Ive asked about them before, but i really just dont understand what the difference is between stroker and not. Do you gain more hp or torque with a stroker? Someone explain this to me.

 

2.0L vs a 2.3L

TQ and HP plus faster spool on a bigger turbo

 

yes, a stroker is virtually building a larger motor. You would for instace put it a larger crank and there for increase the stroke of the pistion resulting in more cubic inch displacement. You will gain horse power and torque but the one of the main bennifits to building a turbo stroker is you decrease spool up time. The downside to a stroker is that they do not last as long as a regular motor. Say you wanted to run a GT35R or a fp3065 turbo on the street, it takes a good amount of exhaust flow to spool these guys up so you would see a quicker spool up time if you stroked your motor to 2.3l.

 

there wont be a problem with life of the stroked motor. the biggest down side is usable RPMs. a built 2.0L and built head car far exceed the RPM capibilities of a 2.3L..the bigger the displacment the lower the REV limiter will need to be. so a 2.0L all built can rev to 9000 were a 2.3L at 8000 (these are not real numbers just making an example)

 

when i was debating whether or not i wanted to build a 2.3l or a 2.0l I emailed some one at buschur racing and they said that strokers do not last as long

 

so you would suggest just more bore? At what hp will the stock crank shaft fail?

 

The first to fail would be the rods not the crank. The stock crank itself can take alot. ... as long as you dont crankwalk lol

 

no i dont suggest more bore, the more you increase the bore the thinner the cylinder wall. look at it this way, you take a chevy 350 and bore it .030" over and you have just created a 355 engine, yay .3 more horse power at best.

 

I know this but, he wont be getting near 100k anytime soon. so milage is not something I would worry about that is what I was saying