^^^that valetrain will help if you plan on boosting (as you stated, but would probably be a little overkill even for that), or if you plan on increasing the revs or valve lift (to accomadate a new cam). But, for a stock engine with nitrous, you really wouldn't need them I guess. Still, with the nitrous, you would probably want to still go with stainless valves to help control the heat.
Concerning my future engine build, it will be a 97- engine (original 96 out of my car most likely), and it will be running off a stand-alone ECU (so the factory timing won't even be used). I did consider going to an older crank for destroking, however, I figured the valvetrain would probably be the biggest obstacle in obtaining 8000rpm (although I'm pretty sure I've got that figured out now). Another reason I figured a shorter stroke wouldn't be the answer is that I'm going to need all the displacement I can get to spool such a ginormous turbo (current plans call for a 52 trim GT37 w/82mm inducer, displacement already not allowing efficient use of a GT40). Modern 4cyl drag motors get to use 10k+rpm to make up for the lower displacement, but I wouldn't dare try that on our little pushrod engines.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
well ill be keeping the stainless valves in there and maybe some stronger keepers, the cam is a cutom gring but more in duration than lift so im not worried.
One of the side effects of changing stroke and rod length is the potential change in the demand on the intake components. Longer stroke/shorter rod combinations generate higher piston acceleration rates which in turn create a higher "peak demand" for airflow. While this can really help boost torque and power at low rpm, it quickly becomes a problem as rpm increases, and the total time available to ingest a "full" cylinder's worth of air decreases. Reducing peak piston speed by decreasing stroke, increasing rod length, or both allows moving the peak power to a higher rpm without the need for much larger intake ports, valves TB, &etc. Of course this doesn't change the fact that the valves need to close correctly and stay closed at high rpm which is what I think you're referring to.
The old Mopar hemi engines were monster bore/ short stroke engines which could really made good power up high compared with other big block counterparts of their day.
-->Slow
slowolej wrote:One of the side effects of changing stroke and rod length is the potential change in the demand on the intake components. Longer stroke/shorter rod combinations generate higher piston acceleration rates which in turn create a higher "peak demand" for airflow. While this can really help boost torque and power at low rpm, it quickly becomes a problem as rpm increases, and the total time available to ingest a "full" cylinder's worth of air decreases. Reducing peak piston speed by decreasing stroke, increasing rod length, or both allows moving the peak power to a higher rpm without the need for much larger intake ports, valves TB, &etc. Of course this doesn't change the fact that the valves need to close correctly and stay closed at high rpm which is what I think you're referring to.
The old Mopar hemi engines were monster bore/ short stroke engines which could really made good power up high compared with other big block counterparts of their day.
-->Slow
Ur so smart !! go you !
Lee
JDM Civic Hatch
Status: Parting Out Turbo Kit....
14.224 @ 102.01MPH @ 5.5psi.... 2.3 60'
Next: Civic JDM B16a2 w/GSR LSD Turbo - Goal 300whp 1400lbs...
stevefire wrote:it looks a LOT like notec's crank pulley, but its painted silver.
I have an old RK pulley now (from Tony G's time):
I have a feeling this may be the one you have.
Does anyone notice any similarities between the two?
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
i have a question
i just read that the 90-93 2.2 oil pump has a higher flow than that of the 94+ oil pump. is this a good alternative to use on the 2200?
I have kind of read about the 2.3 oil pump conversion thing but i don't think its for the 2200 and i'm kind of worried about the oil. so is this an good alternative?
You're right, you can't use the 2.3L oil pump (it's a DOHC only thing).
The 90-93 pump does flow more than the 94+ pumps, but it also sits lower in the pan, so you may have to watch that (shouldn't be a problem though). There is also a 'high volume' version of the 90-93 pump availible, but remember, more oil flow means more power lost that could be put to the wheels. I would suggest the regular 90-93 if you're looking to upgrade.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
i am looking to upgrade, just as a safe guard. IS there going to be any trouble with the oil pan? i can still use the 2200 oil pan right? and this one will bolt right up?
Hopefully
Let us know
I have one of the pumps in my garage, but I don't have a gasket for the oil pan, and I'm not sure how I would check the clearance... (:-?)
