S2000 Naturally Aspirated Forum Discussions about N/A motor projects, builds and technology.

F24 Reliability and failures

 
Old 12-17-2018, 05:43 AM
  #21  
Thread Starter
 
Ajval79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 180
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by s2000ellier View Post
mid-range was more impressive thank peak

What supporting mods did you have?
Ajval79 is offline  
Old 12-17-2018, 06:59 AM
  #22  
 
s2000ellier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,184
Received 63 Likes on 50 Posts
Default

3" exhaust and OBX ITBs (52mm if i remember)
s2000ellier is offline  
Old 12-17-2018, 07:07 AM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scottsdale, Az
Posts: 1,103
Received 70 Likes on 58 Posts
Default

That midrange torque, good lord
Chibo is online now  
Old 12-17-2018, 07:56 AM
  #24  
Thread Starter
 
Ajval79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 180
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Unhappy

Originally Posted by s2000ellier View Post
3" exhaust and OBX ITBs (52mm if i remember)
So you're saying 270 is way to optimistic?
Ajval79 is offline  
Old 12-17-2018, 08:20 AM
  #25  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 514
Received 14 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ajval79 View Post
So you're saying 270 is way to optimistic?
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.
snitm is offline  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:39 AM
  #26  
 
s2000ellier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,184
Received 63 Likes on 50 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chibo View Post
That midrange torque, good lord
yeah stroking the f20c is great, i wouldnt bother if i had a f22c though
s2000ellier is offline  
Old 12-26-2018, 10:46 PM
  #27  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 784
Received 38 Likes on 36 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ajval79 View Post
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
Spend the extra money and time on adjustable cam gears. It's been shown the BC2 cams show MUCH better gains when they are degreed in. Somewhere on s2ki there are dyno graphs showing it against stock and skunk2 i believe. It showed the greatest gains on the midrange with +2IN and +2 EX
Charper732 is offline  
Old 01-04-2019, 05:05 PM
  #28  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,850
Received 49 Likes on 42 Posts
Default

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?
DavidNJ is offline  
Old 01-05-2019, 09:10 AM
  #29  
Jub
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 146
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by DavidNJ View Post
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?
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.
Jub is offline  
Old 01-05-2019, 11:06 AM
  #30  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 152
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jub View Post
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.
This is correct, the block is the limiting factor because of higher piston speeds caused by a longer stroke.
Scigheras is offline  

Quick Reply: F24 Reliability and failures


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands