TIII head question?

[DetroitTurbo]

When Mark and I first discussed the idea of a DOHC Carbed 2.2, we knew there would be allot of mad turbo guys out there, myself included

The thing I'm most worried about is if the belt slips or breaks wont the flat top pistons smash any valve thats open?

[MarkassBauer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DetroitTurbo When Mark and I first discussed the idea of a DOHC Carbed 2.2, we knew there would be allot of mad turbo guys out there, myself included The thing I'm most worried about is if the belt slips or breaks wont the flat top pistons smash any valve thats open?

if that happens the pistons will own the valves!!! but luckily cindy sells em

[rx2mazda]

Yes valves will get bent with flat top postons.....and if you can afford to put new valves in a TIII why even make this combo? What is the purpose of this build? If it is just to do something different then I understand but, if it's to be cheap, reliable or faster than your gonna be disappointed.

A carbed n/a 2.2 is gonna have a hard time even turning the cams in the ultra high valve spring Lotus Head!! Lol! Then you have to jet the carb right to work with all the extra flow. etc. Anyways, I would love to see/laugh at it when your done.

EDIT: Is this going in an Omni?! Where are you gonna have room to fit a carb between the head and the rad? Here is my engine bay and keep in mind that I have hardly no runner length(which you will need with a carb)and I have a aftermarket rad.

[DetroitTurbo]

First of all I don't see how doing something so few have done before, in the spirit of innovation and setting yourself apart from the crowd, is anything to laugh at. Secondly he could get lower tension springs, and as far as the runner length goes I'm a bit concerned there as well. I'm thinking, without a turbo behind the motor, we could make modified mounts and move the whole engine back a couple inches, maybe get g-body axles to make up for it? If we get this to work and it ends up making crazy power, wouldn't that be a great build for future N/A people to look at? Nobody really knows what it will do since the only people who did it with Shelby sure aren't letting us know how it went.

[rx2mazda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DetroitTurbo First of all I don't see how doing something so few have done before, in the spirit of innovation and setting yourself apart from the crowd, is anything to laugh at. Secondly he could get lower tension springs, and as far as the runner length goes I'm a bit concerned there as well. I'm thinking, without a turbo behind the motor, we could make modified mounts and move the whole engine back a couple inches, maybe get g-body axles to make up for it? If we get this to work and it ends up making crazy power, wouldn't that be a great build for future N/A people to look at? Nobody really knows what it will do since the only people who did it with Shelby sure aren't letting us know how it went.

Don't take my "lols" the wrong way, I'm sure you guys laughed yourself when you first thought of the idea. I'm all for Innovation but, using the word "innovative" and "carburetor" together should not be allowed in 2012. I think "Bizarre" would more accurately describe this project.

Even with the lower spring tension from the TI retainers is still a lot more than an 8v. Then add the fact that your turning two cams...either way, that wasn't a serious concern(though you will lose HP)....It was more a jab at my own motor that I love.

So your gonna move the ENGINE to accommodate a CARB? So your gonna move the ENGINE to accommodate a CARB? Sorry, I felt some redundancy was in need there. Do you know what moving and engine back a couple inches entails? I.E. suspension geometry, welding ALL new mounts, hitting the K-frame, axle binding, etc.

NO, this will not be a great build for future N/A people to look at regardless of the power you make(or don't make). For one, the Lotus head is too expensive and unavailable. Two, moving and engine to fit a carb is not something most people are gonna want or have the means to do.

One things for sure....it will be a fun/interesting/bizarre/expensive project! If you need any help with the TIII side of it lmk.

[DetroitTurbo]

Sure its probably a silly project but hey, my cousin wants a carb so he's gonna have one come hell or high water, and not even I can talk him out of it.

[The Pope]

well, The idea isn't so bad. But I wouldn't run the T3 setup. Go get a 2.0 Neon engine or a 16v 2.4 engine with 2.0 cams. Then the header and other parts are dirt cheap.

Then carb wise look at what Scott Mohlar did with his killer all motor Neon and carbs, motor cycle carbs actually. So it can be done.

Personally I have grown up with and raced carbs and run them on my work trucks for decades. Carb = junk, for many many reasons. Megasquirt, a 2.4 short block and a 2.0 top end with a header off Ebay. Super cheap and easy build compared to hacking on a T3 setup.

