38 replies to this topic

[sapper]

Well for a starters I know how superchargers and turbo's work... but that isn't the point. The amount of bs splattered at varying people on this forum is utter c**p... Soop - sok I didn't take offense to your particular comment... Fact of the matter is that I just don't have time to devoting myself to my car's engine... If I ever upgrade my car it will be with a certain purpose in mind, usually to do something not many other's do, and I will pay someone to do it, cause I just don't have the time. I'M IN THE ARMY FFS And I think that I won't be frequenting these forums much anymore (not that I've had time to frequent them much) and purely because talking down to someone because you know more about something than they do is f**kn bs. >>Out

[jak4cars]

the thing i don't like about certain people here is that you think turbo is the only way. when someone says i want to make power you guys say yeh upgrade to this engine or watever and then because that supposidly won't be enough he/she has to turbocharge. its not good being on a one way street. you guys should learn to support both N/A and turbo. we all know turbo will make much more power but having a N/A more powerful than your current motor will be just as exciting for people who want an N/A.

[Shiv]

They don't suggest turbo charging just to be annoying. Or just because they have a preference for it. They suggest it because it really seems to be the only reasonable way to get more power out of these engines. Unless your okay with a ridiculously unreliable N/A Subaru engine. Even I know this and I know bugger-all about engines. Maybe owning a N/A Subaru IS the "one way street" you speak of, jak4cars...

That said, nothings impossible. You just gotta factor in some of the comments made.

sapper - from what I've read, you've received some really sound advise from reasonably credible people who know their stuff. Its a shame that your ">>Out" (that army talk?) from these forums but take the advise on-board nevertheless. And good luck with it all! Hope all goes well.

[jak4cars]

no i meant one way street of 'to get more power you need to turbocharge' i think people should state how much more power their after

[Shiv]

Well, okay fine. It wasn't very clear though....

[Soop]

Hai Ben. No not his "Bent" theory, the fact he thinks they're crap, but obviously has no idea why. Its really pretty simply guys. Everything has its purpose. If you want to tow a caravan, you much better off with a 3.6ltr NA H6 than you are with a turbo charged 2.0ltr H4. Purely because of H6's ability to provide a flat linear torque curve through out the RPM range. In the same note, if you want a quick punchy car around town, there is absolutly nothing wrong with the H6, dare I say, in standard form. If you have money to spend, I cant see why raising the compression ratio and perhaps some head work. I can't see why the 3.0R cant make some decent power with a reliable tune. I mean, in standard form it produced 180kw@flywheel. A quick guestimate 180 = 240hp? roughly. There is absolutly nothing wrong with NA tuning. But there is an ancient rule of thumb that you CAN NOT IGNORE! >>>>THERE IS NO REPLACMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT<<<< The bigger the engine is the more power it will make, and the more able it will be to produce high performance and retain some form of driveability. Tuning a turbo charge engine, and tuning an NA engine are vastly different schools.

[Blaeven]

Hai Ben.
No not his "Bent" theory, the fact he thinks they're crap, but obviously has no idea why.

what are you on about soop??

you cannot expect too much power from offset (they aren't bent, as it turns out) conrods...

do you disagree with this statement?

[Soop]

"Too Much" means "Already past the limit" There fore yes i would agree with this statement. To be more accurate I would say, provided you don't plan to rev the thing to buggery they'll be fine in a NA application. The extra displacement they allow would bring the peak torque down the RPM range. Meaning the engine will do its job sooner. I'm not familiar with the exact figures but IIRC the 3.0R makes more torque than the VR SS commodore did in 1993(?). Thats 2ltrs less and still managing more efficient torque controle. add 600cc more displacement and I can only see this effect being amplified. Provided the EZ36 does indeed use the 3.0R heads and AVCS.

[Xon]

add 600cc more displacement and I can only see this effect being amplified.

297nm vs 350nm. Yes, I'd say its amplified

[jak4cars]

Hai Ben.
No not his "Bent" theory, the fact he thinks they're crap, but obviously has no idea why.


Its really pretty simply guys.
Everything has its purpose. If you want to tow a caravan, you much better off with a 3.6ltr NA H6 than you are with a turbo charged 2.0ltr H4. Purely because of H6's ability to provide a flat linear torque curve through out the RPM range.
In the same note, if you want a quick punchy car around town, there is absolutly nothing wrong with the H6, dare I say, in standard form.
If you have money to spend, I cant see why raising the compression ratio and perhaps some head work. I can't see why the 3.0R cant make some decent power with a reliable tune. I mean, in standard form it produced 180kw@flywheel.
A quick guestimate 180 = 240hp? roughly.

