i know it in search but searchs can get outdated.
im giving up trying to fix my knocking engine ive replaced everything. so now im going to replace the entire engine.

but which one to buy??? ok. i dont want to lower the compression to 8's thinking of 10's. to keep spool time up. but is the 2.2 that howell makes worth the money. or should i get a 2.0 rebuild. not doing the 2.4 frank. to much mess i think, i know everyone says it has more displacement and all but if i wanted displacement to be my means of power hummm a 4cyl wouldnt have been my choice. ill leave that to the mustang guru's around here;;;;redneck central. wilkes county.. ok back to my q. who has the howell 2.2 and do you like it?
how bad is the clean up. that is the baby blue one isnt it? now if they are using my block to make it cant he not use that blue??? gary?? ok all advice would be helpfull the down time has started.

I will have it soon but I hope you like tuning if your going high comp. I'll give updates as the project goes on. He won't paint it a different color, that's like free advertising for him. As far as going 8.6:1 comp,(your other options are 10.5:1 and 12.5:1) the extra displacement will make up for the power loss plus a little more. And you have some extra saftey if you make a tuning mistake.

I edited to the wiki!

Does anyone have the 10.5:1 pistons with boost here what is a safe level i doubt ill pass 7lbs. as a street car only. im just wondering how much difference it makes to go with the 8.6:1 i know that is what most turbo's go with but i hate to loose that much. does the extra .02 make up for it. i hate blowing shit up

There has been at least one person to run 10.5 with turbo. I thought I heard that he blew up (exact cause, don't know). I'd be a little sketchy about running 10.5 with turbo. Seems like a shame to only run 7 psi after spending $2600+ on it.

You might talk to Gary about custom compression ratios. I'm leaning toward a 2.2l at stock 9.6:1 and moderate boost (9-12 psi). I'm hoping he can accomodate me on this. It'll be a couple months before I really make a decision on what to do.

Corbin

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



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

Corbin
'97 GSX dressed like a '95 ESi

the 2.2 is okay for the money i suppose your getting about a 11% increase in power not much really, running 10.5:1 and turbo u are going to have have a very good tuner tune it for u not to mention if u get bad gas in the car kaboom it will go, pump gas is not always acurate on what is at the pump, it could be 83 octane eventhough it says 93 there is no octane rating regulations in the U.S.

the next thing u will need to watch is how do u tune it if your thinking just a safc and 30# injectors your going to be rebuilding it again i will bet,

the difference in compression ratios is about 4hp per full point (so ud gain 4hp from 8.0 -9.0)

u could run the 8.8:1 je pistons and mill the head a bit and run around 9:1 that is what i will be doing now,

i was going to run 10.5:1 then realised i need a reliable car and dont wanna mess with the extra head ache of having a 10.5:1 car, i could ahve done it but i decided wih the 2.4 ill have enough bottom end and not have to worry about it...

if u want more power stay 2.0. maybe run 9:1 or at the most id say 9.5:1 bump up the boost, and get some cams with the extra money u have and u should have some nice power to the wheels,

leave the hicomp turbo motors to the pros.

You can have it cheap, fast or good. Pick any two.

If you want it cheap and fast, it's not going to be good.
If you want it cheap and good, it's not going to be fast.
If you want it good and fast, it's not going to be cheap.

ok now i kind of like that idea of milling the head but why go through the work for 4 hp not my idea of cost effective, what are the problems that are to be if the 10.5:1 is used. why is everyone saying that it has to be oh so right in tuning. then why isnt everyone so concerned about turboing there stock motors, with the stock compression?

Yeah! What ^^^^^ said! I've been wondering the same sort of things. Sounds like if you want to go sleeper with not much more than the SMIC some day, you'd want to stick with the 2.0, huh. Maybe stay stock comp and get the 2.2L?

>the difference in compression ratios is about 4hp per full
>point (so ud gain 4hp from 8.0 -9.0)


Actually it is 4% of whatever your engine is making. If your motor is making 150HP with a couple of boltons and your bump compression 1 point from 9.6:1 to 10.6:1 then you'd be making the 156 even.

Only if our engine was making 100HP would it be a 4hp bump.

I think Howell's displacement is 2.157 which would be a ~7% bump. (Which is why I chose to use 150HP initially) a couple things like headers, CAI and TB would easily propel your little 2.2 to 170HP. With the compression bump you gain more power per mod, that is why it is 4% on top of whatever your engine makes. Your 2.2 at this point would be making ~177HP. I'd expect TQ to be a good 15-20lb increase as well. With 12.5:1 slugs the 420a would bear down on 190HP all motor. If we were talking about the 2.4L this whole time it would most definitely be a diffrerent story with about 210HP (actually a bit more).

Imagine that...

*Skrilla
"Honest officer, I thought you were trying to race me"
Talon: 1st 2.4L
'97 Prelude
'04 350Z

Originally posted by etx
Good luck man! Project 'STFU Brian your talon is dead meat' should be on it's feet soon!

skrilla when u gonna get pics of your setup? i know i would and many other would like to see and hear from u a bit more

You can have it cheap, fast or good. Pick any two.

If you want it cheap and fast, it's not going to be good.
If you want it cheap and good, it's not going to be fast.
If you want it good and fast, it's not going to be cheap.