I can't really decide.

I could just build up the plain old 2.0 block. It would be cheaper than the other 2, which would leave more money for my turbo, and other stuff.

2.2 from howell would be nice, but it's more expensive, which would leave less for other mods. is the extra .2 L worth it? what are the downsides with the 2.2 stroker?

2.4 requires all the custom work. i'm not exactly sure what the total cost would end up being, but I do know somebody who could help me with the fabrication needed. i just don't know if it's worth it.


right now, i am leaning a little towards the built 2L, just because i would have money to finish my custom turbo kit, and other things. problem is, i dont want to turn around in a couple years, and want to move up to a 2.2 or 2.4.

what do you guys think?

just go 2.0 and make sure you dont go cheap on the internals; It'll rev higher anyway. use like JE pistons n' Crower or Pauter rods er something.

im in the SAME shoes. then i hear the fuckin ringing in my head


"no replacement for displacement"
_________
96 talon esi-t
san clemente, ca

turbo8u> you suck
Uberingram> i know
turbo8u> oh

SaberKhan> Someone needs to snatch that GST of yours up and give you your Cavalier back.

2.0

reasons? i have some, but i want to see if other people think of things that i havent thought of yet.

2.2 wont redline as high i think but it *will* make the turbo spool way faster because of more exhaust pressure down low

2.0 is probly what im gunna end up doing though....it would be cool to have a 2,2 420a turbo though, thats pretty damn rare imo, i mean afterall....a turbo 420a is rare enough
_________
96 talon esi-t
san clemente, ca

turbo8u> you suck
Uberingram> i know
turbo8u> oh

SaberKhan> Someone needs to snatch that GST of yours up and give you your Cavalier back.

2.0

2.0L reason... LOOK at HAHN
10 seconds and ALOT of stock parts.. valvetrain,etc..

Originally posted by mcgyvr
2.0L reason... LOOK at HAHN 10 seconds and ALOT of stock parts.. valvetrain,etc..

edit: stock valvetrain :nono, talk to bill about that one. i'd love to see a stock valvetrain handle 150 shot nitrous and 23 psi

look at shep....8 sec 1/4's, thats not the point. the whole point of a car is to have fun imo, and get you places and shit like that. 2.2 420a would be MUCH more fun daily driver imo

more torque faster spool and UBER, you of all people i'm surprised you would say 2.0 when you have a 2.4 srt, what do those beasts redline at anywho?

i bet if the hahn eclipse spent some time on other mods it would be much faster, like for example...a 2.2 block, the hahn neon wasnt a 2.0 and it SLAPS the rs with amazing 9 sec 1/4's, 420a style

overall, whatever floats your boat. im curious to know how high a 2.2 420a redlines though, and the 2.4...maybe 6500? i dunno someone gimme some insight

:cheers


_________
96 talon esi-t
san clemente, ca

turbo8u> you suck
Uberingram> i know
turbo8u> oh

SaberKhan> Someone needs to snatch that GST of yours up and give you your Cavalier back.

i thought the 2.4 would run to 7k rpms if you removed the balance shafts. maybe blueprint and all that. i'm sure you could get 7000 rpms outta dat biatch.

dont srt's get to 6300? or so?

get the 2.4 and then when you want a 2.6 you dont have to fabricate everything ;)

i say 2.0

you wanna know why? CAUSE EVERYONE WHO HAS WENT HIGHER CANT GET IT TO RUN RIGHT!

I know of 2 people on here that have 2.2 and 2.4's.. they are about 60whp behind me and are having more problems then you could imagine.

james

Originally posted by siueclipse
i say 2.0 you wanna know why? CAUSE EVERYONE WHO HAS WENT HIGHER CANT GET IT TO RUN RIGHT! I know of 2 people on here that have 2.2 and 2.4's.. they are about 60whp behind me and are having more problems then you could imagine. james

good answer

Nick
97RS

turbo8u> shut your SUCK
ZAO684: NIPPLE warning...maybe>?