There is absolutly nothing wrong with NA tuning.
But there is an ancient rule of thumb that you CAN NOT IGNORE!

>>>>THERE IS NO REPLACMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT<<<<

The bigger the engine is the more power it will make, and the more able it will be to produce high performance and retain some form of driveability.

Tuning a turbo charge engine, and tuning an NA engine are vastly different schools.

thats wat im talkin about, talking more about NA's rather than ohh just put on a turbo

[93tzlegacy]

before i did my conversion i was going to build a 2.7 na engine, but the costs were prohibitive, one thing i can offer though is if you want to build a na engine that is going to make any form of power, bin the sohc heads and bolt on some dohc heads, you could get 60' over sized pistons from an ej25d then run the dohc heads with them, port them out a bit, use an rs lib manifoldm get it extrude honed, then bolt it all together. im going to be building an engine for a guy on RSLC soon, 2.2 na bottom end, 1.2mm head gaskets, rs heads and inlet, 380 grey tops with a bit more pressure up them and happy days, NA POWAH!

[jak4cars]

before i did my conversion i was going to build a 2.7 na engine, but the costs were prohibitive,
one thing i can offer though is if you want to build a na engine that is going to make any form of power, bin the sohc heads and bolt on some dohc heads, you could get 60' over sized pistons from an ej25d then run the dohc heads with them, port them out a bit, use an rs lib manifoldm get it extrude honed, then bolt it all together.




im going to be building an engine for a guy on RSLC soon, 2.2 na bottom end, 1.2mm head gaskets, rs heads and inlet, 380 grey tops with a bit more pressure up them and happy days, NA POWAH!

yayyyyy

have you tried putting dohc heads on 2.2 bottom?

[Soop]

Whats the point in using the 2.2 bottom end? Your pissing up hill. Just use an EJ25D and get more displacement AND the DOHC heads. More displacement, more torque, more power. In standard form. Jak - Its not as simple as just whacking the heads on the 2.2ltr bottom end, the pistons are totally different. So much so that the DOHC valves would foul on the 2.2 pistons. Honestly, if you must use a 4cylinder. Your far better off using the EJ25D and perhaps bumping the compression up a bit. Standard static compression ratio is 9.5:1. 10.5:1 should still be fine to run on 91 and 95ron fuels. I have seen some inline 4 NA engines run as high as 11:1 and 12:1 static compression. But good fuel and timing maps are essential. All of which results in a higher final total cost. Higher compression is going to result in quicker throttle responce and more power/torque. Better quality internal components will enable you to increase the RPM. After market cams with higher lift/duration will make the most of the added RPM. The trade off with this is that the car will lose bottom end performance. And may become some what of a pig in the lower RPM range. There is a way around this, its called AVCS. Seeing as though I know very little about how you could apply this to a retro fitted NA engine (wether its even possible or not, I don't know.) I won't comment any further. Just to put it out there, I've heared of 2TG toyota inline 4cylinders making in excess of 200hp@w. These are 30yr old 16valve 1.8ltr twin cam engines. You can bet your arse they're only usefull on a track however, and requier fastidious matinance.

[93tzlegacy]

yayyyyy

have you tried putting dohc heads on 2.2 bottom?

i have seen a runing ej22 with dohc heads and stock pistons, thats all the info im giving


the reason im doing a 2.2 is thats what he wants, plus using the heads i am will allow bigger porting.

[93tzlegacy]

There is a way around this, its called AVCS. Seeing as though I know very little about how you could apply this to a retro fitted NA engine (wether its even possible or not, I don't know.) I won't comment any further.

late na libs and impreza have DOHC AVCS heads on their na's but to run this you will need all the bits from an avcs car incl loom, so may as well just start with a complete avcs engine and mod that, there are even some sohc avcs heads now.
one way around running all the new loom and factory avcs computer may be a haltech e11v2, someone mentioned to me that it has enough inputs and outputs to happily run avcs.

[Xon]

i have seen a runing ej22 with dohc heads and stock pistons, thats all the info im giving


the reason im doing a 2.2 is thats what he wants, plus using the heads i am will allow bigger porting.

Big assed gaskets?

[93tzlegacy]

Big assed gaskets?

1.2mm ej25d head gaskets.

[jak4cars]

would be pretty cool havin a dohc 2.2, i KNOW 2.5 would be better and easier but i dono i jst think it be cool to have twin cam 2.2 can u give us any power figures?

[Soop]

Only reason I'd use the 2.2, is if i were running in a sub 2.5ltr race catagorie. Otherwise your pissing into the wind.