There are side draft weber intakes floating around for the 8v 2.2. There is also better valve train and roller cams out there today. A Beehive, PT, F4 roller cam setup with a well ported G head would be a rev happy engine with side drafts. The old 280Z rice burners came with side drafts, so parts are out there. But doing a carb T3 is about the last thing anyone would try. As you can tell it is so far the last thing that people aren't exactly nice about it lol.

[MarkassBauer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DetroitTurbo Sure its probably a silly project but hey, my cousin wants a carb so he's gonna have one come hell or high water, and not even I can talk him out of it.

thanks for havin my back cuz!!! but i understand where "rx-soandso" is comin from and im not takin what he says the wrong way and dont take this the wrong way but in the year 2020 there will still be a guy next to you at the line with 2000 more lbs of car and a CARB on top of the intake and he'll beat your 1/4 mile by 2 or 3 seconds... but thats just sticking up for carbs, my 2.2 HORIZON will be a good 6 seconds behind you LOL!!!

[MarkassBauer]

im with you on the whole room issue, i wont be movin the motor anywhere if anything it would be modifying the core support and tucking the radiator right up behind the grill also shortening the intake runners if need be. i understand mods will have to happen but im not even 100% if i wana put this head on the car or not, 1st i need to see if with my setup (n/a 2.2 motor, .060 over flatop pistons, weber carb jetted to the max and a long tube header) would it make more power than a shaved, big valved, big cam'd 782 head??? thats the answer im after. yes it would be cool and unique but with the cost aside which will put more power to my wheels?

[MarkassBauer]

i cannot use any of the turbo roller cams stock or aftermarket, the centerlines are WAY to high for an n/a motor and my low end power will be dang near non existent. with a turbo/supercharger or NOS there great bu if i go 8v i have to stick with a flat tappet slider cam (comp magnum) accompanied by a 2100-2300 stall torque converter :). and side draft carbs are too damn frustrating to tune i'll stick w my weber 2bbl. i would go 2.0 or 2.4 head but i dont wana modify the block, and simply make turbo kids say "that carb took our jaaarbs!!!" at car shows LOL

[The Pope]

well, the weber for a 16v is going to need to be a lot bigger than a 8v, jetting regardless.

You'd bolt the 2.0 or the 2.4 to the 2.2 trans, not just use the head.

wide LSA turbo cams increase cylinder pressure increasing drivability and hurt top end flow, not the other way around.

16v and an auto sucks, nothing like waiting for 4,000 RPM to show up....

[DetroitTurbo]

OK so if he keeps the 2.2 block, auto trans, and weber carb, an 8v is his best power maker?

Also yeah my auto n/a pt cruiser is a dog before 4k lol

[MarkassBauer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pope well, the weber for a 16v is going to need to be a lot bigger than a 8v, jetting regardless. You'd bolt the 2.0 or the 2.4 to the 2.2 trans, not just use the head. wide LSA turbo cams increase cylinder pressure increasing drivability and hurt top end flow, not the other way around. 16v and an auto sucks, nothing like waiting for 4,000 RPM to show up....

this is the kind of answer i was looking for! so i would have better performance building and using my 782 head?

[The Pope]

yeah a ported 782 flows well and gives that all needed compression jump.

Yeah , auto trans and lawn mower levels of low end power aren't fun together. Drive a 2.0 DOHC Neon some time, a Stratus is different as it has a lot lower gears and a 4 speed. I've spent time in a Neon though and a 3 speed with tall gears and a NA 2.0 with no power below 4,000 is horrid.

The 8v with a cam and a 89 turbo mini purple converter is going to launch twice as hard and make power where the trans shifts and runs. It would be different turbocharged, but with an auto your going to want response and torque.

[MarkassBauer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pope yeah a ported 782 flows well and gives that all needed compression jump. Yeah , auto trans and lawn mower levels of low end power aren't fun together. Drive a 2.0 DOHC Neon some time, a Stratus is different as it has a lot lower gears and a 4 speed. I've spent time in a Neon though and a 3 speed with tall gears and a NA 2.0 with no power below 4,000 is horrid. The 8v with a cam and a 89 turbo mini purple converter is going to launch twice as hard and make power where the trans shifts and runs. It would be different turbocharged, but with an auto your going to want response and torque.

sounds good to me pope! i'll stick w my original plans and leave twin cams to the turbo peeps!