Originally posted by siueclipse
i say 2.0 you wanna know why? CAUSE EVERYONE WHO HAS WENT HIGHER CANT GET IT TO RUN RIGHT! I know of 2 people on here that have 2.2 and 2.4's.. they are about 60whp behind me and are having more problems then you could imagine. james

This is just BS. The guy's with the 2.4L know there are problems and complications, so if you don't go into that build prepared for it then that's your fault. As for the 2.2L guy's there is only one that has any real numbers, and his may not be running right, but part of that is not his fault. I have not had a chance to get any numbers on my setup. I've been battling an oil leak that I have had since day one. I'm not going to try to say that a 2.2L will rev just as high as a 2.0L but unless your running a DFI then you still hit fuel cut before it would be an issue. Once we have a way to truly rev to 8500 or something then it may be an issue, however until we are there no worries. Me and another board member have been quietly running our 2.2L motors without getting any numbers and with very little problems. My only problem is the oil leak that came with the motor from howell. Everyone has different issues but the only guy's that have had problems getting the motors to acctually run properly is the 2.4L guy's.

Originally posted by 420AYE
i thought the 2.4 would run to 7k rpms if you removed the balance shafts. maybe blueprint and all that. i'm sure you could get 7000 rpms outta dat biatch. dont srt's get to 6300? or so?

you need a more than removing the balancing shafts to do that but it's been done before on a few neons

Alain

Originally posted by Uberingram
2.0

look at that even the dude with the 2.4 said 2.0 haha

but yeh 2.0 is in my opinion the best all around engine size for a 4 banger. It still likes to rev and your horsepower and torque are roughly the same. I guess a 2.2 would give you a bit more torque and bring the hp and torque even close but I'm still saying 2.0.

Originally posted by turbo8u
2.2 wont redline as high i think but it *will* make the turbo spool way faster because of more exhaust pressure down low 2.0 is probly what im gunna end up doing though....it would be cool to have a 2,2 420a turbo though, thats pretty damn rare imo, i mean afterall....a turbo 420a is rare enough _________ 96 talon esi-t san clemente, ca turbo8u> you suck Uberingram> i know turbo8u> oh SaberKhan> Someone needs to snatch that GST of yours up and give you your Cavalier back.

That is crap...

Being a 2.2L has nothing to do with the redline. If you put stiffer springs in, with the new p/t cruiser lifters, and run good oil, you can take the redline to around 10k with proper head work. The redline is all in the head, has nothing to do with the bottem end. Do your research!

Originally posted by bzoss
The redline is all in the head, has nothing to do with the bottem end. Do your research!

This is not right.

Originally posted by bzoss

Originally posted by turbo8u 2.2 wont redline as high i think but it *will* make the turbo spool way faster because of more exhaust pressure down low 2.0 is probly what im gunna end up doing though....it would be cool to have a 2,2 420a turbo though, thats pretty damn rare imo, i mean afterall....a turbo 420a is rare enough _________ 96 talon esi-t san clemente, ca turbo8u> you suck Uberingram> i know turbo8u> oh SaberKhan> Someone needs to snatch that GST of yours up and give you your Cavalier back.

That is crap... Being a 2.2L has nothing to do with the redline. If you put stiffer springs in, with the new p/t cruiser lifters, and run good oil, you can take the redline to around 10k with proper head work. The redline is all in the head, has nothing to do with the bottem end. Do your research!

yea dude, wtf are YOU talking about...? 10k redline, yea go for it charger, take some pics of that engine annhilating itself :rolleyes



_________
96 talon esi-t
san clemente, ca



turbo8u> you suck
Uberingram> i know
turbo8u> oh

SaberKhan> Someone needs to snatch that GST of yours up and give you your Cavalier back.

Originally posted by bzoss
The redline is all in the head, has nothing to do with the bottem end. Do your research!

Engine RPM affects every part of the engine. The bottom end is no exception. Keeping all other factors the same, the increase in stroke will lead to higher piston velocities. Higher piston velocity will apply more force on the rods among other things. If the rods are the weak link, you could reach a RPM where the rods on the long stroke motor would break before the normal stroke motor.

But, we don't know the real world RPM limits of the bottom end of a built 2.0l or 2.2l. I think its likely that both could rev as high as you need them too.

Corbin

'95 ESI-T
HRC+FMIC+ETC...



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

Why do you think people destroke engines that they want to become higher reving? Because the rod angle decreases and puts less stress on bearings and the crank. There's a very good thread in the advanced section that talks about rod angle, might want to give it a read. Engine builders have been playing games with bore and stroke ratios for years to get the power where they want it, and to get an engine to handle the stress in it.

