So while at the nationals I kept being told to ditch the 2.5

[Mr overkill]

i am going to be starting my build on the mini MILD build 10 psi daily 15-20 max



people keep telling me to get rid of the 2.5 for a 2.2


WHY and for my purpose and goal should i ?

[Turbodave]

I had swapped a 2.2 into my van when the 2.5 died. I plan on swapping it back to a 2.5 as I like the extra torque the 2.5 makes for moving the heavy van around.

The 2.2 worked fine, just feel it could use a little more down low in the van. Now on a lighter car I would go 2.2 all the way.

[cordes]

For the vast majority of us it comes down to personal preference. For anything but an all out race car I'm with Dave in regard to engine selection. Otherwise, the 2.2 rules. Alan Jones has the right idea going to a 2.0 IMO too.

[Johnny]

2.5 in the van gets my vote!

[mpgmike]

The heavier the vehicle, the more you'll like the 2.5. Even Daytonas, I like the 2.5 better.

Mike

[turbovanman²]

2.5 and you'll never look back.

BTW, who told you to run a 2.2? Do they own a Minivan?

[GLHNSLHT2]

2800lbs+ 2.5 all the way, 2800lbs less and you can get away with a 2.2.

[JDAWG]

I would go 2.5 myself

[Mr overkill]

i keep saying that the 2.5 is PERFECT but nooo some people say you will have tons of bottom end then it falls flat and there is nothing


Personally i like the 2.5 in the van so far just got to get rid of the mitsu

[GLHNSLHT2]

just need to build the 2.5 right, then it has top end and low end :)

[minigts]

2800lbs+ 2.5 all the way, 2800lbs less and you can get away with a 2.2.

2800 sounds a little conservative. Aren't Daytonas over that minus the driver? Did they all get 2.5s? I think my IROC R/T has a 2.2 and I would bet it's well over 2800, but I'm strictly guessing by the way it drives and my Charger drives.

[GLHNSLHT2]

What I'm saying is if your Turbo Mopar weighs over 2800lbs go with the 2.5, if it's under then a 2.2 is ok. My New yorker is bigger than my Tona and my buddies vert shadow, but rides the line at 2800lbs where the Tona and the vert shadow are over 3000. So looks can be decieving.

[89FerrariShelby]

The heavier the vehicle, the more you'll like the 2.5. Even Daytonas, I like the 2.5 better.

Mike

:hail::hail::hail:

[karlak]

Where have I seen this discussion before............
2.2 > :fencing: < 2.5

[Juggy]

do u have any intentions on using the van for towing purposes? lol

i love my 2.2 but theres no way in hell id be putting one in a van

[turbo84voyager]

You want the added torque off the line from a 2.5 over a 2.2. It is much more noticeable in the van especially if you use A/C. I miss the low end torque I lost using a g-head on a 2.5 in my mini

[t3rse]

no no no, you have it all wrong, you need to go 2.4 :D

[Xtrempickup]

If you wna tow in the van or carry a load, a 2.5 is nice to get it moving. that what everyone has basically said. the rest say in a car over 2800lbs, a 2.5 should be used. What the hell logic does that make? wasnt anything 89-93 at the minimum at least 2900lbs? if the 2.5L is soo great, why did they not make them TII intercooled in the US? they limited them to 150hp and nonintercooled with a little turbo and the fact of the matter is, a lot of ppl blow that factory spec motor up without any help or even modifying it. The 2.2L makes a load of torque, i dont know if you call 50ftlbs more torque down low the greatest advantage of a 2.5L because then it falls flat after 5500rpm. a 2.2L pulls well over 5500 to at least 6500 if built right and isnt going to shake itself to pieces. I want to see a 2.5L modified with balance shafts removed run a faster 1/4 than a 2.2L with smiliar mods. Mr Overkill plans to go to the track with his van, he wants a daily driver that can go fast also, with a 2.5 auto, i doubt he's going to be happy considering his 90 VNT that weighs well over 2800 with a 2.2L probably would out tow the van and if nothing make more torque with its current set up and mods.

[turbovanman²]

If you wna tow in the van or carry a load, a 2.5 is nice to get it moving. that what everyone has basically said. the rest say in a car over 2800lbs, a 2.5 should be used. What the hell logic does that make? wasnt anything 89-93 at the minimum at least 2900lbs? if the 2.5L is soo great, why did they not make them TII intercooled in the US? they limited them to 150hp and nonintercooled with a little turbo and the fact of the matter is, a lot of ppl blow that factory spec motor up without any help or even modifying it. The 2.2L makes a load of torque, i dont know if you call 50ftlbs more torque down low the greatest advantage of a 2.5L because then it falls flat after 5500rpm. a 2.2L pulls well over 5500 to at least 6500 if built right and isnt going to shake itself to pieces. I want to see a 2.5L modified with balance shafts removed run a faster 1/4 than a 2.2L with smiliar mods. Mr Overkill plans to go to the track with his van, he wants a daily driver that can go fast also, with a 2.5 auto, i doubt he's going to be happy considering his 90 VNT that weighs well over 2800 with a 2.2L probably would out tow the van and if nothing make more torque with its current set up and mods.

No, they don't fall flat at 5500.

I guess Gasketmasters 2.5 van should switch to a 2.2 huh? If you build a 2.5, it won't shake or blow itself to pieces. Please stop bashing what you don't know.

I also recall someone putting a 2.2 in a van and noticed the loss of bottom end.

[89FerrariShelby]

First off...they don't fall flat at 5500 unless you have no clue what you're doing when you put it together.

I have repeatedly had my car at 140 on the highway...little to no issues...it IS a 4 cylinder, so it slows down quick when you let off the gas, but that happened with the 2.2 the car came with =P

Within reason, just about any motor can be built to do any thing. It's just a matter of what's more effecient and less costly.

I do most of my driving around backroads and any races i do are autox and winding tracks. I don't need a high top speed, i need to pull harder than anyone else from 0 to 80....and you bet your --- my 2.5 is way better at that than the 2.2 ever was.

I still remember the first ride i took after the 2.5 was installed from driving the 2.2 . What a difference at the low end, and minimal change at the top end. I love the 2.5, but the 2.2 was fine too, with the mods it would probably be similarly fast. The 2.5 just seems more practical to me....especially for a car you're going to drive.

Hell, its only a 1/4 mile track, how much top end you need?

[Xtrempickup]

hey, i'm only going by what I have also read on here prior to this thread.

[Simsy]

idk guys id probably go with the 2.2 because rumor is that Jesus built it :D

[tryingbe]

I like the 2.5L over the 2.2L that came stock on my Daytona Shelby.

[bakes]

idk guys id probably go with the 2.2 because rumor is that Jesus built it :D

Jesus built the 2.2 but the devil made my 2.5 :eyebrows:

[Juggy]

on the 5th day, god created the 2.2/2.5 shelby dodge

and on the 6th day, he popped the motor

and on the 7th and final day, he pulled the head, dropped the pan, swapped pistons and headgasket, fresh fluids....just to do it all over again :lol:

[DodgeZ]

I like my 2.5 in my omni.

[puppet]

Well .. Omni's are heavy.

[bfarroo]

For a DD mild track car I'd go 2.5 all day long. Especially with the heavy, aerodynamically challenged mini. With a auto and the turbo TC you don't need to rev the crap out of it to make power. the 2.5 will do that from down low to 5500 easy. There's no point in revving any higher.

[Simsy]

Jesus built the 2.2 but the devil made my 2.5 :eyebrows:

:lol:

[shelbyplaya]

One of my fave set ups was in my blue 89 daytona shelby.

Stock 89 2.5l
stock FB head, intake and exhaust
turbonetics S60 turbo w/ .63 exhaust
2.5" DP to a full 3" exhaust no cat and magnaflow muffler
zener diode
5th injector
2 stage boost controll 14/18psi

She ran STRONG for a long time till i got greedy and cranke up the boost a bit more.
2.5's can be made to match a 2.2 pretty easy. playing around with gearing in the trans, an adjustable cam gear or even an aftermarket cam to move to power band around alittle deffinalty helps.

I have swapped back and forth between 2.2 T2 and 2.5 T1 a few times and in the end I like the 2.5 in a daytona.

So far the best motor to date was my hybrid 2.5 16v. On 14psi she can lay the smack down on my 25psi 2.2 T2 set up ;)

[Ondonti]

don't take advice from people at a car show. They are just spouting off something in order to feel smart/chatty. I think we all do it so we can buy some time to look at something longer when the owner is standing right there.

I will argue all day that a 2.5L can make high rpm power. Otherwise people would never have circle tracked them at 8000 rpms :P If it cant make high rpm power, then its the builders fault. Its up to you to maximize what your foundation gives you.

[Mr overkill]

i was just listening to the people i know im gonna stick with a 2.5 and just do a mild build with a hopefully super 60

[Vigo]

The only way i'd go 2.2 with a van is if i had a complete tIII motor and didnt want to bother swapping bottom ends. :p

somebody put up vid of a 2.2 tiii van lately and it was good :thumb:

but for 8valve yeh why bother downgrading the low end torque on a heavy auto vehicle that needs all the help it can get, especially when it comes with a 2.5 to begin with?:confused2:

[johnl]

If the 2.5's power comes in at a lower engine speed, and makes more peak power, and your power band is as wide or wider than with the 2.2, then just spin it slower and let the gearing make the top end speed.

With the 2.5 you are sucking more air into that same narrow bore and as engine speed rises, no matter what head you have on top of that bore, that same narrow bore will remain a limiting factor. The curves must cross.

[GLHNSLHT2]

hehe ever seen the dyno chart of an EVO with a GT42 bolted on it revving to 9500 rpms? The curves don't cross :)

[Vigo]

5250rpm means nothing to evos eh? :?