On the LSJ the problem with a supercharger is it can make big power with a small engine. When cobras get their Superchargers ported they can gain 40hp while a minicooper sc will only get 10-15 hp. When 2.4 goes supercharged does it gain more hp with the stock pulley then a lsj? So if a 2.4 guy ported to a 2.7 he could then experience the biggest hp boost with a supercharger. It would even be able to use a M90 effectively even may be able to use a whipple 1.6.

So heres my Q's
1. How much hp does the 2.4 gain with a M62 with stock pulley.
2. Can a 2.4 be stroked at all?

interesting question about the 2.4 being stroked.

On the LSJ the problem with a supercharger is it can make big power with a small engine. When cobras get their Superchargers ported they can gain 40hp while a minicooper sc will only get 10-15 hp. When 2.4 goes supercharged does it gain more hp with the stock pulley then a lsj? So if a 2.4 guy ported to a 2.7 he could then experience the biggest hp boost with a supercharger. It would even be able to use a M90 effectively even may be able to use a whipple 1.6.

So heres my Q's
1. How much hp does the 2.4 gain with a M62 with stock pulley.
2. Can a 2.4 be stroked at all?

sounds like you're using pulleying down and porting interchangeably...


yes, the LE5 will gain a lot more power per the same pulley size than a LSJ will. beck was at like 260-280whp with just a 3.0" and an agressive tune...no meth

As for stroking it....probably...but how much? only a couple mm at best im sure. It can be bored out at least another mm as well to match the bore of the performance crate ecotec engines.

I was just thinking if you could port a 2.4 to a 2.5 or 2.6 then you couls slap on a tvs and see 400whp with meth tune and all that good stuff. The LSJ should of been a 2.4. If it was up to me I would make a supercharged 4 banger 2.5-2.7 liters. Superchargers need displacement.

If it was up to me I would make a supercharged 4 banger 2.5-2.7 liters. Superchargers need displacement.

thats a huge 4 cyl lol. and the last part is well... a very good point. in general superchargers dont compare on low displacement engines. although a properly stroked low displacement engine + a supercharger could make nasty amounts of torque but, say good bye to top end power.

anyways, the 2.4 is already bored out (from the 2.0 right... kinda new sorry). if so that means its displacement has been raised 20%. thats quite a bit. squeezing a bit more out would probably be not worth the cash for the gains that would be had. but if uve got the money take a block to a shop and have em go at it. maybe they could put in some sleeves or something so that it doesnt hit an oil or coolant passage.

and btw im gonna assume that u meant "bored" in place of a "ported" or two. ported REALLY only refers to the head PORTS. although its now pretty commonly used when anyone is talking about widening a out an area (i.e. intake mani, throttle body, etc). not complaining about it though. i refer reworked tbs as PnPed all the time.

LSJ = 86 x 86
LE5 = 88 x 98
GM Race Ecotec Block = 89 x 89

i'd like to see a stroked LE5 for under 5k. that would be a custom build primarily for geek factor if you weren't racing it.

I was just thinking if you could port a 2.4 to a 2.5 or 2.6 then you couls slap on a tvs and see 400whp with meth tune and all that good stuff. The LSJ should of been a 2.4. If it was up to me I would make a supercharged 4 banger 2.5-2.7 liters. Superchargers need displacement.

Superchargers need displacement. Lol! That was a cool statement. I wonder if the 2.4 stroked is just a 2.0 anyway. The 2.0L's stroke is definintely shorter. 2.0 slightly out torgues the 2.4, but the 2.4 ends up even Steven with 2.0L around 100 mph.

2.4L- better top end speed
2.0L - better low end torgue.

It evens out, supercharged or otherwise.

At 30 mph, i'd bet on the 2.0L
At 120 mph i'd bet on the 2.4L
Just my experience

A longer stroke or a shorter stroke is still a stroke. And that doesnt always add up to a change in displacement. With V8's, sometimes a stroker ends up throwing a rod through the hood. Like a bullet.

On the LSJ the problem with a supercharger is it can make big power with a small engine. When cobras get their Superchargers ported they can gain 40hp while a minicooper sc will only get 10-15 hp. When 2.4 goes supercharged does it gain more hp with the stock pulley then a lsj? So if a 2.4 guy ported to a 2.7 he could then experience the biggest hp boost with a supercharger. It would even be able to use a M90 effectively even may be able to use a whipple 1.6.

So heres my Q's
1. How much hp does the 2.4 gain with a M62 with stock pulley.
2. Can a 2.4 be stroked at all?

You would be looking at regrinding the crank, which ZZP excels in. Ask some of their former customers how well those hold up.

Superchargers need displacement. Lol! That was a cool statement. I wonder if the 2.4 stroked is just a 2.0 anyway. The 2.0L's stroke is definintely shorter. 2.0 slightly out torgues the 2.4, but the 2.4 ends up even Steven with 2.0L around 100 mph.

2.4L- better top end speed
2.0L - better low end torgue.

It evens out, supercharged or otherwise.

At 30 mph, i'd bet on the 2.0L
At 120 mph i'd bet on the 2.4L
Just my experience

A longer stroke or a shorter stroke is still a stroke. And that doesnt always add up to a change in displacement. With V8's, sometimes a stroker ends up throwing a rod through the hood. Like a bullet.

....wtf are you saying? the first half of your post is just completely wrong...and the second half doesnt make sense

....wtf are you saying? the first half of your post is just completely wrong...and the second half doesnt make sense dude, i was just speculating out loud, damn. lol. you aint never seen a rod go through a rocker arm, then through a valve cover and then through a hood? the rest was just a joke. why dont you just spread your knowledge, cause i know your not dumb, and stop preying on people to sacastically correct. i could have corrected you on a few things you write, but thats not why i come here. i know plenty, and i learned from a mechanic that i gurantee could debate 80% of shit on this site, you know why. because every day for the last 42 years he has serviced every make and model in existence woking for Firestone and then owning his own. he just happens to live a in a small town where ecotecs are 1 in a million, so thats why i come here. plus his brother also has had his own transmission shop for 30 years as well. i been around it and in it all my life and even the smartest mechanics have different opinions and views on what "fact" is. but im going to repeat myself again. I DO think your knowledgeable, but if i got a question about something ill ask you. but your dont need to tell me jack shit. stop being immature and give the arrogance a fucking rest already

the m62 is actually good for an application up to 4L

the LSJ was a 2.0 for SCCA reasons

dude, i was just speculating out loud, damn. lol. you aint never seen a rod go through a rocker arm, then through a valve cover and then through a hood? the rest was just a joke. why dont you just spread your knowledge, cause i know your not dumb, and stop preying on people to sacastically correct. i could have corrected you on a few things you write, but thats not why i come here. i know plenty, and i learned from a mechanic that i gurantee could debate 80% of shit on this site, you know why. because every day for the last 42 years he has serviced every make and model in existence woking for Firestone and then owning his own. he just happens to live a in a small town where ecotecs are 1 in a million, so thats why i come here. plus his brother also has had his own transmission shop for 30 years as well. i been around it and in it all my life and even the smartest mechanics have different opinions and views on what "fact" is. but im going to repeat myself again. I DO think your knowledgeable, but if i got a question about something ill ask you. but your dont need to tell me jack shit. stop being immature and give the arrogance a fucking rest already

weren't you the guy who got shit for holding a gun in one of your pics..? in which case, by all means correct me whenever you can. a 2.4 would never pull on a 2.0 at any RPM stock for stock. im correcting you because you are spreading (ridiculous) misinformation. I try and keep these forums accurate so people dont learn incorrect "facts" and waste shit tons of money.

btw, this is the part i was questioning. It makes zero sense...:
A longer stroke or a shorter stroke is still a stroke. And that doesnt always add up to a change in displacement.

stroked motors will always make more power...displacement = power all other factors held equal. The reason you'll see a piston/rod fly is because higher strokes require ;lower peak RPMs, but people still rev to the same stock redline, stressing the internals.

the LSJ was a 2.0 for SCCA reasons

The LSJ was a 2.0 because the Saab B207, which is its daddy, is a 2.0. LSJ is just a B207 engine with a supercharger on it.

stroking an LE5 is getting into pretty LONG stroke. I would say an offset grind could easily get you to a 100mm stroke but thats only gonna get you about 50cc, or .05Liters

Sleeving it out to 90mm and doing the 100mm stroke would get you a 2.54L engine up from 2.38 stock

i agree Maven. but the reason the SS's got the LSJ was for SCCA reason. i didnt word it right i guess. there is a 2.0l Force induction class and the 2.2 and 2.4 were obviously to big for the class that the car would be competitive in

from my understanding a square bore/stroke is better for forced induction because of better stability at higher RPM's. Most boosted applications like RPM's.

My $.02

from my understanding a square bore/stroke is better for forced induction because of better stability at higher RPM's. Most boosted applications like RPM's.

My $.02

This is why the LSJ is more suitable for boost compared to the LE5.

from my understanding a square bore/stroke is better for forced induction because of better stability at higher RPM's. Most boosted applications like RPM's.

My $.02

while this is mostly true..really it just comes down to what kind of powerband you want. but yea, for higher revs, a square bore/stroke is ideal (or sometimes even a larger bore)

while this is mostly true..really it just comes down to what kind of powerband you want. but yea, for higher revs, a square bore/stroke is ideal (or sometimes even a larger bore)

The big issue for high revs isnt strictly squareness, and as a matter of fact almost all of the engine people think of when talking about high revs (4cylinders at least) are undersquare, that is smaller bore than stroke., The Honda A, B, D, F, H, and series (except B18 which is oversq, and K20 which is square same as our 2.0) and the mitsubishi 4G6X series engines are all undersquare, they keyto high rev reliability is short stroke, usually under 90mm, beyond that you start to get really high piston speeds, which puts alot of stress on things, that and you start to get really high bearing speeds(one reason why Hondas and many "built" engines, including ECOs, use small rod journals)

The big issue for high revs isnt strictly squareness, and as a matter of fact almost all of the engine people think of when talking about high revs (4cylinders at least) are undersquare, that is smaller bore than stroke., The Honda A, B, D, F, H, and series (except B18 which is oversq, and K20 which is square same as our 2.0) and the mitsubishi 4G6X series engines are all undersquare, they keyto high rev reliability is short stroke, usually under 90mm, beyond that you start to get really high piston speeds, which puts alot of stress on things, that and you start to get really high bearing speeds(one reason why Hondas and many "built" engines, including ECOs, use small rod journals)

oh, no, im aware. I learned quite a lot on this back about a year ago(ish?) when i read your write up on a hypothetical 10,000rpm ecotec. I just didnt want to delve too deeply into it here. I got lazy and didnt wanna type :cool:

The big issue for high revs isnt strictly squareness, and as a matter of fact almost all of the engine people think of when talking about high revs (4cylinders at least) are undersquare, that is smaller bore than stroke., The Honda A, B, D, F, H, and series (except B18 which is oversq, and K20 which is square same as our 2.0) and the mitsubishi 4G6X series engines are all undersquare, they keyto high rev reliability is short stroke, usually under 90mm, beyond that you start to get really high piston speeds, which puts alot of stress on things, that and you start to get really high bearing speeds(one reason why Hondas and many "built" engines, including ECOs, use small rod journals)

That's an extremely interesting bit of information

What's the limits on bore/stroke for Ecotec?

LSJ = 86 x 86
LE5 = 88 x 98
GM Race Ecotec Block = 89 x 89 Yeah, see. That was different then what I was told. I hope I don't get wrong info for torgue specs. If anyone knows where to find info on torque specs. (What to torque head bolts to and all that), please show me the waqy.

I would say its most likely 90mm and about 102mm using currently available parts or modified stock parts. with custom I dont know what they actual physical limits are.