Here's a couple of links that should help -  Thanks for bringing this to my
attention, I had no idea that you could swap a 2.4 4g64 short block into a
2.0 4g63t car.  I was planning on having my engine rebuilt just because I am
going to be doing AWD conversion to my spyder.  Figure since it will be
apart I might as well get the car I really want.
Now I am going to have to learn about 4g64 short block swap....

Please keep me in formed on your progress.

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=258645&highlight=4g63+stroker+crank

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49472

http://www.extremeevolutions.com/4G64_buildup.htm

http://www.carotica.com/4g64/index.html

Found this discusion, not sure if you are going to be using a turbo or how
big of a turbo, or what your HP goals are.

agree that an easy way to make power is a displacement increase.

You still don't see to many 2.4's running single digit ET's.

I wish I had the funds to build a 2.4 and a 2.1-2.2 and dyno them with
different turbos. There is an rpm where even with forced induction an engine
can't get as full a breath of intake air just because the piston is moving
too fast. You reach this point alot faster on a long stroke motor.

If a 2.4 were possible with the same stroke as a 2.0 (read big bore). It
would still have less low end tq than a G64. Similar spool characteristics
but kick a G64's but in from 4500 rpm and up.

I'm not saying that strokers are'nt cool or capable. Just like anything they
have their pros, cons and limits. There is a reason why serious small block
drag cars typically have alot shorter strokes than a 383 stroker. I'll have
to find the article. The closest thing I can think of is a magazine built
two small block chev turbo motors. One was a 383 stroker (400 crank 350
block) the other was a 350 block in a bored out 400 block. Lets just say
that shorter strokes, high boost and high RPMs get along very well together.

Those two engines had a static displacement that was identical. One got
there with stroke and the other with a big bore. They also had nearly
identical static compression ratios.

I'd say about 85% of DSMers would do better with a stroker than a 2.0. If
you are thinking 10's or better stick with the shorter stroke rev and build
the trans (high rpm shifts) to match.

A 2.4 is 20% more displacement than a 2.0.

However

10,000 rpm is 40% more revs than 8,000.

So you are actually pumping more air (how engines make power) with the 2.0
at upper rpm than you would with a 2.4 at mid rpm.

Once you get above 8 the short stroke (2.0 or 2.1-2.2) has alot better VE
than a 2.4 would at that RPM. It is also less likely to launch or break the
same rod. Since a long stroke looses VE up top you probably take in alot
more air at 10k on a 2.1 than a 2.4 at 8k.

I think the 6-bolt crank has larger bearings and should therefore handle
more power than the 7-bolt motor. Even if you aren't going for more than
350 HP now, it's always nice to have that an option for the future.

I'd bet your MPG with the stroker will be less. With the price of gas
going up and up, are you sure you want to do this? I am getting 27.5 MPG
on my 2.0L turbo in rural driving, and that's with a newly rebuilt
engine with only 500 miles on it. I have a 6-bolt motor with 1mm
oversized valves, ported head, 8.5:1 pistons, HKS 264/264 cams, Walbro
190 fuel pump, every thing else is stock (for now).

The thing I like about the DSMs is that everything has been tried and
what we see today is what has been proven to work. Whatever your goals,
there is a recipe out on the net to do it.

Here's what I have yet to install in my 1G Eclipse:

2G MAS
660 Denso injectors
Keydiver ECU EPROM upgrade
Apexi AFC
ProECM air-to-water intercooler

Tests performed by ProEMC revealed that the air temperature at the turbo
outlet was 320 F. At 70 F ambient the typical front mounted air-to-air
intercooler will drop the intake air temperature to about 250 F, while
their air-to-water intercooler will drop it to about 100 degrees. The
magic is simply the BTU density difference between air and water,
combined with their high efficiency heat exchanger. Pumping cooler air
at a lower pressure is more effective than hotter air from a bigger
turbo at a higher pressure. An added bonus is the turbo can build
pressure faster because the intake path is much smaller as compared to a
huge front mounted air-to-air intercooler. The ProECM intercooler is
much more expensive than a large FMIC, but when designing and building a
project car performance is usually the higher priority.

My 2c worth.
Gyz

A company that builds such beasts should know. This is from the FFWD web
site:

Note: ALL of our 2.0/2.3 motors, are 6 bolt crank platforms. Just for
all you 2G guys out there, it is HIGHLY recommended to convert your
95-99 car over to accept the 6 bolt motor. It's not hard to do. We can
tell you how.

http://www.ffwdconnection.com/strokernew.shtml