is there a 2.5 turbo stock? - TurboDodge.Com - Turbo Dodge forum for Turbo Mopars, Shelbys, Daytona, SRT-4, PT Cruiser, Omni and more!

xhrcustoms · **is there a 2.5 turbo stock?**

By vin number my car is a 2.5. But from reading around in here it doesn't look like dodge made a 2.5 turbo car. How do I determine what block head combo my car has???

2.5TURBO · 03-01-2007, 11:32 AM

dodge did make a 25t stock i got one in my 91 shadow es, i had one i my 90 spirit es, and my mom has one in 89 daytona es
and i love ppl doughting their power and then you race and they lose and they make up some lame excuse

tryingbe · 03-01-2007, 11:33 AM

Yes, dodge made 2.5L turbo stock.

I suggest you start reading here.

http://www.thedodgegarage.com/turbo.html

capev86 · 03-01-2007, 07:45 PM

yes they did. i have 2 complete engines at my house! the '90 is going in the car and the '89 is a backup/buildup motor for the future!

GLHExorcist · 03-01-2007, 11:30 PM

All turbo minis are 2.5L.
If I'm not mistaken,except for the shelby cars,after 89 all turbo cars were 2.5L

phantomrt · 03-02-2007, 03:07 AM

Almost correct. Pretty much all turbo's 1989 and after were 2.5L engines. The VNT was 2.2L used into 1990, the T-IIIs in 1991-1993 were 2.2L. And the Maserati 16v was 2.2L in 1989.

GLHExorcist · **well....yeah but.....**

"I'm sorry Marty.Your awnser was incorrect!"

(waump waump waump waaaaauuump)

"Too bad Bob!What prizes do we have for Marty?"

But those are specialty motors!!!

(...Did I redeem myself? huh? did I? huh? huh? did I?)

EvilcowRoland · 03-02-2007, 12:52 PM

Special options packages, but the motors aren't special. From 89 to 93, ALL turbo and N/A 2.2 and 2.5 blocks were more or less identical. Hence the term "common block". What was different about those "specialty" motors was the configuration of the other parts. Obviously the Masi was a 16V head, but the block and turbo were still basically T2. Same for the VNT motor, except it had the VNT turbo and electronics (head and block were stock T2). And the R/T engines had the Lotus head and different electronics, but still essentially T2 underneath. All the T1 stuff was 2.5 from 89 up. Now the real beauty is, in the common block motors all rods became forged. The T2, T3, and VNT motors had forged cranks whereas the 2.5 was still cast. So the only real difference between common block 2.2 and 2.5 is the crank and the spark/fuel setups.

daytonajesse · 03-02-2007, 02:33 PM

The 1989 T2 was a 2.2

GLHExorcist · 03-03-2007, 12:25 AM

Just so I can clear the air here....I was refering to turbo 1's NOT turbo II's
I know shelby and specialty motors are not 2.5 because they can't rev as high.Therefore the 2.5's can't be 16v.They can't rev enough to take advantage of the extra flow.They can't be vnt because they didn't need the extra torque.And Carroll wouldn't be dumb enough to touch a 2.5L.As he would say:"Balance shafts have no place in performance!"

phantomrt · 03-03-2007, 09:46 AM

A 2.5 can rev plentifully with the proper setup. A ported 8v head with a bigger turbo yields good power at 6000 RPM easily. Add the hemispherical design of the 16v heads and the results are....??? I'm sure someone has done it.

GLHExorcist · 10:01 AM

Oh I don't doubt that!But I doubt that the factory thought about that.
Why bother retooling the valvetrain for higher revs for .3 more liters?

Hell My setup revs to 8500rpm.I do however change heads everyso often because of the valveseat pressure...But I've got it down to a science now!

capev86 · 03-03-2007, 01:49 PM

yeah, that 8 valve head is the biggest restriction on a hi-po 2.5 at high rpms. a 16 valve 2.5 however combines the best of both worlds....low end AND top end that bests a 2.2!

tryingbe · 03-03-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLHExorcist

I know shelby and specialty motors are not 2.5 because they can't rev as high.Therefore the 2.5's can't be 16v.They can't rev enough to take advantage of the extra flow.They can't be vnt because they didn't need the extra torque.And Carroll wouldn't be dumb enough to touch a 2.5L.As he would say:"Balance shafts have no place in performance!"

You're so wrong. Some specialty motor are 2.5L. Guess what Gary D uses in his 10 seconds K-car?

Search for "The Ultimate Daytona- 2.5 16V Turbo Intercooled" in here.

http://www.thedodgegarage.com/factory_hotrods.html

EvilcowRoland · 03-03-2007, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryingbe

You're so wrong. Some specialty motor are 2.5L. Guess what Gary D uses in his 10 seconds K-car?

Search for "The Ultimate Daytona- 2.5 16V Turbo Intercooled" in here.

http://www.thedodgegarage.com/factory_hotrods.html

I think he was referring to "stock" special motors.

Actually, didn't the VNT motors come with balance shafts, including the CSX-VNT? I know the 90 VNT Daytonas had them. The 2.5 is plenty capable of higher revs. But the tuning of it makes it's power down lower than the 2.2, so higher revs don't really help (in an 8V setup) without MAJOR flow work. Dodge had plans for building a 16V 2.5 N/A & turbo setup. I don't know if Shelby ever got his hands on those schematics or not, but I have no doubt it would have replaced the 2.2 entirely from that point, just as the 2.2 T1 was phased out by the 2.5 T1. The 2.5 is every bit as potent as the 2.2. It's all in the configuration and the quality of parts used.