2.2 or 2.5 turbo?

[macncheese]

Quote:

we need to lengthen the time between shifts with a broader powerband

i know that if i say,"how about lengthening it with taller gears," somebody will say, " how about with taller gears AND a broader powerband!"

tony

[macncheese]

ok, i may have just changed my mind today. i slapped my g-valve in there and pushed the boost up just a bit. with the open exhaust, my mitsu won't stop spooling until i let off the pedal. and C*R*A*P does 5000 rpms come fast. i get about half throttle before it's time to shift. I DO NOT RECOMMEND THE 2.5 UNLESS YOU HAVE TALL GEARS AND SLICKS!!!!!! or maybe an automatic. i feel like i can hardly drive it on the street now.
tony

QUOTE"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"

or you just give them forced induction and make up for the lack of displacement..
why do you think ford put a supercharger on there 4.6...
the 281 was the second smallest small block V8 ford ever put in the mustang..
the needed to make the big V8 torque loving guys happy with the smaller motor.. so .. they charged it.. there is your nice thick torque curve.. with out some luducriss RPM..
and how does low RPM shifting hurt ET? a nice wide power band that you can stay in your powerband the whole way through a gear is GREAT for ET..
a peaky 500RPM wide power band sucks when you drop 3000RPM during shifts..
it is all in the combination...

[AJMcCurdy]

Quote:

Originally posted by crazymadbastard 2.5 with a 16v hybrid conversion, that ought to get some air in there at 6000+ rpms with a big turbo.

OK I'm game, Y'all get me the parts and I'll build it.....:big grin:

[Raymont]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Baron 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 engine ..friiiiigggg im confused.

BZZZZZT!!!!! They made TII 2.5L Spirit R/T's in mexico

[Vigo]

and for that matter, all the people who are making the points about what the factory did and did not build, just stop..

you need to realize that liability is the last stop any idea makes at a car manufacturer. if a 2.5 is 3% more likely to fail in a certain trim than a 2.2, that ends up being millions of dollars in warranty repairs, and if its 15% more likely to fail, they might get sued, and lose. and seriously, if 15% shorter life span ends up being 17 years instead of 20, (as there are still LOTS of turbo dodges running on motors build 17 years ago) or even 12 years instead of 15, who the hell cares?? a corporation wants to make the most money possible meeting an acceptable standard, not go balls to the wall to make the 3% of us who are into going fast happy. so i wouldnt put a lot of weight on the idea that if the factory didnt build them it must not be a good idea.

factory 2.5 t2s (in usa i suppose) werent stopped by the performance enthusiasts in the company, they were stopped by the bean counters and lawyers, im sure.

[eef mcglikn]

it will never be over.never.

[ke6960]

i realize this thread is like 6 months old.... but a few people wrote something about "LOL look at EVERY serious FWD drag team.. They DE-STROKE the motor" but thats not the reason they are destroking them.... its done to lower the compression ratio... therefore you can run higher boost and/or lower octane gas

also
"again.,. would you rather have a 500 Ci motor or a 120Ci motor making 300HP? and which one will be faster in the same car?"

this came up at least 2wice and no one said anything....... if both motors are making 300hp and both are in the exact same car... the smaller motor will b faster because it dosnt weigh as much torque does matter but.... weight..... weight is the enemy.....

[macncheese]

wow, i had to re-read a LOT of that to find what you were talking about. i gotta say, i was quite the cocky bastard. i'd like everyone to know that i've grown up a bit. onward...
i think the point that was mentioned about the 300hp motors was that since the hypothetical honda that made 300 hp and no torque, only made 300 hp for about 800 rpms and the other motor that made 300 hp and gobs of torque, made it for a couple thousand rpms. since you drop a lot more than 800 rpms when you shift gears, this would give the advantage to the bigger motor.
i'd like to see how that changes with the infinately variable transmissions. any thoughts?
tony

[ke6960]

Quote:

Originally Posted by macncheese wow, i had to re-read a LOT of that to find what you were talking about. i gotta say, i was quite the cocky bastard. i'd like everyone to know that i've grown up a bit. onward... i think the point that was mentioned about the 300hp motors was that since the hypothetical honda that made 300 hp and no torque, only made 300 hp for about 800 rpms and the other motor that made 300 hp and gobs of torque, made it for a couple thousand rpms. since you drop a lot more than 800 rpms when you shift gears, this would give the advantage to the bigger motor. i'd like to see how that changes with the infinately variable transmissions. any thoughts? tony

a cvt(continuisly variable transmition) would be the shit if they work corectly and dont slip with insane torque or whatever....
and i think that if the do properly and are reliable that it would change everything.... because instead of making comprimizes with cam shaping ignition timing, fuel injection timing etc etc etc, to work over a wide rpm band you could just pick an rpm and build the engine to have peak power and torque at that point.... or as much torque as possible from 0rpm to that point and then peak power at that point or however the best set up would be....

[macncheese]

yeah, now THAT would have to be cool.
tony