2.2 or 2.5 turbo?

[BLASINTEBO]

I vote 2.2... especially with a clunky 5 speed.

[DakotaKid]

Quote:

Originally posted by DirectConnection and no 2.2 OS Mahles on the market.

I have .020 over Mahles in my 2.2 Shadow.

-Bryan

[DirectConnection]

Quote:

Originally posted by macncheese ok, everybody is trying to get technical. passengers, drivers, and opponents alike do not care about technical. they care about getting nailed back in the seat. i will NOT trade my 2.5 for anything less than a forced 350 what's all this talk about 2.5s will only spin the tires? engines aren't responsible for the tires spinning....lack of traction is!!! what about multiple stage boost controllers, better tires, weight distribution, different gearing, NOT FLOORING IT all the time; there are many ways to improve traction, just as there are many ways to make power. lets do a quick test.. all of the td'ers out there who have built, driven, or ridden in a 2.5 turbo and WEREN'T impressed, raise your hand. (cricket: "chirp chirp, chirp chirp") thought so. lol just my thoughts tony

My hand is raised. Stock or close to stock T-I 2.5 motors are nothing special power-wise.
On the part where you say passengers, drivers and opponents don't care about technical. If you don't care to further your knowledge about how an engine REALLY works, then you are just setting limits upon yourself, and will never see your car's full potential. If Gus never approached his cars in the technical way, you would still be running a MP 14psi cal and a K+N. How many people that are in the 11's and 10's right now would be as fast if there weren't Gary and other's who used a technical approach to our cars in the 1st place?
There are wrench turners.... and then there are groundbreakers. I am trying to leave wrenchturner status.

[DirectConnection]

Quote:

Originally posted by TrboVan I have .020 over Mahles in my 2.2 Shadow. -Bryan

Bryan... those that know me, know that my engine has been an ongoing parts and information gathering process. In other words... I've been talking smack about building this car for some time with nothing to show for it
I 1st decided on what engine (2.5) to use because 3 years ago, you couldn't get oversized Mahles for the 2.2. I ended up going with JEs after setting my mind on a 2.5. Rather have a 2.2 now that I have done a bunch of useless technical bling bling instead of bolting on parts.:big grin:

[macncheese]

Quote:

Is all the extra torque usable on street tires? Or is it just more tiresmoke?

i don't have too much problem with tire smoke unless i want it (first gear is kind of touchy though). just don't press all the way down on the go peddle.

Quote:

If you don't care to further your knowledge about how an engine REALLY works, then you are just setting limits upon yourself

uh, oh, i think i might have given the wrong impression about myself here. i just wanted to take everybody's mind off the math for a second. 2 1/2 years ago, i knew squat about cars except how to change oil and brakes. while i'm far from being a guru, i CAN say that i've learned a lot from reading, getting a job in a machine shop, making the right friends (thanks mike), listening to the right people, and talking to everyone i can. maybe part of me just likes to be the antagonist, but i love my 2.5. sure, i had to build it twice to make it work, but i love it anyway. AND, i understand why i needed +20 injectors to use the 2.2 electronics, why i turned the ignition timing back to 8 degrees, why i have a 2.5 inch exhaust with no cat or muffler, why the 520 was the right choice for me right now, what happens when you put a 2.5 that tranny without a bearing support plate, how to put that plate IN, what intercooling is good for(which is why i did a custom front mount by myself), and how grainger valves work. i've done all the work on my car myself, quite a bit while i was still asking questions. and i'd like to think that when i post to help folks, my advice isn't too far off 99 times out of 100, even if i'm not ready to break new ground.
later
tony

[t-1 LeBaron 5sp]

Thanks guys. I didn't mean to start any arguments, I have access to a complete 2.5 t-1 and money is tight so I was curious about salvaging all usable parts for a rebuild. I have tons of v-8 parts but limited 2.2 parts.

[altered7151]

So lets forget about street cars for a second and consider the engine debate as it pertains to a full drag car, with no concerns of running on the street. Consider a car completely gutted and lightened (lexan windows etc.), and most likely running an auto with manual valve body etc. Where do you stand then? I personally am thinking strongly of converting to the 2.2. First of all I'm working on my second cracked piston. Plus I feel the torque of the 2.5 will not be needed with the light weight car to get it off the line, and might even be a hinderance to traction for the first 60ft. Plus the extra rpm capabilities of the 2.2 would probably come in handy on the top end. One of the only problems I can see is the 2.2 maybe not being able to spool a turbo quite as well on the low end, but I dont think thats anything that couldn't be cured by proper turbo sizing or a little shot of nitrous.

[DakotaKid]

Quote:

Originally posted by altered7151 One of the only problems I can see is the 2.2 maybe not being able to spool a turbo quite as well on the low end, but I dont think thats anything that couldn't be cured by proper turbo sizing or a little shot of nitrous.

Or a performance Torque Converter. :big grin:

-Bryan

[altered7151]

Quote:

Originally posted by TrboVan Or a performance Torque Converter. :big grin: -Bryan

yeah good call bryan, that 2.2 is seeming like a better idea everyday.

guys.. you freaking weirdo turbo dodge guys are the only ones who i have ever heard about running a smaller motor..
well maybee cept for the guys i know that talk about 327's and spinning the piss out of them. but they normally are talking about 7-9KRPM...not six..

