Hey,

I have decided to chase the possibility of a 2.2L motor. I already have a 30 over cryo block that needs to go to 40.

I have few questions that I cant seem to get a straight answer for.

1) Is the 2.2L non interference?

2) Will it last? I have 250000 miles on my car and am looking for a motor that will go at least 100000.

3) Should I just build the 2.0 up? Im probably gonna stay NA but am looking for around 180hp with alot of torque. Im not opposed to the 2.4, but I dont want the car down while custom things are fabbed. I just want to drop a motor in and go.

Thanks!

Tim Klein

Originally posted by teklein
1) Is the 2.2L non interference?

No, it's a stroker of the 2.0 motor, which is an interference motor (most typically are).

Originally posted by teklein
2) Will it last?

Yes, if you keep up regular maintenance.

Originally posted by teklein
3) Should I just build the 2.0 up? Im probably gonna stay NA but am looking for around 180hp with alot of torque. Im not opposed to the 2.4, but I dont want the car down while custom things are fabbed. I just want to drop a motor in and go.

Your best bet for 'drop in and go' would be to either order the 2.2 long-rod stroker kit (is it offered still?) or the 2.0 long-rod kit. The long-rod kits will have more torque than the standard rod length motors of the same displacement, although the 2.4 will have even more torque.

Awesome!

I appreciate the answers.

I completely understand that regular maintenance is key. I have 250000 on the SAME motor, no rebuilds either :)

I had read in one thread on here that it was non interference, unless I misunderstood, that sounded kinda weird to me.

Originally posted by teklein
Awesome! I appreciate the answers. I completely understand that regular maintenance is key. I have 250000 on the SAME motor, no rebuilds either :) I had read in one thread on here that it was non interference, unless I misunderstood, that sounded kinda weird to me.

I assume you are refering to this post http://forums.2gnt.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=74975&mesg_id=74975&listing_type=search

And yes according to Gary and my own research (read timing belt snapped on me) It is a non interference engine.

Originally posted by Kirby
And yes according to Gary and my own research (read timing belt snapped on me) It is a non interference engine.

What? I think you are confused. It is an Interference motor which means that the valves WILL contact the pistons when timing is lost.

Originally posted by djtrickee

Originally posted by Kirby And yes according to Gary and my own research (read timing belt snapped on me) It is a non interference engine.

What? I think you are confused. It is an Interference motor which means that the valves WILL contact the pistons when timing is lost.

I could be wrong here but I think they're referring to the 2.2 stroker being non interference (but I don't see how it could be)

I personally know that the 2.0 IS an interference engine. My alternator belt decided to let go at 6500rpms and shot into the timing belt causing it to skip timing. my head has NO straight exhaust valves left.

And this is why I asked!

I took out of the valves TWICE on my DOHC Neons, didnt see how making something essentially bigger remedied the fact that the pistons will hit the valves when left to free rotation...

But if it is true, id love to know why :)

Well I don't have my info with me right now so I will have to reference it and get back. Also I have been away from the site for too long also so my vocab may not be up to par, but here goes...lol
Let me say first that the 2.0L is ABSOLUTLY interference.

There are a couple of things to consider here on the 2.2L though. #1 the valve relief cuts in the forged pistons allow for extra valve clearence. #2 The increase in Displacement. You can achieve this in a couple of ways, but what you are doing is increasing the space for combustion before the fire. You can do this by boring out the cilinders and they do bore out I think to .40 or .60 over to increase volume of the cilinder side to side. The other way is to increase the volume by moving the top or bottom of the cilinder to expand the volume it can hold. Since I am grasping for the vocab right now I'll throw it out like this, The Piston comes to TDC at a lower spot in the cilinder allowing more room for the gases to compress and more room for valves to protrude without meeting Piston. I hope this makes sence without the right terms. As I said above though I was at 80 miles an hour on the interstate IIRC this was before the neon tranny so I was at least in the 4000 RPM range. My timing belt shredded against my Timing cover due to a broken bolt on the tensioner assembly (The one that holds the pulley to the bracket). Resulting in a total and epic failure of the timing system (again at 4000 + RPM) and there was no damage. Now with the new 1mm oversize Valves I may be in a different boat but hopefully I won't ever have to find out... Knowing my Luck I am sure that it had nothing to do with not needing a rebuild.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there Kirby. on a stroker crank the rod journals are moved farther out from the center to increase the distance between TDC and BDC thus increasing the stroke. to move the piston farther away from the head at TDC you would have to move the entire crank away from the head (multiple headgaskets, taller deck height) or de-stroke the crank (move the rod journals closer to the centerline of the crank) you may have been a lucky case with larger valve reliefs on your forged pistons or my guess is that when your tensioner took a shit the belt didn't shift enough to get everything into place where it will contact. I'm leaning towards the second option (belt not shifting) because I had the same thing happen to me. The tension and idle pulleys both went bad and shat the bearings all over the place. luckily the belt never skipped enough teeth to have anything hit at ~4000rpms

