2.2 or 2.5 turbo?

[DakotaKid]

Quote:

Originally posted by DirectConnection Yes! Brian Slowe. Since Brian already mentioned in a post about going 2.2 next year, all I can say is for everyone to sit back and watch what happens once he's got it dialed in"thumbs up

I was not taking him into consideration due to the Neon head he is running. It will just confuse everyone (including me).

-Bryan

[The Barron]

OK.. seems like I'm not really gonna see too many people here agreeing. How uncomon for TD.com eh?

So here is what I think I'll do since I own a 2700lb coupe.


Rebuild the 2.5L. Use the 87' Garrett turbo I have on it,maybe cough for a 2.5" swingvalve..but I'm not coughin up no freakn $100 US for it. Run between 10-14Psi. The heavy breathing, larger displacement 2.5L should cut some of the lag out of the bigger garrett. Use a hardened diff. pin with retainer clips in the a413.


Of course push this boost through my $50 CDN FMIC. Eat yer heart out. :big grin:

[Brian Putman]

Quote:

Originally posted by TrboVan 11's or better: 2.2's My Shadow 11.52 Rocky's GLH-T 11.30 Mike Marra 11.76 Alex M. 11.61 Warren S. 11.77 Steve M 11.87 Jon 11.88 Gaboon 11.92 Bruce 11.55 Stephan 9.33 Joe O. 11.69 2.5's Dean S. 10.84 James Reeves 11.42 Gary D 10.41 Need to add Foward motion's Charger to the 2.5 10's list . And Mike Lupis to the 2.5 11's list Also what boost pressure are each of these people running. If it is 30psi and above then unless they come up with an increase in induction and exhaust flow then the possibilty for a lower ET will be very hard to come by. Of course they is always a breakthrough to be had, which is why I like this hobby so much. Did I miss anyone?

[glhsken]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian Putman I like to know how many 2.2's are running 11's or better in the 1/4.

LOL... 7 I know of... More and more everyday.. Remember// conventional thinking was always what is FM doing.. Well they went 2.5, so did everyone else. They are just now starting to return to the 2.2... almost ALL of them.

The boost doesn't matter Brian... most of the 2.5's run the same boost levels (or more)...

[DirectConnection]

Quote:

Originally posted by glhsken LOL... 7 I know of... More and more everyday.. Remember// conventional thinking was always what is FM doing.. Well they went 2.5, so did everyone else. They are just now starting to return to the 2.2... almost ALL of them. The boost doesn't matter Brian... most of the 2.5's run the same boost levels (or more)...

I seem to remember FM running a 2.2 for the longest time, then after Gary, Gus and Dean were having great success, did they finally switch to a 2.5.
In my opinion, it were these 3 who influenced people to switch to the 2.5 in the 1st place.

[DakotaKid]

Quote:

Originally posted by DirectConnection I seem to remember FM running a 2.2 for the longest time, then after Gary, Gus and Dean were having great success, did they finally switch to a 2.5. In my opinion, it were these 3 who influenced people to switch to the 2.5 in the 1st place.

That was then, this is now.

[jjcotie]

so basically if you have a 2.5 L it's the better engine and if you have a 2.2 it's the better engine? do i got that right basically?

Quote:

Originally posted by jjcotie I Have a Turbo 2 in my 88' shelby Z and I was wondering too. I've heard it belted around that a common block is better than a T 2 2.2L block. Could someone tell me what the actual difference is?

- common blocks started in 89 and up. they are heavier/stronger 12lbs. because of extra metal around the main bearing saddles/Webbing. (very strong)
- the fuel pump boss is unmachined (No block off plate needed)
- most/all the bolt holes are blind holes instead of through holes. (much stronger)
- common blocks had round tooth timing belts instead of square tooth. (quieter, not stronger)
- the crank pulley has 5 "E" torx bolts instead of 4. that's why there are different underdrive pulleys out there.
- the routing of the belts cause the water pump to rotate counter clockwise instead of clockwise. therfore the impeller blades are reversed.

[DakotaKid]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjcotie so basically if you have a 2.5 L it's the better engine and if you have a 2.2 it's the better engine? do i got that right basically?

No. It all depends on what you have planned for the engine.

[macncheese]

somebody brought up the point that 2.5s were great for scooting around town, and i do have to admit that i built my car for street driving with occasional trips to the track. that said, i am actually HAPPY shifting at less than 3000 rpms in every gear. still enough to put me firm in the seat, and i'm running vac straight to the can. maybe 3 or 4 psi. wait till the grainger goes in, baby!!!
tony

[glhsken]

I brought that up... And they are... I would just never want one for a "hopped" up car personally. Stock to stock a 2.5 is great for any auto car.

[jjcotie]

so to build a severe duty engine either 2.2 or 2.5 i should get a commonblock?

For severe duty a 2.5 should be a common block because of the centrifical force of all that stroke and especially if you are going to delete the ballance shafts. The main webbing is stronger in the common block.

[glhsken]

And a stock pistoned 2.2 can live at high boost much longer than a stock pistoned 2.5.

The only all out motors i will build are 2.2's

I think if I was going to build a 2.5, I would choose the tall deck to get the longer rods and improve the rod/stroke ratio. Either way you still have a huge difference between the bore and stroke. I think the 2.5 with all it's stroke would make a great truck engine. 4 cylinders are small and need to rev at least to 6,000. we need to lengthen the time between shifts with a broader powerband. all that low rpm shifting hurts e.t.'s