HMM a all out drag car? i will take cubic inches and quicker spool up along with the braoder power band..


would you rather have a 300HP 512 inch HUGE V-8 ford motor, that makes 300HP for like 3000RPM and over 500ft/lbs of torque ?
or a 300HP 1.8lter honda that makes 300HP from 8,800RPM to 9,100Rpm with like 200ft/lbs?

hmm whoes quicker>?

guys there is NO reason other than whinning about traction that you would want a 2.2 over a 2.5 .... you can blame the RPM limit of the bottom end and breathing problems all you want..

the truth is i doubt there are 5 people on this board even getting near the "limit" of 2.5 bottom end strength.. and breathing problems are associated with using a head for a 135Ci motor on a 153Ci motor..

if you put 289 ford heads on a 393Ci windsor stroker ,yeah you can whine about it not making power.. or not spinning it high enough.. but that is not some weird design flaw in a bigger motor . it is your ignorance of not matching the induction and cam shaft to the cubic inch ( and compression if you were N/A).the 393 will still make more HP and go faster than the 289 with the same induction..

IF YOU HAVE TRACTION ISSUSES YOU NEED TRACTION NOT A SMALLER MOTOR!!!!!


there are many 9 second FWD cars out there making in excess of 8-900HP .they are whinning about spinning there tires and needing a smaller motor so they wont sping out.. the figure out how to HOOK..

if you run over a 2.0 60 foot with good tires then you either cant launch or are having some serious problems..

i cant got full throttle untill over 60-70MPH in my other car... that doesnt mean i will get beat by every other car on the road with "less torque"..

most races on the street arent over untill someone is DEFINATLY pulling away from the other person.. sure you can get a launch on me. but i will reel you in QUICK.. HP and torque on the street is what lets you walk by someone...
sheesh..... make sense people....
next you are going to say that you will go faster with a smaller throttle body... and your turbo needs back preasure..

oops.. Triple post there.. But yeah, I agree about the heads being the problem. Just gotta build a 16v 2.5 engine..

Another thing I thought of when I bought my turbo 2.5 engine. If I didn't like the 2.5 for some reason, or found a reason to want a 2.2. I'd have bought the best block still. It's common block, it's already crossdrilled, and it came with the turbo II rods. I just have to find any commonblock 2.2 engine, yank it's crank, order up some 2.2 turbo pistons, and I'm rollin with a 2.2 built to turbo II specs..
So if your junkyard surfin, and see a turbo 2.5, grab it. Don't keep dreaming of the day you walk into the yard and find a Turbo II sittin there.

[macncheese]

Quote:

IF YOU HAVE TRACTION ISSUSES YOU NEED TRACTION NOT A SMALLER MOTOR!!!!!

werd

hey, t-1 lebaron, i just noticed you're in florida. where about? you might want to try and make it to the bradenton 1/4 mile track on the 17th. a bunch of us are going to show up and i think mike is planning on racing SOMETHING.
later
tony

[The Barron]

....I thought I'd come into this thread and get some answers..now I am just more confused.

I have both sitting side by side here:

An 87' 2.2 T1 engine in a car I bought off some older folks.

A 2.5L T1 thats block needs to be decked and bored so that means new .010" or .020" pistons.




Note: IF THERE IS THIS MUCH CONFUSION OVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 2.2L and a 2.5L....THERE CANT BE MUCH.


About the maximum boost I'll run is 14Psi and if I get wild I'll get an MFR and some 20%'s and go for somwhere near 18Psi. Also note I run and a413. I found this combo NOT so good for top end. A 2.5L dosent seem to like to have its ignition cut at 5800Rpm(126Mph) It likes to chuck stuff.


Also on a TD member's cardomain site I read an entry a person made that supposedly was a former tech for chrysler. He stated that the member was stupid for replacing his 2.2L with a 2.5L cause they were JUNK.


Lets look at this. Chrysler never used the 2.5L for ANY PERFORMANCE PACKAGE OTHER THAN TURBO1. Why didnt they use the 2.5L when working with lotus for the 16V T3 engines?


Maybe I should fix that common block up bolt 2.2 internals in and use the Mitsu T04E on it to encorage fast spool and run 12-14Psi intercooled.

It MAY be a bit more dependable. Who knows.


..friiiiigggg im confused.

The guy with the long ass post....

There is really no benefit to cubic inches in a forced induction application. The power potential is there because of the turbo and potential mass flow through the motor.....

The only reason I chose the 2.5 was that it is a common block, and 2.2 turbo motors are kinda rare in common blocks. I really would have prefered the 2.2..... I fell for the common "wisdom" taht if you want 300hp, you "have" to use common block. Maybe its a falacy, but it is 12 # heavier, so all that material has to be somewhere.

As for your comments about traction issues. Well no kidding. But reality prevails. Most of us want to stay on radial street tires, of close to factory size, and we are in FWD cars with very steep gearing and short tires.... What else do you suggest? All the extra power in the world is useless if you cannot go full throttle in first, second or third. With my stock 2.2, I cannot go WOT in first or most of second..... why make it worse? A well thought out systems approach would build the power more gradually, for less of a shock to the drive train.

Torque is also what breaks transmissions and axles. I have raced a ton of cars with 2.5's against my 2.2. It is usually a draw with similar mods, but they are making 50 more lb ft of torque? So what good is it, if the end result is the same? Why abuse everything with the extra low end torque when performance wise, it is not neccessary.

And what you say about "everyone else in the world wanting more cubes"... BS! big BS! EVERY serious turbo racer out there is VERY concerned with bore to stroke ratio. From V6 buicks to V8 chevies, they are DE-STROKING! Not going for more.

But comparing our street motors to their 2000+ hp race motors is kinda silly now isn't it?

Sooo, what was I saying? for 99% of us, 2.2 or 2.5 really does not matter that much. Given the AVAILABLE parts, I dare say the 2.2 is better, but the common block turbo 2.5 is more common....