Yea I gotta agree with the other Erik.

Kirby, what you described with the piston being at a lower spot in the cylinder at TDC, would essentially mean you have a smaller compression ratio. Reducing the compression ratio can be accomplished with low comp pistons, a thicker-than-stock head gasket, but I don't think that it's necessarily inherent with a 2.2 or stroked motor (unless the wrist pin was moved higher on the piston than the stroked rod is longer.)

Happy belated, meant to post about it on Monday, but was wore out from the track day and forgot.

A stroker kit increases the stroke (distance a piston travels), thus creating more displacement, it doesn't change the distance from the head. Since displacement is a calculation of bore (cylinder diameter) & stroke (piston travel), increasing both will give you more displacement.

Originally posted by RoninEclipse2G
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there Kirby. on a stroker crank the rod journals are moved farther out from the center to increase the distance between TDC and BDC thus increasing the stroke. to move the piston farther away from the head at TDC you would have to move the entire crank away from the head (multiple headgaskets, taller deck height) or de-stroke the crank (move the rod journals closer to the centerline of the crank) you may have been a lucky case with larger valve reliefs on your forged pistons or my guess is that when your tensioner took a shit the belt didn't shift enough to get everything into place where it will contact. I'm leaning towards the second option (belt not shifting) because I had the same thing happen to me. The tension and idle pulleys both went bad and shat the bearings all over the place. luckily the belt never skipped enough teeth to have anything hit at ~4000rpms

You are absolutely right on the rods being offset further from the center line. And you are correct in the pistons travel making the increase in displacement. However there is one thing you are missing. If you move that rod journal and keep the same rod length (The 2.2L uses stock length rods) what would happen? If it's coming further down in the bore it will also go further up into the bore. How do you solve that problem? Shorter Piston (by moving pin locations or changing shape or height). This is also one way to lower the comp. on a piston, think dish vs. dome... As for the belt I assure you that there was no belt on the cam gears at all, and the engine was out of time when I went to fix it. I am not saying it is impossible to get lucky and not smash something, I am just saying that I am NOT that lucky...LOL

Originally posted by ez
Yea I gotta agree with the other Erik. Kirby, what you described with the piston being at a lower spot in the cylinder at TDC, would essentially mean you have a smaller compression ratio. Reducing the compression ratio can be accomplished with low comp pistons, a thicker-than-stock head gasket, but I don't think that it's necessarily inherent with a 2.2 or stroked motor (unless the wrist pin was moved higher on the piston than the stroked rod is longer.)

You are right as well. The compression is lower than stock on this motor as well, so that does factor in here also. Your last point here is a good one, since the rod length remains the same it is the pin movement that comes into play here. It may not be inherent to every stroker motor, but I believe it is to this one based on it's design.

Originally posted by cougar694u
Happy belated, meant to post about it on Monday, but was wore out from the track day and forgot. A stroker kit increases the stroke (distance a piston travels), thus creating more displacement, it doesn't change the distance from the head. Since displacement is a calculation of bore (cylinder diameter) & stroke (piston travel), increasing both will give you more displacement.

Also correct. This is what I was trying to say with the part about moving the top and bottom of the cylinder to increase volume (displacement). However we still have to remember that the rod length is the same so we are not taking into account the shorter piston that makes it work in the first place. If you have a fixed length item that is rotating at a fixed travel, and you modify it so that it is further down at BDC it will be higher at TDC. So you have to shorten it up in some way, otherwise the valves and pistons would self-clearance in one rotation. (thanks for the phrase Corbin) It is the rod length remaining stock that throws things off here fellas. So I can not provide the super secret design or get into technical clearances and piston sizes because I don't have Gary's secrets. But I am assuming that he does have those bits of info that would cause him to clue me in to the fact that it is a non interference engine.

