Garage Storage Organization and Garage Cabinets

**Polygon** · **Differences in the TII and TIV blocks?**

Is there ANYTHING different between the 2.2L TII block and the 2.2L TIV block?

I was looking on AllPar and they said that the engine may not have been reliable. To my knowledge they are the exact same engine? I bring this question up because I have bought a 1990 LeBaron GTC with the VNT.

artur_p · 06-09-2003, 09:25 PM

no difference. I think they where referring to the VNT on those engines.

**Polygon** · 06-09-2003, 10:49 PM

That is as much as I could figure. I haven't heard the best about the VNT turbos. I plan on changing the turbo anyhow.

iTurbo · 06-09-2003, 11:05 PM

The only difference (re: shortblock) that I can think of is that the TIV may have come with balance shafts; the TII did not.

**Polygon** · 06-10-2003, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by iTurbo
The only difference (re: shortblock) that I can think of is that the TIV may have come with balance shafts; the TII did not.

Hmm, if that is true it is no matter. All of the internals are going to be replaced with beefier ones.

csxt#10 · 06-10-2003, 07:34 AM

the vnt came with the beefier stuff.or was that just the 89csxvnt

artur_p · 06-10-2003, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by csxt#10
the vnt came with the beefier stuff.or was that just the
89csxvnt

it was the same block and head that was used in the TII. the only difference was the turbocharger and computer and it might have had balance shafts.

Turbodave · 06-11-2003, 12:50 AM

Just to clear things up...

89 CSX VNT's came with a TII lower end and were converted to VNT turbos by Shelby's group. No balance shafts in this engine, same forged crank, good rods, etc as a regular TII.

90 VNT cars had similar internals but featured balance shafts to reduce vibration.

These are the best factory lower ends built for the 8 valve 2.2 engines and I haven't heard of any reliability issues. As stated above, the VNT's have a reputation for finicky turbos and boost problems, when they work however, they're great and have very little lag..

Shelby VNT · 06-11-2003, 06:35 AM

I'm not so sure about the reliability issues. The VNT is plenty reliable. People used to think the vanes would coke up and get stuck, but that is untrue. During normal cruising when your not in the boost the computer is constantly exercising the vanes. The only big reason I heard Chrysler dropped the VNT was because Garrett didn't want to warrantee the turbochargers due to the fact that they were designed for an engine no larger then 1.8 liters in displacement. The Turbo IV, being a 2.2 liter, was grounds to void that.

By the way, none of my VNT cars, any three of them, have ever had an issue. One has 133,000 miles.

Turbodave · 06-11-2003, 07:04 PM

I've never owned a VNT car myself, but I have worked on a few, only one that I know of had turbo problems, and that was a case where the vanes were stuck (I didn't disassemble it to figure out why). After replacing the turbo the car ran great for many miles without any turbo problems, the few other VNT cars that go around in my area have also been trouble free. I think it's mostly an urban legend of sorts..

06-11-2003, 08:16 PM

only problem i had with my VNT was when i tried 25psi on it

stupid bleed...

mastwolf · 06-11-2003, 08:50 PM

What HP/Boost are the VNT's good for, and are there any benefits to them over the Garret?

Chris

**Polygon** · 06-11-2003, 09:11 PM

Just to let you know, the VNT turbo is a Garrett.

With the VNT you will have 10 more ft/lbs of tourqe than you will with the T03. Also because of the VNT design there will be less turbo lag. It was made to give better boost and less spool at high and low speeds.

Shelby VNT · 06-12-2003, 05:08 PM

Quote:

With the VNT you will have 10 more ft/lbs of tourqe than you will with the T03. Also because of the VNT design there will be less turbo lag. It was made to give better boost and less spool at high and low speeds.

Not necessarily true. The '89 Turbo II 2.2 liter with a Garrett T03 made the same exact torque as the Turbo IV. Also the high torque Turbo I 2.5 liter of the '90 on up years made the same torque as both the above engines and it did so with the smaller Mitsu turbocharger (not as small as a VNT though!).

The difference with a VNT is the torque curve peaks a little sooner due to the faster spool. Interesting enough, some have said the Turbo IV didn't actually make the factory rated 175 hp. I'd guess it's due to the small turbo choking the engine on the exhaust side and that tight 90 degree elbow. The torque is there though and that's what you feel in the butt. For the same reason the high torque Turbo I was left after '90 as the last 8 valve turbo engine available. It was tuned to give the same 210 ft/lbs of torque.

Quote:

What HP/Boost are the VNT's good for, and are there any benefits to them over the Garret?

The max boost I hear is safe to run on the Garrett VNT-25 is about 15psi. Anymore then that and you shorten it's life. Run it hard alot at 18psi and you'll blow the seals. Remeber this turbo was built for a 1.8 liter and it's at it's max with a 2.2 already. The place a VNT really shines is on a stock daily driven car. The zero lag is awesome! If your looking for serious power though, (sorry VNT guys) look somewhere else. I'd ask around, because I know there is a guy here who has run a pretty decent 1/4 mile with a VNT, but after a point, the VNT will reach it's limit. The air will be heated more, the turbo will be over spinning, and it won't last for long, even if it is fun! :big grin:

**Polygon** · 06-12-2003, 07:31 PM

I was under the impression that the turbo II was "rated" at 200 ft/lbs and the turbo IV was "rated" at 210 ft/lbs.