stroker??

[crud88]

hey guys, im just wanting to know from the people out there that have done it, wat sort of power increase did you get? much more power down low? drivability? and so on

[Kimmo]

With 20% more capacity, some of which achieved by increasing stroke, what do you reckon?

[Callumgw]

pm Timmzy he'll put you straight

[Dinwoodie]

With 20% more capacity, some of which achieved by increasing stroke, what do you reckon?

I reckon you didn't answer his question. I've been in a 355 Stoker that has less down low than a 304. So is he meant to assume the same results?

[Kimmo]

With 20% more capacity, some of which achieved by increasing stroke, what do you reckon?

I reckon you didn't answer his question. I've been in a 355 Stoker that has less down low than a 304. So is he meant to assume the same results?

Hard to believe that's all else being equal.

More cubes = more power.

More stroke = more torque.

No? I mean WTF.

Also, the cool thing about strokers is they get more cubes out of a smaller engine, saving a bit of weight over a larger donk/tranny.

[tassuperkart]

I've been in a 355 Stoker that has less down low than a 304. So is he meant to assume the same results?

The it would be fair to say that whoever built and tuned that 355 had NFI and the 304 went well! Pretty easy to rationalise that really.
No substitute for cubes if even 1/8 of the tuners brain is engaged.

L8r
E

[Callumgw]

Stroking an engine will change the way it revs and develops power.

If we compare engines with the same 'ccs one with a longer stroke is likely to have an increase in torque, but a decrease in total power.

When you also change the 'ccs it get a little mixed. I suspect the effect is non-linear, so it would depend how square the engine was to start with.

F1 engines are a interesting extreme case of massively oversqure engines.

So back to the stroker.... I remember Timmzy saying he didn't think it was worth the effort when he did it and his power levels appear 'moddest' next to others.
So PM Timmzy....

C

[Timmzy]

Hi,

I'll answer the question- don't bother unless u get the bits for free.

A well balanced and even half decent tuned stock setup will be perfect. Data? How many of those top ten cars have the stroker setup in them? Not many.

On my phone so it's difficult to type but u get picture

Darren.

[Kimmo]

Sure, increasing the stroke will hurt its ability to rev, thus pinching off some power higher up. But look what the OP's asking:

much more power down low? drivability? and so on

I would strongly suspect you'd be in store for about 20% more of that.

Don't mess it up with a massive turbo, and you should get significantly better driveability.

[tassuperkart]

much more power down low? drivability? and so on

I would strongly suspect you'd be in store for about 20% more of that.

20% increase?? Just based on an increase in stroke and capacity....I dont think so dude.
Its not that cut and dried.
L8r
E

[crud88]

cheers timmzy bro i was basically wanting to know whether it was worth it or not and the pros and cons ? i own cons old et the number 4 one on top 10 list and am currently runnin on 3 cylinders with 20psi compression in number 3 so was contemplating rebuild but after cylinder leakdown test im pretty sure its just an exhaust valve so i should only have to take head off and fix that probem with the valve im hoping

[Kimmo]

20% increase?? Just based on an increase in stroke and capacity....I dont think so dude.
Its not that cut and dried.

Based on a 20% increase in capacity, talking about the part of the rev range where the cons of increasing the stroke haven't kicked in (in fact, where the pros are counting), it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me.

What other factor/s might detract from a grunt increase that's proportional to the capacity increase, other than a longer stroke not revving as well? The larger capacity means the breathing system has shrunk a bit relatively speaking, but that shouldn't be an issue at lower revs, particularly on a forced induction donk...

So why shouldn't you get 20% more until say, 4500 revs?

[tassuperkart]

You just dont!
Sry, I just cant be arsed going further to be honest. It just doesnt work like that.
Same as you dont necessrily double your wheel horsepower at 1 bar boost. It's the diminishing returns caper.

And furthermore.............my feeling are hurt by your unprovoked and vitriolic attack on my grammar skills, or perhaps lack of them....... *sniff sniff* **sulks**

E

[n12sumfin]

i dont think that if you put together a balanced bottom end you couldnt rev it as much as stock, i think the limiting factor on the whole equation would be the drive train more than anything else.

[Callumgw]

Based on a 20% increase in capacity, talking about the part of the rev range where the cons of increasing the stroke haven't kicked in (in fact, where the pros are counting), it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me.

What other factor/s might detract from a grunt increase that's proportional to the capacity increase, other than a longer stroke not revving as well? The larger capacity means the breathing system has shrunk a bit relatively speaking, but that shouldn't be an issue at lower revs, particularly on a forced induction donk...

So why shouldn't you get 20% more until say, 4500 revs?

There's more to engines than just capacity. How 'square' an engine is has a big effect on how and where it produces power and torque. It also effect the way an engine revs.
Strokers (under-square) tend to give more torque lower down. Over-square tends to produce more power higher up.

So you might be gaining cc but your loosing higher RPM and power higher up...so you don't get 20% from 20%

C