When u look at the type of engine and it says STROKER; what is that? I saw a stroker engine for the Neon on Howell. I also saw a STROKER engine on an Evo. Is it anything special?

 

Got this off of a website:

A stroker motor is an engine that utilizes a different crank to achieve more displacement with the same engine block. An engine fitted with an altered crankshaft that has a larger stroke increases the engine's size without increasing the size of the block. Here are some normal stroker motors and their stock and aftermarket strokes.

Basically an aftermarket kit to enlarge displacement for more power.

 

Good to know.

 

Thats not a stock motor. If thats what you got, you have a believe a 2.2L motor in your neon.

 

yeah it could be up to a 2.3 liter....from what Ive seen those kits are okay but not necessary for good performance you can do a 2.4 swap to get near the results. Or srt-4 swap since they are already stroked...

 

Stroker motors sound cool, but don't forget abut the rod length-to-stroke ratio. The 2.0L is already on the hairy edge of what is considered "acceptable" from a n/a performance engine, and the 2.4L is even lower than that. But both motors are very well suited for turbocharging because of it.

I really don't see the advantage of stroking the 2.0L. The old "there's no replacement for displacement" crap went out the window a long time ago. There are plenty of 2.0L DOHC's making more power than my Jeep's 5.9L V8. Given the choice of stroking the 2.0L vs. swapping to a 2.4L for turbocharging, the swap would win hands down if for no other reason than cost.

There are plenty of other engines out there that would benefit from stroking. The Neon just isn't one of them, in my opinion.

Best of luck!

 

The old adage "There's no replacement for displacement" hasn't completely gone out the window. If you prefer a swap to a stroker because of cost, I'd just get an old Camaro and Modify its V-8 with the plethora of cheap performance parts based solely on its costs not counting operation costs. The characteristics of a 5.7L NA motor making 500hp and a 2.0L 4-Cylinder making 500hp would undoubtedly be different. Which would cost more to build though? I don't know. What I'm getting at is alot of Domestic V-8 guys I know firmly believe in no replacement for displacement. Alot of Import guys I know thing Forced-Induction is the perfect solution. I just think its 2 different ways of obtaining the same goal. Which one is better? Who cares? I don't. Slap 8 Turbos onto a 4-cylinder for all I care. On the flip side, you could have the Yamaha-built 3.8L V-8 in the old Ford Taurus Sho, and compare it to a 10-Liter 4-Cylinder (if one exists) and then the 4-cylinder would have the displacement advantage and thus a power advantage. Then if you add forced induction to the 3.8L V-8, you make up some of the Liters lost. From the way the engine characteristics are, the 4-Cylinder makes more power per turn with an advantage over the tiny V-8 only excess literage could provide, as Inline motors create more power per turn than do V-angle motors. If you had equal displacement of 10 Liters, the number of cylinders could lend the V-8 the power advantage but not complexity, as it would be much larger than a 4-cylinder. Liters could not just be made up with Forced-Induction, but with higher rpms. F-1 for example makes 1000ish hp from most of its cars using only 3 to 5 Liters of displacement. However, RPMS run into the 15K and even as high as 20K. ICE motors can be designed to inherently make more power as rpms climb. So I guess it just depends on the perspective you have and the road you take when trying to replace displacement, but it remains a viable alternative to ultra-high performance F-1 Style technology. Imagine it though... a 20K redline V-10 with 10 Liters of Displacement. That would be a MONSTER.

 

3.8 yamaha v-8 is a big piece o poopy the v-6 yamaha sho is much better. There are a lot of factors that bring that theory that theory to shame...you also forgot to mention the horizontally opposed and inline 6 and 8 versions as well as hemispherical and rotary motors or wankel. double and triple rotary.

 

ahh but come on, the look on a v8 guys face when he gets beat by a little car with an I4 just can't be beat

 

OK, so there's no replacement for displacement. Likewise, there's no replacement for variable valve timing, forced induction, dual runner intake manifolds, properly designed headers, ignition timing control, fuel control, drag slicks, proper gearing, or wheelie bars. If it was all about displacement, we wouldn't have dragstrips... Don't get me wrong, I own V8's as well and love 'em. But displacement is just a small part of the overall picture. It seems like you have a bigger canvas to start with, but people forget the limitations that large displacement tends to have (piston speeds, airflow variance, etc.). They do sound tons cooler though... From my experience, most of the domestic V8 guys that spout those slogans have a hard enough time spelling "V8"... My other favorite is "Horsepower sells cars, but torque wins races"... Don't they teach physics in high school anymore?

Show me a V8 with anywhere near the HP/cc output as an S2000, particularly off the showroom floor (that's 240HP, 2.2L = 0.11). Even the stock DOHC/Magnum Neon has a 0.075. Compare that to the 2005 Mustang GT - 0.065... Of course, we could start in on rotary engines... 260+ HP out of a 1.3L from the factory

My dad owned 2 SHO's that I drove the heck out of when I was in college. Very fun sedan...