Turbo Dodge Forums banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i have a 2.2 turbo 2 cracked head and needs new rings can i take my 2.2 turbo and bolt everything onto a 2.5 to make a 2.5 turbo2?
 

·
Legendary Driver
Joined
·
10,963 Posts
yes you can, just want to get the computer reprogrammed for the 2.5 spark and fuel curves. I went with a 2.5 shortblock under my 2.2 T2 top end in my 87 ShelbyZ (read pig a$$ heavy tank) and have NEVER looked back. It's by far the best mod for a car over 2800lbs IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
ok good the 2.5 i have is a fresh rebuild at a local speed shop with all performance parts so i am quite excited to get that motor in
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
2.5 na and a 2.5 turbo have different internals, don't think a NA 2.5 would live very long with a turbo. i have never tried it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
i dont think it will matter the 2.5 i have has je forged pistons srt4 connecting rods cemetic head gasket and apr studs and bolts all arround
 

·
Legendary Driver
Joined
·
10,963 Posts
The n/a 2.5 was a tall deck motor with a different length rod. You could make a 2.5 tall deck setup into turbo as long as you have the right length and strength rods and pistons to make the right compression ratio.

but just making a 2.5 n/a tall deck into a turbo by just bolting on a turbo setup isn't the best idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
out of all the info i have looked at i cant find anywhere where there are different rod lenghts, and only one compression ratio
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
The tall deck 2.5L pre-dated the later (89+) 'common block' engines. It used proprietary length rods, the same pistons as a 2.2L (I think) and did not have floating wrist pins, and stock would have had an N/A compression ratio (9:1 I think).

The 89+ 2.5L engine uses the same rods, but a different crank and pistons. The pistons have the wristpin positioned higher, and the crank has greater throw - as well as a relief at the bottom of the bore to clear the rods with the larger crank throw. The 89+ is often considered stronger. The 2.5L shipped with balance shafts, which are often removed or rendered inoperable for a few HP and less mechanical complication.

If you have forged slugs and studs in that 2.5L, and dished pistons (turbo pistons, with the lower compression ratio) then you've got a great starting point. Toss a swirl head on there (ported, preferably) and enjoy the increased torque and faster spool of the 2.5L.

The only down-side to the 2.5L is that because it's bigger, it demands more flow - our 8v heads are anemic to begin with - and the 2.5L only makes the head an even bigger choke point, and move max power lower in the rpm range. With a very good flowing head, the 2.5 should have some substantial potential (it's still a driveability upgrade over a 2.2 in a heavy car).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Do you have a custom cal that came with the engine? If not, you'll likely need some tuning. Porting and other flowpath improvements start to require some computer hackery.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
4,017 Posts
You will also need to drill out a hole in the back of the block for drainback for the turbo, or find an alternative method with the 2.5 NA. I believe there is a cutout in the right spot, just got to drill, tap, clean and install.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
i just found out that the motor was a turbo motor so i got lucky there and i plan on getting a custom computer for it aswell
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,120 Posts
The n/a 2.5 was a tall deck motor with a different length rod. You could make a 2.5 tall deck setup into turbo as long as you have the right length and strength rods and pistons to make the right compression ratio.

but just making a 2.5 n/a tall deck into a turbo by just bolting on a turbo setup isn't the best idea.
the 89 up NA is a common block, only the early 2.5 88 and old was tall deck. The later NA engine just needs the rods, pistons and a hole cut for the return line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
well i work at a junkyard and we had a spirit rt there with the 2.5 turbo that needed the engine and we decided to try a low mileage plain jane 2.5 and put the turbo, etc on it and it ran well and pulled great going up the road till we hit 3rd gear and it blew the rods right through the block like nothing. thats when we came to find out that the turbo engines have a heavier crank and rods and pistons and the pistons are dished to lower compression ratio. we ended up having to find a turbo engine at the end of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
well i work at a junkyard and we had a spirit rt there with the 2.5 turbo that needed the engine and we decided to try a low mileage plain jane 2.5 and put the turbo, etc on it and it ran well and pulled great going up the road till we hit 3rd gear and it blew the rods right through the block like nothing. thats when we came to find out that the turbo engines have a heavier crank and rods and pistons and the pistons are dished to lower compression ratio. we ended up having to find a turbo engine at the end of it.
:bang head
That's only true of the turbo 2 (TII) motors which had forged cranks, better rods (same as common block, though) but the pistons were the same. All 2.5L turbo motors were commonblock (the tall deck was NA) - and all the commonblock engines were basically the same, even if turbo - except for the oil drain-back and the dish in the pistons. If you put turbo pistons into a 2.5L CB, it would run fine. The only other difference were the intake and exhaust valves - mostly the exhaust valves, which were turbo specific.

If you didn't use turbo pistons... it wouldn't last long under boost. Throwing a rod though usually doesn't happen unless it's starved for oil, boosted flat top pistons should only result in their untimely demise - but stranger things have happened.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top