Corbin made a great post about this here: http://forums.2gnt.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=103574&mesg_id=103574&listing_type=search

I wasn't sure if rod length was the same, so I didn't bring it up.

The pistons that come with it raise the wrist pin to accommodate clearance issues, thus keeping the the piston in the same place at TDC.

Originally posted by Kirby
http://forums.2gnt.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=103574&mesg_id=103574&listing_type=search

Basically what corbin is saying is that you use the long rod pistons so that you don't slam the piston straight into the head at TDC (that would suck) and that the difference in the wrist pin placement is the same as the shift in the rod journals. this would place the piston at the exact same place at TDC.

My only thought would be is that either your low comp pistons saved you (don't know how since they're still reliefed(sp?) for the valves) or that you got really lucky and the cams stopped at just the right place to keep from destroying the valves. Just another guess here but I'd bet you have stiffer valve springs for performance cams. (I didn't see them in the mod list in your sig)

My technical explanation would be that Kirby's engine released 8 years worth of stored potential energy (in layman's terms "good luck") at the precise instant that his timing belt exploded. There would have been a brief, but brilliant flash of white light streaming out from where the hood meets the fenders. That provided a narrow 12 second window for him to realize his peril, put the clutch in, and allow the rotating assembly to come to rest without damage. The world was at peace for a moment. The bad news is that he would have to endure another 8 years of bad luck to rebuild his store of potential energy. If he tried to crank the engine after pulling over and again avoided damage, tack another 3 years onto that.

The 2.2l engine with JE 8.8:1 pistons, stock valves, stock springs, and stock cams might be non-interference up to a certain RPM, but I would not bet my valves on it. Mill the deck, use a different brand or compression ratio piston, change valves, change springs, or change cams and you will affect how much interference you get.

Corbin

'95 ESI-T
Now with more power and fewer leaks



Gimme fuel...Gimme fire...Gimme that which I desire

Originally posted by cougar694u
I wasn't sure if rod length was the same, so I didn't bring it up. The pistons that come with it raise the wrist pin to accommodate clearance issues, thus keeping the the piston in the same place at TDC.

Do they? I don't know that Gary ever releases any specs on the pistons he was using as this was part of the "secret". I understand the point you are making and it is a good one if in fact the pin movement is such that it brings it up to the exact place at TDC. Having seen stock piston travel and my 2.2L piston travel side by side I do not believe they come to the same spot at TDC based on eyeballing. (keep in mind I have not measured it to be exact.)

Originally posted by RoninEclipse2G

Originally posted by Kirby http://forums.2gnt.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=103574&mesg_id=103574&listing_type=search

Basically what corbin is saying is that you use the long rod pistons so that you don't slam the piston straight into the head at TDC (that would suck) and that the difference in the wrist pin placement is the same as the shift in the rod journals. this would place the piston at the exact same place at TDC. My only thought would be is that either your low comp pistons saved you (don't know how since they're still reliefed(sp?) for the valves) or that you got really lucky and the cams stopped at just the right place to keep from destroying the valves. Just another guess here but I'd bet you have stiffer valve springs for performance cams. (I didn't see them in the mod list in your sig)

I know he is speaking about a different issue there I was just using it to illisturate the point that you must adjust something to compensate for the difference in piston travel. (in this case wrist pin location) Again though we are assuming that Gary was using off the shelf pistons rather than a special design. Also note Corbin is speaking to Long Rod kits not strokers, and his point is that the 2 have to work together. Nobody outside of Howell knows the specs on these motors and their clearences as it is his trade secret. I assure you I was not lucky though as the timing cover was still on when this happened. So after the car shut down I was on the shoulder of 95 trying to start her back up as I was late for work. I did not find out it was the t-belt until after I got it home and removed the window in the cover. ( I was praying for a sensor) Also as the person who fixed it I can tell you the cams were not zeroed so if it was an interference engine there WOULD have been an issue. Good call on the springs, but this was back when the head was stock... Reminds me I need to update that list, but I'm still on the stock Cams....LOL

EDIT: clearly this is not something you want to bet on. You do want to make sure that you do everything you can to prevent an incident. There are no guarentees in life let alone in 2GNT's...