Quote:
For instance look at all the mods TheFlyingSquirrel(PJ) has done to his 2200.
RSM racing intake
RK sport lower motor mount
RK sport upper motor mount
Car Customs transmission mounts
B&M short throw shifter
2.25" from front to rear
RK sport 4:1 ceramic coated header
removed cat converter
Y pipe dual magnaflow mufflers
RK sport O2 sim
MSD Ignition blaster coils
Magnecore racewires
NGK iridium spark plugs
SI stainless steel valves back cut and swirl polished
Chromoly pushrods
JBP silicon race valve springs
JBP chromoly steel retainers
JBP chromoly steel valve locks
Aggressive port and polish with 5 angle valve job
But how many of those actually make any more power?
These do
RSM racing intake
2.25" from front to rear
RK sport 4:1 ceramic coated header
removed cat converter
(yes, but at the expense of more torque lost than HP gained, I think it would be better to put a 2.25" back on)
SI stainless steel valves back cut and swirl polished (yes, hopefully over-sized)
Aggressive port and polish with 5 angle valve job
These are nice to have, while they may add efficiency, they do not make enough power to even call a gain.
MSD Ignition blaster coils
Magnacore racewires
NGK iridium spark plugs
These don't make power, but rather would support an engines ability to rev higher - by providing better valve control - which would only be beneficial
if cam timing supports making power in these higher RPM ranges - and unless there unless a
supporting(properly chosen to make power in the correct rpms) cam upgrade not listed here - it doesn't. Of course the bottom end internals need to be redone(for less rotating mass) to rev much higher, and then you still need to get past the RPM limiter
Chromoly pushrods
JBP silicon race valve springs(by the way, stiffer springs provide extra resistance, so technically they take away some power)
JBP chromoly steel retainers
JBP chromoly steel valve locks
now these are nice to have, but don't make any extra power
RK sport lower motor mount
RK sport upper motor mount
Car Customs transmission mounts
B&M short throw shifter
this is only to avoid a cel light due to no catalytic convertor- no gain
RK sport O2 sim
And is for looks only, no gain, just extra weight really
Y pipe dual magnaflow mufflers (the magnaflows may flow better than stock, but taking off your stock muffler is better too lol)
Also consider what track you guys run at , and driver skill, when you consider comparing times(both those can make a BIG difference) - and besides that
Quote:
you left out the slipping clutch and crappy costco tires tho hahaha 
Catch my point? Yeah 2.4s are a little faster than 2.2s, but not so much that they are untouchable, like so many believe they are.
Now as far as swapping engines - IF I was going to swap for power(considering only 4 bangers that is), forget the 2.4!! I'd go for either a 2.3 HO or maybe a 2.0 SOHC turbo(they aren't quite as reliable as I understand it though). If you want the king of reliability instead, and don't mind being mega slow - the old Iron Duke (2.5L OHV) is the clear choice(the thing was originally designed as a diesel engine, later converted to a gas engine, and you couldn't hurt it with a sledgehammer lol). Now I think 2.4s are reliable enough I wouldn't worry about it too much, but... The 2.2 has it beat there. I personally have nearly 200K miles on it, I beat the piss out of it every day(usually several times daily lol). IT STILL RUNS
DAMM GOOD. Honestly I have yet to hear of(not saying they don't exist) a 2.4 doing the same. Actually I have never even heard of a 200K mile 2.4 PERIOD. But ultra-high miles 2.2s aren't very rare at all!! And I definitely don't know about that pre 98 reliability thing. Plus I have never had a cooling system problem (except when my radiator fan's electic motor went out - and that's not a fault of the engine by any means). I have replaced my head gasket once, NOT BECAUSE IT NEED REPLACED, but because I had the head off anyways. Maybe second gen 2.2s where more reliable? I dunno. If you do ever swap to another 2.2, I recommend a 92-93 2.2 - OBD1, and a much nicer power curve IMO(different factory cam)(peak HP does not tell you everything, because it makes its power accross much of the power curve) - not much off the line torque, but plenty of mid-RPM torque and high-RPM HP(Almost feels like turbo lag). Of course I also think I got a factory freak
, but still those are faster than other 2.2s, from my experience at least...
There IS a replacement for displacement - BOOST. And on a turbocharged car, the 2.4s main power advantage(better flowing head via 16 valves) begins to be less signifigant as air is pressurized and forced through rather than being natually aspirated. Yes the 2.4 will still be faster, but the advantage begins to disappear.
Now as for someone saying that 2.2s get more torque from additional mass?
Incorrect. The ONLY thing additional rotating mass helps, is to maintain momentum while shifting between gears. It hinders the 2.2 from reving up as fast, making it a bit more sluggish. If your theory was correct, no one in their right mind would want a lighter flywheel, different pullys etc. The reason that MOST 2.2s build more torque and less HP, is because of cam timing, and smaller head ports(air velocity) etc. The 2200s build even more torque, and even less HP than older 2.2s. Mass being roughly the same on both engines, how do YOU explain this?!
PS - I've a 2.2 on ebay listed for $5 It said that if you come and pick it up its yours. LOL. If you look hard enough, you can get these engines for practically(or literally) nothing. $300, you got ripped off...
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