Originally posted by bzoss
Do your research!

That is sound advice there... might want to follow it yourself.



15.9 @ 86.7mph
http://www.exileracing.com

Mods List:
http://highlander.dsmpower.com/sig.htm

Originally posted by Michael_97RS

Originally posted by bzoss Do your research!

That is sound advice there... might want to follow it yourself.

Haha. I wasn't even that harsh to you! :thumbsup

I'd stick to a 2.0. You know why? because the 2.0 is the most balanced motor ever made. Why do you think All out Drag Cars use 2.0. And take physics into account. if you have a bigger bore, your rev won't be as high as a smaller bore right? And it's true when individuals say, there's no replacement for displacement. That's not necessarily true! Slap a turbo and take out V8 all day and everyday! Now how'z that for displacement!:cheers

yeah, im definately leaning toards the 2.0. if for nothing else, the price is a big benefiet. all the replies to this thread have helped too, theres some good points. thanks for the help. any more ideas, keep on posting 'em.

I'm going for the 2.4 turbo setup..because I want to be somewhat different

2.2's don't exist. Do some math.

stock bore is 3.444, stroke is 3.268. That's 121.7ci, or 1.994 liters.

The most you could get away stroking the crank is .040". You cannot go more than that, because they don't make bearings smaller than that. That'd give you a 3.308" stroke. So, look at this:

If you bored that stroker .080" over, and that's pushing it, you'd have a 3.524" bore, and a 3.308" stroker. That makes 129ci, or 2.1139 liters. Not a 2.2. Who can bore these things .080" over?

If you bored them .100" over, which you probably can't do, then you'd have a 3.544" bore, and with a 3.308" stroke, you're looking at 130.5ci. That's 2.1385 liters. Not quite 2.2. not even 2.1 and a half :wary

FTY claims to bore theirs 0.040" over in addition to the change in stroke. I don't know the exact displacement out to 3 decimal places (I asked, but they haven't responded to my me).

Howell claims to have a 3.540" stroke. They don't say how much they bore it out, but I believe it is minimal at 0.020" or 0.040". I remember seeing notches ground out of the block to clear rod bolts. There were also welds on the crankshaft.

I'm sure both companies round up to get the 2.2l (I heard that the Howell was 2.15l or similar). I'd like to hear their exact displacements so I could determine whether its even worth the effort. I'm starting to lean toward just building a 2.0l myself.

Corbin

'95 ESI-T
HRC+FMIC+ETC...



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

Originally posted by Corbin
Howell claims to have a 3.540" stroke.

That's an ocscene stroke. I wouldn't use a crank that has .272" of weld added to it.

Originally posted by Corbin
They don't say how much they bore it out, but I believe it is minimal at 0.020" or 0.040".

with that stroke a standard bore would yield 2.161 and you could just round up to consider that a 2.2.

Originally posted by Corbin
I'm starting to lean toward just building a 2.0l myself.

That's what I would do on my tractor. go with the 2.0 liter. :thumbsup

glad to see some good info here, as for the bore sizes: the 420a has been bored many a time by blackdog motorsports ina NA motor to .0140-.0160(thousandths) over 160 and anything over problems with cylinder heating and thickness was a pretty big issue..

but a 140 the motors were still pretty solid..
(never heard of it done ona BOOSTED motor though)

Bill

I personnally like the results as seen from fellow board members that the extra .2L (rounded) displacement gives.

xtremeRS 2.0 @ 13psi = 230 HP, 245 Torque
95greenhrcqs 2.2 @ 14psi = 236 HP, 272 Torque

Originally posted by Blmet
I personnally like the results as seen from fellow board members that the extra .2L (rounded) displacement gives. xtremeRS 2.0 @ 13psi = 230 HP, 245 Torque 95greenhrcqs 2.2 @ 14psi = 236 HP, 272 Torque

See my sig below. I would like to note, that tuning with all of our cars were probably much different from one another. That alone, can make HUGE differences in both HP and torque numbers.

I talked to the Blackdog guy about his bored engines and he was happy with them as a race engine. However, he said that he had alot of trouble keeping the head gasket intact and wouldn't recommend it for a boosted engine, let alone a daily driver.

FTY responded to my query about the exact displacement of their 2.2l. Its 2.1516 liters.

Corbin

'95 ESI-T
HRC+FMIC+ETC...



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