capable of revving as high but will put down power well and in generally a more usable range. That is my layman's interpretation of the things I've seen and they make sense. I'm sure you can find a post or article about rod/stroke ratio and sidewall loading. I actually think the Ballade 2.4 deck plated thread gets into it. A drawing helps visualize it a lot.
From the dynos that I've seen, the power curve does typically shift to lower engine speeds, which isn't a bad thing. I wouldn't say that it "just" shifts the curve as it always increases torque and pretty much always increases peak horsepower. There definitely seem to be downsides but i'd say it is much like the move from the AP1's 2.0 to the AP2's 2.2. The 2.4 is objectively "better" than the 2.2 in just about every way, like the 2.2 and 2.0. It should not be physically capable of revving as high but will put down power well and in generally a more usable range. That is my layman's interpretation of the things I've seen and they make sense. I'm sure you can find a post or article about rod/stroke ratio and sidewall loading. I actually think the Ballade 2.4 deck plated thread gets into it. A drawing helps visualize it a lot.