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
this is where i got my info from,
jbody.tk
Quote:
Pump it Up There have been two oil pumps used on the 2.2L. The first pump that was used from 1990-�93 came with a deeper housing and longer gears so it pumped more volume than the later, shorter design that was used from 1994 on up. Both pumps are interchangeable, so some rebuilders have standardized on the later pump for everything, even though it has slightly less volume and a lower pressure relief valve (64 lbs. vs 80 lbs.).
now it says they are interchangable but i don't know about clearances..i guess i'll just have to be the guinea pig on this one
You can use a pencil to gauge the position or place some clay in the area of the pickup and use the pick-up to press the to find the depth.
You will be okay using the '94+ oil pump if your main and rod bearing clearances are on the tight end of spec (0.0006"-0.0014"). If the clearance is loose (0.0014"-0.0019) go to the '90-'93 oil pump. This is a safe range for a motor with a stock PCM (6K rpm). If you turn higher rpms (about 7k +) with the loose clearances, I'd go with the HV pump, only to make sure you don't starve the bearings.
Well, here's a "dyno" from a stock 2200. I wasn't sure about the cam duration, so I just made it resonable.
Then I added 11:1 pistons, the MadJack cam grind (Crane HR-208/292), a little headwork, full exhaust, 1.6 rockers, +1mm valves, some intake work, and got this:
I also uploaded all the applicable Crane HR/SR grinds to play around with.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Not sure how much this will help, but if the progam is decent it should give you a better, more accurate graph.
I belive the duration @.050" on the stock 2200 cam is 196* (In & Ex) with a lobe center of 114*.
The HR 208/292-14:
These are @ .004 tappet lift:
IVO 21.0* BTDC, IVC 63.0* ABDC
EVO 69.0* BBDC, EVC 15.0* ATDC
Advertised dureation of 264*
These are at .050 Tappet lift:
IVO 5.0* ATDC, IVC 33.0* ABDC, Max Lift @ 109* ATDC
EVO 43.0* BBDC, EVC 15.0* BTDC, Max Lift @ 119* BTDC
Duration @.050" is 208*
Lobe center 114*
That covers my cam spec card.
Try running them with those figures, that should change them a bit.
Just out of curiousity, have you seen anything to indicate the flow through the TB @ 1.5" Hg? I tend to use 3" Hg. I think I found a calculator on the web which determined flow for a particular size throttle plate at 3" Hg.
I also tended to use some different selections when I was building simulations. The 92 - 97 intake seemed to resemble a tuned port injection intake to me, with it's longer runners.
Now, let's see if I can upload the comparison picture and make it look good.
I've reset all variables to match yours with the difference being the cam. The power curve is remarkably similar between the two. Do you have overlap or specs at .050" for the Crane cam?
-->Slow
Jack, those changes to your cam (advertised) shifted the powerband about 500rpm earlier, and dropped hp maybe 5, raising torque a tad. I don't think those measurements at .050" are right though, they don't give 208*.
Slow, are you trying to show off your 2003 version? lol. Does it have any more options as far as the manifold and turbo choices?
The induction flow field totally had me stumped, and I couldn't find anything in the manual or online, but I figured it really didn't make too much of a difference what I used, so I guessed
If you have a link for that calculator I'd love it
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
I'm not trying to show off! I have and use both versions (2003 chokes on my Win98 laptop).
Yeah, there's a few more choices.
Intakes: Single plane std flow, single plane high flow, dual pl std, dual pl high, tunnel ram std design, tunnel ram custom des, the rest you know
No changes in forced induction
The cool stuff happens with cams. Cam accuracy is better. Seat to seat and .050 numbers can be entered together so lobe profile can be adjusted. More lifter choices (roller vs hyd roller) as well as adjustable lifter acceleration ramp rate. "cam manager" will profile lobes along a graph.
Neat to use to compare two cams which generate similar power curves with different profiles. Kinda tells me another factor in the simulation is limiting power.
I dunno what I did to come up with the flow number I was using. I had 500 cfm @ 3" Hg. Maybe I found flow numbers for a similar size TB? I just can't remember.
-->Slow
Did you remeber to subtract the IVO(ATDC, notBTDC) and the EVC(BTDC, not ATDC)?
180* -5*+33*=208*
& 180* + 43* -15*=208
I've been over that card a few times. I keep it in a platic bag so I don't get it dirty or dogeared.
Here's the card:
slowolej wrote:Yeah, there's a few more choices.
Intakes: Single plane std flow, single plane high flow, dual pl std, dual pl high, tunnel ram std design, tunnel ram custom des, the rest you know.
The cool stuff happens with cams. Cam accuracy is better. Seat to seat and .050 numbers can be entered together so lobe profile can be adjusted. More lifter choices (roller vs hyd roller) as well as adjustable lifter acceleration ramp rate. "cam manager" will profile lobes along a graph.
Neat to use to compare two cams which generate similar power curves with different profiles. Kinda tells me another factor in the simulation is limiting power.
Ah crap, now I want to get the 2003 version. That cam manager looks so much easier to deal with, and it would solve the problem I keep having with .050" lift figures giving much lower figures then the same cam with advertised durations (Yes, I'm changing the specs @ field)
MadJack wrote:Did you remeber to subtract the IVO(ATDC, notBTDC) and the EVC(BTDC, not ATDC)?
180* -5*+33*=208*
& 180* + 43* -15*=208
That's it! I don't know how I missed that, but I'm going with the "it was late" excuse...
Like every other time I've tried it, the .050" figures gave me much lower numbers...
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Hmmm, anyone want to send me these cool programs over PM's haha! Or atleast direct me to where to find them? I used to have a Dyno 2000 or 3000? But I had to clean the comp because of a nasty virus. Anyone?
N2O + Bolt-ons
= 220Hp/
250Tq
Coming Soon:HpTunersPro, EagleConnectingRods, WiescoPistons, 13sec2200
makes 2 of us and with those graphs I've decided that I want to do an all motor can you guys see what a 12:1 would look like
cardomain page
Interesting to see these...while I haven't (yet) read this whole thread, it's looking to me that this ties in pretty closely with the roller rocker thread as well as many of the others I've seen concerning the cam regrinds and such for the 2200. And it also seems to me to show that there's definitely potential for this engine N/A - although all the numbers and terminology are over my head really.
A few quick questions/thoughts though. These are crank HP numbers, right? I'm assuming so based on the stock dyno (the first one). That does look remarkably close to what my wife's 2200 dynoed to though with just an intake and catback - except shifted up about 25-30 hp. I'd assume (*gulp*) that's about the typical drivetrain loss with the auto tranny.
Has there been any sort of consensus or theory reached as to how far the redline could/should be raised to gain the greatest benefit from N/A mods like these? From the looks of these dynos, it looks to me that 7K would be a good number...technically it looks like peak power is being reached almost exactly where the stock redline is but its my understanding that you want to have the redline above peak HP, in order to maximise the power band on shifts. Haven't I read that with just a few upgrades, the valvetrain should be plenty reliable revving to at least 7K? (I thought I'd read something somewhere about 9K being *possible* but not a good idea)
And that (to me at least, unless I'm totally missing something) looks like a very streetable power band. The low end is preserved, even bolstered slightly, and at least theoretically that looks like a very nice smooth power delivery.
Quote:
And it also seems to me to show that there's definitely potential for this engine N/A
I've been saying that for a long time now...
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
Bballjamal (Cav-AtL) wrote:Hmmm, anyone want to send me these cool programs over PM's haha! Or atleast direct me to where to find them? I used to have a Dyno 2000 or 3000? But I had to clean the comp because of a nasty virus. Anyone?
I got the older dyno 2000 on ebay a while ago for like $20.
notallthere wrote:and bored .030 over
Send me an email (so I don't have to use up posts
)
Scarab (Jersey Jay 1.8T) wrote:Quote:
And it also seems to me to show that there's definitely potential for this engine N/A
I've been saying that for a long time now...
Then why did you abandon the NA build lol?
The highest I've gotten a realistic (read: "no stroker, no ITB, no NA simulation so far is about 270hp or so. The funny part, it would probably be streetable if you didn't mind race gas
After about 240-degrees .050" duration, power started to drop off very quickly.
I've seen about 250hp with an 11:1 on ethanol...mighty tempting, eh?
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
