Anyone heard HP/TRQ numbers for this motor. I'd like to drop this bad boy in before I spend the rest of my life savings on a turbo kit. Im guessing I'll be going with the 8.6 compression pistons. }(


heres the link:
http://www.howellautomotive.com/Howell/Store/catalog/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=142_38_192&products_id=552&osCsid=53e216a38b05f1c66cf790e6de96a539

I know that a couple people have the 2.2L but I think that it is still too new to have any numbers yet. Mine should be nearing completion soon and I cannot wait to see what it does.

nice! I'm new to this board and reaaallly confused where my message went. I put it under general chat and usually the new messages get put up on the top of the board...but i couldn't find my thread until I clicked "new." I checked the FAQ and couldn't find where new messages go... This boards great but extremely confusing :(

No dyno numbers that i am aware of at the moment.

Check the set up you have for the board. YOu can sort the topic within each forum. Make sure you are sorting by last modified date. Check your settings under your user menu.



15.9 @ 86.7mph
97 Eclipse RS

Injen CAI, 55mm TB, P&P Intake, Crower Stage 2 Cams, Hooker Header, GS-T Muffler, AFX UDP, Crane Ign Amp, S-AFC

if you posted this in general...then a mod just moved it to this section....engine....thats all.

Ok I personally know I'm going to get flamed for this but what the heck. IMHO I personally don't believe that the 2.2L motor is going to see that much of a gain over the 2.0L. I say this because the change isn't that drastic. I'm assuming we are talking maybe 15-20hp at the motor on a dyno, but that's it. Now, I have been known to be wrong, and if that is the case I will take it back. However, I can't justify to myself, at this point, to spend $1800 on a short block that will give me 15hp. PROVE ME WRONG!

The gain wont be in the hp, it will be in the added torque.

as for actual gain, that remains to be seen, But Glacius has been very happy so far w/ his turbod 2.2L (Glacius is an avenger guy from ASOG)

He seems to like his 2.2L w/ 8.6 compression better than his last motor, which was a 2.0L w/ 10.5 compression - same turbo kit on both.

you're not just getting 15hp, or however much the gain is, you're getting a bottom end rebuild with upgraded pistons and rods, crankshaft, Rod Bearings, Main Bearings, Total Seal Piston Rings, and I think an oil pump. considering that you're in essence getting a "new" bottom end, plus a bottom end upgrade kit($1,000 value), plus a little extra displacement. so in essence, $1000 for the bottom end kit, $1100 for the new block, $500 for the stroking. which sounds kosher but they're str8 jacking you on the cost of the new block considering they're only crediting you about $200-$300 if you give them you're old block. x( . lower that price by about $300, they'd probably sell a lot more.

I want to go with the 2.2L because it is built and can handle higher boost levels better(IMO...). Plus I'll have my stocker in the basement just incase something happens(i.e blow it up, or it only runs on 3 cylinders :cough: ). Hell, I'd be willing to go ahead and buy the motor to save my self a little trouble and even to say "i have a stroked 2.2L 420a". }(

My Dream Car:
Howell 2.2L Stroker @ 8.6
HRC Stage 2 + FMIC
S-AFC
60MM TB
AFX UDP
Injectors: 310cc or 4??cc
GST Muffler w/ 2.5" mandrel from turbo-back (maybe N1)
Joe-P E-MBC
Port and Polish Work (gasket matched)

Feel free to add items to my deam car list. :thumbsup

There are a few reasons that I would not go with a 2.2. First, it is a small 2.2, but since we don't go into the hundredths place when talking displacement, 2.2 it is. Also, They use the same rods as the short stroke motor, which can create a suboptimal rod angle. In the 4G63 camp, you rarely see a stroked 2.0 with a 2.0 crank and 2.0 rods. Rather, they start with the 4G64 crank and 4G64 style rods, as the rods are longer. This creates a better rod angle that puts less lateral stress on each rod as the motor is producing power.

Think of it this way:

you have a 3" stroke, and your rods are 6" long. You stroke the crank, so that your rods are still 6", but your stroke is 4". Picture the angle that the rod is at while it is at 90*... the shorter stroke will be a higher degree angle then the longer stroke, which translates into the force being transmitted more straight through the rod. This is why I like the 2.4 swap better, as the rods are longer, and the rod angle is the same (actually, ever so slightly better) then the 2.0. At this point, all that needs to be worried about is piston speed, since the piston travels the circumpherance of the stroke each rotation of the crank. The distance is a constant, but this means that a long stroke will never rev like a short stroke, and it is best to make your power at a higher RPM, as you will be able to take advantage of gearing.

But now I am rambling. The 2.0 is a slightly rev-happier motor then the 2.4, which should be (by my measurements) slightly more rev happy then a stroked 2.0. It's all in what you want.
-=B-=


Dude, Boeing called. They want their wing back.

>
>Think of it this way:
>
>you have a 3" stroke, and your rods are 6" long. You stroke
>the crank, so that your rods are still 6", but your stroke is
>4". Picture the angle that the rod is at while it is at 90*...
>the shorter stroke will be a higher degree angle then the
>longer stroke, which translates into the force being
>transmitted more straight through the rod.

True that happens, but the real question is does it make a difference? That answer is no. When most of this theory was developed the types of metals that were avalible for car parts were not as good as that we have today. Do I like a long rod yes, but not because of rod angle. With the materials engine parts are made of today, it is not much of a concern on stress.

The reason I like long rod is because of increased torque. The longer rod increase the dewell time at TDC for the piston as the crank goes over center. The longer dewell time allows the combusion to advance further under high psi before the crank starts down on the power stroke, and thus we get an increase in torque. However in the stroker motor we get an incease in torque from the longer stroke and the increased displacement. At that point as long as the rod clears the block I'm not worried about rod angle, because of the quality of material.

We have also built 2.3 litre 420A, and 2.7 litre versions of 2.4's, but I think I might be able to get 2.9 or even 3.0 out of a 2.4 block. Still working on that.

>Anyone heard HP/TRQ numbers for this motor. I'd like to drop
>this bad boy in before I spend the rest of my life savings on
>a turbo kit. Im guessing I'll be going with the 8.6
>compression pistons. }(
>
>
>heres the link:
>http://www.howellautomotive.com/Howell/Store/catalog/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=142_38_192&products_id=552&osCsid=53e216a38b05f1c66cf790e6de96a539

There is really no set answer to your question. The engine is 10% bigger in displacement, and this will roughly translate into a 10% increase across the board in power. If you have a stock 140 hp engine, you should get a 14hp gain. If you have a wild turbo making 400 hp, then you should get a 40 hp gain. The amount of gain you will get over what you take out should be about 10% if you change absolutely nothing, if you change other things which most people will you will get more and more of a gain. The gain you will get is relative to what mods you do. Will you get a gain yes, and it will be a good one, unless you do a mod like putting on 1/2 inch exhasut
:+

I was just doing some calculations and I figured that if you had an intake, headers, racing cat, cat back, underdrive pulley, 60 mm throttle body, 2.2L, and indy manifold you will be making around 210 hp! that is schweet! I think it is worth it if you have supporting mods.