Custom Stroked Beta Motor

[Cypher]

Recently I've been thinking about this, actually quite a bit today. I got ahold of a company that said they could make a stroker kit to change the displacement from 2.0 to a 2.2L. Only problem is this comes in at a pretty hefty price.

Now what i've been thinking about is what if we can find a way to increase the stroke but STILL use OEM parts? sounds crazy but heres what i've been thinking.

theres a couple ways to increase the stroke. the method that strikes me the most is:

"A good crank shop will be able to weld up your stock crankshaft and then re-finish it (with stock journal size)"

The other method of modifying the stock crank involves playing with the bearings so we're goign to dis-regard that. Now that we may have a way to modify the crank what about the rods and pistons?

Well, i'm thinking since the 1.8L rods are so much shorter that we MAY be able to use them to bring down the piston travel (so as to pull away from the head). I'm coming to this conclusion because with 1.8 rods/pistons you drop your compression ratio considerably, meaning the piston isn't coming up nearly as far. from a 10.1:1 - 7.7:1. remember how the 1.8 pistons alone bump up the CP? well pull them out and replace with 2.0 pistons and you SHOULD have more than enough clearance with the valves.

These are just some of the thoughts i've had and i hope others have something to comment. I'm going to crunch some numbers to find out how much farther the crankshaft needs to be modified to make a 2.2L then from there i'm going to look for the measures from the 1.8 rods and see if i can find anything out. :D

This may very well sound good in my head but i need to get some numbers to see if its anywhere NEAR plausible.

[tharptroy]

you're going to need another 10mm of stroke to make it happen. its just going to be a pain in the butt.

the head isnt that great as it is, cams are expensive...custom crank...

if you're really that serious, I might suggest trying to swap in a motor of a different make, and getting some real power.

EDIT: or motorcycle FTW!!!!!!!

[Cypher]

Ah i was hoping you'd chime in for a little bit.

at this point its just kinda theory/thoughts. its more or less for discussion than anything else. and cams aren't that expensive with regrinds (just an FYI)

[KeWLKaT]

there is a local beta2 accent stroked to 2.1L, you might consider that.

[Cypher]

any more details on that? do you know the shop he got it done at?

[KeWLKaT]

Nope, just saw it in a magasine. It was custom apparently done by the said person and his buddy.

[tharptroy]

proper regrinds (welded and then re-ground) are going to be pretty expensive.

as you know, typical regrinds just take a little off of the base circle, making the valve motion harder to control at high rpm...but that wont matter much on a stroker, since I hope you wouldn't plan to take it over 6500rpm anyway.

you also dont have the kind of "customizability" with straight regrinds that you do with custom cams, making it hard to get everything out of it.

your (average) piston speed is going to go up to 4400fps at 6500rpm.

obviously going to put more strain on the sidewalls, but perhaps not so obviously choke torque production at high rpm.

the simple way to describe it is that high stroke motors require alot of airflow at once to fill the cylinder, whereas motors with less stroke and more bore have an easier time breathing since their airflow demand is more linear.

but...stroke it, port the heads, bump the compression, have a custom cam set ground, and you'd have a pretty mean street motor...but I wouldnt say that it would be worth it.

now...if there was a cost-effective way to bore it out, I'd be all for that!

[Cypher]

wouldn't the stouter (shorter) pistons help to reduce a little bit of strain placed upon the sidewalls?

i do agree that without cams or something else you'd be stifling the motor at the top end of its rpm range. on the plus side you'd have great low end and mid range torque!

[BobMs_wht2k2]

I'm wondering if it might be a little easier to start with the newer Theta? You'd already have your stroke. Plus you're talking about spending tons of cash on all the custom machine work that could be spent instead on electronics and mounts.

Just a thought. I've never been fond of regrinds personally.

[tharptroy]

wouldn't the stouter (shorter) pistons help to reduce a little bit of strain placed upon the sidewalls?


not really, longer pistons would somewhat reduce stress because of their larger surface area.

and EDIT:

I agree with bob, if you're going to spend alot of money, you should really start with a better platform.

...K24

[silversharkXD2]

theta FTW!!!

[Cypher]

this is just food for thought. thats all. after going over things, you're right. i had it backwards. here a nice diagram.

http://e30m3performance.com/tech_articles/engine-tech/piston-dynamics/force-graph.gif
this assumes that combustion temps and everything else stays the same.

[BColeman]

For starters, regrinds and rewelding on cranks and cams scares the crap out of me. Personally, I'd rather start with something newly forged.

Now, what about increasing bore size? That would increase displacement as well, right? The similarities between a DSM block and our own are there, so it would be feasible to find the right aftermarket piston to match the bore. As far as stroke, I would think it would be fairly reasonable to locate a rod from a DSM, aftermarket or OE, that could do the job. Of course, there are measurements that need to be taken to insure these things could work.

KDM manufacturers have some great cams already, though they are expensive. But undertaking a project like this would cost money anyway. You add these cams, Ferrea valves, springs, and retainers (all Ti) and you've got a great competitive head.

I really do think for starter, it would be better to bore the cylinder first, and machine the mating surface of the block and head (for resilience). And ideally, when stroking the motor, boost should be an option. It would be pretty easy, I think, to stroke the motor to a lower compression and boost it. I feel there would be some serious horsepower numbers at that point.

One other point before I go. I know this thread is about the motor, but the motor is only as good as the transmission. Meaning, focusing on beefing up the tranny would be an ideal way to go for the next coming year, so we all can crank up the boost controllers and throttle away, safely and without too many worries. Food for thought.

[Keyan]

Just as a head up, increasing the bore DOES increase displacement. But it only increases it .01-.05L. so spending hundreds of dollars to have it machined and new pistons installed really worth the 2-6hp gain?

[Cypher]

exactly the point i wanted to make, don't forget that you're going on a slippery slope as you bore it out. As you do it you lose material between the cylinder walls and make it WEAKER which is bad!

I'm currently working on getting all the specs on teh DSM motors to see what i can find.

edit: as for the welds and regrinding of the crank, V8 guys do it and it seems to suit them well.

[silversharkXD2]

I'd love to see someone do a theta swap...cyph, I think we should start a collection (lol) for you to do a theta swap. That way I can see if it works before I try. I'll pledge 50.00 bucks

[BColeman]

I'm more worried about the cost involved in a broken regrind or a broken crank that have all been welded. Normal regrinds, where material is added to it, are okay by me.

I did not know that the potential gain from increasing bore only resulted in that low of a discplacement increase. I did now that boring the cylinders can cause future heat damage to parts because of the thinness to them. I just was thinking it would be a nicely added touch.

You know, for example, if we have 83mm pistons, increasing bore by .5mm to 83.5mm would be beneficial, without the posibility of damage by heat. Just an idea to add into the mix, should reaching a 2.2L goal be unattainable due to rod/piston/crank designs out there on the market.

[Cypher]

i don't think that it'd be all that dangerous. the stroker kit i found was for 3400 bux or so!!!!

boring is done simply to get a fresh crosshatch pattern and to ensure there aren't any nasty gashes in the cylinder wall.

[only1db]

btw...the new hd (world engine) can be stroked out to a 2.6 liter by just using oem parts...granted they are mitsu parts....so we might be able to get some mitsu parts....when my partner comes back from training i will ask about the beta 2 motor...i'm sure he has some tricks up his sleeve.

[BColeman]

^ You are the man with the answers. I forgot all about where you are working and training.

Everyone, only1db will be the one to provide the appropriate answers, since he works at a Mitsu/Hyundai dealership. And his teacher, very impressive from what I understand.

[Cypher]

sweet. saves me from going over all the numbers, provided he has the answers.

[only1db]

^dude you have no idea!!

he is training in chi town right now for competition IN ****ING KOREA!!!!!

hopefully in the coming years i too can travel to korea and follow in the steps of my master...hhaha

seriously though..he is one of five that made it out of a couple hundred...he is the man!!!

[silversharkXD2]

btw...the new hd (world engine) can be stroked out to a 2.6 liter by just using oem parts...granted they are mitsu parts....so we might be able to get some mitsu parts....when my partner comes back from training i will ask about the beta 2 motor...i'm sure he has some tricks up his sleeve.

correct me if I'm miss understanding you, but the hd does not have the world engine. Only the base sonata and the upcoming tib are using or are slated to use hyundai's release of the world engine

[BColeman]

^ yes, you are right. A slight slip of only's writing, but we can forgive him:)

[mayollo072R]

Sonata's and Santafe's 2.4 blocks are used to make Mitsus 4g63 a stroker engine and they keep the mitsu head. I guess that will be a great start ahyunday technician can tell us if the heads can be interchangeble with a little machinning work.

Thats the stoker route for elantras, I think.

[chillbro1]

I'm currently working on getting all the specs on teh DSM motors to see what i can find

I have read all the above posts and all that...but it is one serious mistake to think that the 2.0L beta engines are even remotely related to the DSM stuff at all.

1.8L maybe because of the cyl. head...but for sure not the 2.0L in 01 and later Elantras...

The architecture is totally different.

The beta engine was not a copy of Mitsu technology...it was designed from scratch...

You would be better off comparing the 2.4L 4 cyl that was used until 2005 in the Sonata to the DSM engines.

Just some food for thought.


Peace,

[BobMs_wht2k2]

Wow, you are kinda skewed in a lot of different areas here. . .


1.8L maybe because of the cyl. head...but for sure not the 2.0L in 01 and later Elantras...

OK, the 1.8 in the J2's is also a beta. HAs nothing to do with the Mitsu's. Unless of course you're talking about the first gen of the Elantra which did use the 1.6 and 1.8 mitsu drivetrains. Of course those engines were on the wrong side of the engine bay and were stuck behind some of theworlds worst trans.


You would be better off comparing the 2.4L 4 cyl that was used until 2005 in the Sonata to the DSM engines.

Just some food for thought.


Peace,

That's one thought, although I do believe the 2.4 we're talking about is the Theta 2.4L in the new Sonata. It's the world engine developed with mitsu and chrysler. It's the same architecture in the 300hp SRT4 Caliber (hideous thing) so there are a lot of options for heads, displacements and blocks. Not to mention the 5-spd sonata trans bolts right up to it.

Personally, I would think changing to the newer style Theta with it's improved head design and larger displacement would be a better, cheaper alternative with a better chance for some day to day dependability.

[BColeman]

Wow, alot of conversation happened overnight, so where do I begin.


The Beta I and II BLOCK are blueprinted from the DSM 2.0 4G63 motor. The 4G63 HEAD won't bolt up to the block, because Hyundai used a BLUEPRINT of the block to design their own. And believe me, the similarities between the DSM and Beta motors are endless. It's been discussed here for years. However, the Archives don't work, so I can't access the info.

A popular upgrade for EVO owners who want to increase displacement and power is to take the 2.4L block from the new Eclipse. The 4G63 head bolts right up to the 2.4L block. The only mod to the block is piston oil squirters. That means a couple of hours at a machine shop. It is also cheaper in some cases to use the older 2.4L Sonata block, but there are a few extra steps to make it right for the Head to bolt up to. The 2.4L block is the pre-New Eclipse 2.4L motor. I'm not saying Mitsu took Hyundai's motor, but I'm saying that Mitsu and Hyundai are very close still, even though Mitsu's ownership of Hyundai is relatively small compared to what it was 10 years ago.


I would go so far as to say that the 2.4L Hyundai motor would just be a COMPLETE upgrade for the Elantra, however, those motors suffer on power, bigtime. Their weight leaves little be desired too. I wouldn't swap the 2.4L in the Elantra just because of displacement. Personally, if I was looking for more power from a motor swap, I would just use the newer 4G63. It's almost a straight bolt in affair.

But since this thread is about increasing displacement of the Beta motor, I won't go into detail about it. I talked to Frank at Xtreme Boost in Orlando, FL about the Evo head on the Beta block. We discussed this on many occaissions as I came up with more questions. He owns an Evo as his shop car, so we could park the cars side by side, and to the looking and poking around that is necessary to find out certain information.

I would start with bolting on the 4G63 head. It takes work, a lot of work, and it ain't cheap. But the performance gains from such are worth every penny. Then, I'd focus on the displacement, but wouldn't go to 2.2L, only 2.1L or so. That .1L of displacement would be very noticeable with the right head, or right head work.

Well, that's some more of my .2 cents anyway.

[only1db]

hyundia and mitsu are still very much intertwined....even more so now with the world motor...

yeah sorry about that...its not hte world motor...but it looks almost identical to the ones i the new lancer....i will dig a little deeper into thisl....

[yamaha]

If the block from the 4g63 and Beta are identical, can't we use rods and pistons from the 4g63 then?

[BColeman]

That's what I was implying. But the Crank is different. And it's different because the head is different, at least that's one reason. I would think they would work, but I'm not sure about the rods. I'm sure the pistons do. I've got the measurements listed somewhere. Give me a little while to find them and I'll post them up.

[HYTECH]

^dude you have no idea!!

he is training in chi town right now for competition IN ****ING KOREA!!!!!

seriously though..he is one of five that made it out of a couple hundred.

It sucks that they waited till now to send the top 5. At the previous National skills challange I made #5 and they sent the top 4 to korea.:(

[Silentwolf]

If what i've heard correctly, the NEW Lancer (07+) Now uses Hyundai's designed world engine. So the 06+ Sonata 2.4 should be replaceable into the Lancer. And which Mitsu is planning a 2.4 based Lancer anyways. So how different bolt up wise is the Sonata's 2.4 from the XD Elantras? The new EVO engine is just a boosted world engine right?? Anyone follow my train of thought here ;)

[BColeman]

That's pretty much what I've been saying in my posts.

You are right, the world engine is pretty much Hyundai's. They did the R&D on it, and took part in the build up.

I personally wouldn't swap motors from the Sonata to the Lancer. I'm sure it's possible, but not sure why.

The 2.4L "should" bolt right into the engine bay from a Sonata into the XD. But I don't know for sure, because I don't know if it has ever been done. Nor would I really want to.

But I see what you are getting at, and I said the same thing in one of my posts above. Yes, a 4G63 can be bolted into the engine bay. But it would have to be the NEW 4G63, not the older style, because they were pointed the wrong direction in regards to the transmission. What I mean is, the tranny on the older 4G63's is on the passenger side of the car. The new 4G63, they tranny is on the driver's side.

[Silentwolf]

Exactly, so perhaps the NEW EVO motor in an XD.:diablo:
Not that I'D do it necessarily, but its an idea.

[only1db]

hytech...it is four...my bad...no sleep ownz me....

actually....the motors are opposite because they the intake sits in the front....mitsu has always had the driverside tranny...just like hyundai has since 96

the new ones are not different the tranny is still on the driverside...but the motor is reversed.

and i do no believe that the trannys will bolt up...but its somthing to look at in the future...but why would you want to do that anyway? not to mention that they are also drive by wire...i find the new lancer to have a good amount of delay before accerlating...i'm not a big fan of DBW...its kinda weird...you have to drive one to know what i mean.

[Cypher]

I wouldn't however rule it out completely, because when I was having my motor built, the shop that was working on it also had a 4g63T motor sitting in the corner. I asked them out of sheer curiosity to see how much work it would take to mock up the 4g63T head on my motor. A week later they called me up and said everything lined up perfectly. The oil channels, the water channels, the cam sprockets. I decided against it at the time because the cam position sensor was a different setup, plus I was still running on a stock Elantra ECM, and I didn't know if it would be able to adjust to such a major change in flow characteristics.

But the point is that all of Hyundai's engines like the delta, alpha, and beta, although Hyundai designed and built, are based off of Mitsubishi designs. Hell, when I had my custom CV shaft made, the guy making it said the outer CV splines were Mitsubishi.

according to him and the shop he went to the 4g63 head DOES bolt up, the only problem would be the tuning since it uses 2 cam sprockets while we only have one. you'd have to be using a standalone to get this to work but i'm sure the gains would be phenomal. (sp???)

[BColeman]

^ That's cool. I was sure you had to add piston oil squirters to make it boost friendly, but that's nice that it is now confirmed it bolts right up. Thanks for posting that up.

A stand alone would definitely be needed, and the Timing Belt from the 4G63 as well. I wonder what else would be required, I'd be interested in doing something like this.

[HYTECH]

hytech...it is four...my bad...no sleep ownz me....

actually....the motors are opposite because they the intake sits in the front....mitsu has always had the driverside tranny...just like hyundai has since 96


alot of mitsu cars do have passenger side trannys and a few hyundai's up to 98 that used mitsu powertrains

[Cypher]

heres a few specs:

General:

Type In-line, Double Overhead Cam 16v
Number of cylinder 4
2.0L Eng. [4G63T]
Bore 85mm
Stroke 88 mm
Total displacement 1997cc (121.8 cu in)
Compression ratio 7.8:1 (90-94)
Firing order 4-1-2-3
Idle R.P.M 700 ± 100

Valve:

Timing-
Intake Valve
Opens BTDC 21" 26" 21" 16"
Closes ATDC 43" 46 "51" 48"
Exhaust valve
Opens BTDC 57" 55" 57" 55"
Closes ATDC 18" 9" 15" 9"

[jalmir]

close to the Beta engine but is that close enough ???

Beta 2

General:

Type In-line, Double Overhead Camshaft
Number of cylinder 4
2.0L Eng. [G4GC]
Bore 82mm (3.228 in.)
Stroke 93.5 mm (3.681 in.)
Total displacement 1975 cc
(120.52 cu.in.)
Compression ratio 10.1
Firing order 1-3-4-2
Idle R.P.M 700 ± 100
Ignition timing at
idling speed BTDC 8° ±5°/700rpm

Valve:

Timing-
Intake valve Opens (BTDC) 9°
Closes (ABDC) 43°
Exhaust valve Opens (BBDC) 50°
Closes (ATDC) 6°
Valve length:
Intake 114.34 mm (4.5016 in.)
Exhaust 116.8 mm (4.5984 in.)
Stem O.D.:
Intake 5.965-5.98 mm (0.2348-0.2354 in.)
Exhaust 5.950-5.965 mm (0.2343-0.2348 in.)
Face angle thickness of valve head (Margin):
Intake 1.15 mm (0.0452 in.) 0.8 mm (0.031 in.)
Exhaust 1.35 mm (0.0531 in.) 1.0 mm (0.039 in.)
Valve stem to valve guide clearance:
Intake 0.02-0.05 mm(0.0008-0.0019 in.)
0.10 mm(0.0039 in.)
Exhaust 0.035-0.065 mm(0.0014-0.0026 in.)
0.13 mm(0.0051 in.)
Valve guide:
Installed dimension O.D. Intake 46 mm (1.811 in.)
Exhaust 54.5 mm (2.146 in.)
Service oversize 0.05, 0.25, 0.50 mm
(0.002, 0.010, 0.020 in.) oversize
Valve seat:
Width of seat contact Intake 1.1-1.5 mm (0.043-0.059 in.)
Exhaust 1.3-1.7 mm (0.051-0.066 in.)
Seat angle 45
Oversize 0.3, 0.6 mm (0.012, 0.024 in.) oversize
Valve spring:
Free length 48.86 mm (1.9236 in.)
Load 18.3 kg / 39 mm
40.0 kg / 30.5 mm
Installed height 39 mm (1.5354 in.)
Squareness 1.5° or less
Valve clearance (cold) Intake 0.20 mm(0.0079 in.) 0.12-0.28mm
(0.0047-0.0110 in.)
Exhaust 0.28 mm(0.0110 in.) 0.20-0.36mm
(0.0079-0.0142 in.)




you'd have to bore the hell out of the block to get to the 4G63 85mm !!!

anybody digged more into this?


The 4g63 head info from Oh_Beta_Accent is interesting, did he swapped the head or was it just a check they did? if the head was swapped some pictures would be real cool!

[slow 2K2GT]

Wow the Beta II stroke is 5.5mm longer than the 4G63 motor, that could be an issue with a head swap. I dont think boring out to that size would be reasonable, the you would be looking at completely custom pistons. Lots and lots of work for this to be a worth while swap, in which time I could just port and polish mine with a set of cams...

This just seems a little far fetched.

[jalmir]

Wouldn't the 1.8l pistons and rods settle the head swap problem?

[slow 2K2GT]

they are good for lowering the compression, that still doesnt solve the bore size issue. The only thing I could see a a benefit of the 4G63 head is the two cam sprockets instead of our 1. If the two heads are so similar then I dont see there being much improvement on casting either.

[jalmir]

I doupt our head is very similar to the 4g63, pretty sure it have lot more flows than our.

[tharptroy]

I doupt our head is very similar to the 4g63, pretty sure it have lot more flows than our.

it probably isnt that much better of a head design than ours...since most mitsus are boosted, they dont have to develop excellent heads to make power like honda or toyota might.

then factor in that your bore is going to be significantly smaller than the mitsu bore, and you're decreasing the flow capacity even more.

its probably an exercise in futility.

[jalmir]

well I'd like to see flow numbers for the beta head, here is the numbers of a stock 4G63T 1G with the stock intake (tested on a flowbench):


Lift CFM
.050 33.75
.100 88.70
.150 128.18
.200 169.87
.250 202.57
.300 223.95
.350 238.73
.400 245.79
.450 252.65

[Silentwolf]

Okay standard bore (if iv'e got this correct) is 82mm and stock compression is 10.1:1
So wouldn't there be a benefit and how much possibly from using this kit
http://www.importshark.com/ProductImages/Engine/internals/HPenginekit.html
with 83mm pistons and getting a shop to bore the cylinder?

Or even a 9.5:1 (or 8.5:1) with 83mm pistons and a NGM SC?

[tharptroy]

well I'd like to see flow numbers for the beta head, here is the numbers of a stock 4G63T 1G with the stock intake (tested on a flowbench):


Lift CFM
.050 33.75
.100 88.70
.150 128.18
.200 169.87
.250 202.57
.300 223.95
.350 238.73
.400 245.79
.450 252.65

this is from dmdicks.
Stock flow numbers:
Intake stock Exhaust stock
.050" 51.4 43.4
.100 91.7 80.1
.150 130.2 104.5
.200 163.6 129.0
.250 188.2 146.1
.300 204.3 155.6
.350 197.1 160.8
.400 196.0 164.5

Ported:
intake Exhaust
.050" 62.3 51.2
.100 103.9 84.2
150 142.9 109.6
.200 175.8 137.9
.250 203.3 158.2
. 300 222.1 172.5
. 350 223.7 183.1
.400 225.7 191.3
.450 228.7 196.5
.500 230.1 201.7

although its hard to directly compare flow numbers without knowing at what pressure they were taken, and on what machine.

its also important to note that cylinder heads FLOW LESS on smaller bore engines.

[jalmir]

here is the link;

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53893


I really think a 4G63T head you be a good upgrade on our engines ... but you'd still have to do lots of work to make it fit (at least timing belt wise) and as said above, would at least need a standalone ...

[tharptroy]

here is the link;

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53893


I really think a 4G63T head you be a good upgrade on our engines ... but you'd still have to do lots of work to make it fit (at least timing belt wise) and as said above, would at least need a standalone ...

if we're going through all that trouble, why dont we swap in a B series or K and make some real power?

or boost it...

[slow 2K2GT]

how about you just boost the life out of the little Beta that could and call it a day, if you got the money to toss around the idea of this head swap then you should already have some kind of FI setup and every supporting mod to go with it.

This head swap idea would cost so much to get off the ground its not even funny, and then you have to worry about reliability...

[jalmir]

lollll I know, but at least the infos are now available, someone can decide to pioneer something out of it! (hope here is the key! :D )

[slow 2K2GT]

Why put work into making a foreign head work like a stock one when you can put a few dollars into your own head an valvetrain and make it better than this swap could allow?

[Cypher]

bah. screw honda motors, thats all i have to say troy

[tharptroy]

bah. screw honda motors, thats all i have to say troy

no point in insulting them, they put alot of effort into developing some of their engines, and it shows.

[Cypher]

be that as it may, i will never own one.

[jalmir]

Why put work into making a foreign head work like a stock one when you can put a few dollars into your own head an valvetrain and make it better than this swap could allow?

anyway it won't work, it doesn't fit AT ALL!!!

I don't see how this :
http://www.kdmstuff.com/goods/images/20061113045559cont4.jpg


is the same as this :
http://www.diamondstarmotorsport.com/engineparts_files/metalhg.jpg


so the 4G63 head on a Beta engine is officially a closed case! ;)