PDA

View Full Version : Doing it right this time! BIG POWER



Pages : [1] 2

Aerosmith145
10-27-2010, 07:24 PM
Hey guys, jus wanted to share my latest assembly picture. Each time it seems to get nicer! Garrett GT3076R with a Ford .63 housing, TU cast header, ATP Ultimate wastegate, and 3" v-band downpipe. The turbo and header are courtesy of Chris at Turbos Unleashed.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs925.snc4/73814_455431931191_502531191_5238621_458884_n.jpg

Aerosmith145
10-27-2010, 07:25 PM
Dang iPhone keeping me from posting pics.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5238621&l=7a74dbad82&id=502531191

turbovanmanČ
10-27-2010, 07:39 PM
Ahhhhhhhhhh, very nice, :nod:

What's the rest of the setup? and how much power are you looking for?

BadAssPerformance
10-27-2010, 08:34 PM
Fixed the pic for ya... looks nice!

TonaChris
10-27-2010, 08:41 PM
What mods to the head?

86seeS
10-27-2010, 08:53 PM
look like beehive springs?

cordes
10-27-2010, 09:19 PM
That looks really nice. Thanks for posting up the pic. Could you tell us more about the head and what car it is going into?

ShadowBrad
10-27-2010, 09:29 PM
Is that the new cast version of the ATP Ultimate wastegate? I had the original one that wasn't cast. Do you have any pictures of the cast one from the flange side that bolts to the turbo for comparison?

Your setup looks really nice too. What kinda power are you looking for? What do you have planned for the bottom end?

-brad

2639526396

Aerosmith145
10-28-2010, 09:02 AM
Thanks for the replies guys! I've been around the scene for a while now. Just don't come out much. It's either going in my '89 gtc or my '88 omni glh clone. I wish somebody made a tbi to mpfi adaptor harness.. It's a stock valve'd, extensively ported 782 head with 3.3 springs and ls1 retainers (old trend now it seems). The intake manifold is a custom sheet metal unit that utilizes 4" of the factory runners from a 1pc. Some of you may have seen it before. The block is currently a stock 2.5 but I'm building up an '89 TIV block with JE's as a failsafe. I have a FWDP S5 computer, 52pph, and 3-bar of course. I'm adding my Innovate LC-1 into this setup, along with pyrometer probes in each runner via an aviation 4-way gauge.

At work, and can't stand to type any more on this iPhone junk, so I'm off for now. I'll post some intake pictures (but showing my old turbo an exhaust setup). Cheers!

Aerosmith145
10-28-2010, 10:05 AM
Intake with old manifold
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/2b713c0a.jpg

Aerosmith145
10-28-2010, 10:12 AM
My old external setup and ford .63 housing if anybody wants it. Fits with power steering! I just decided to switch to internal to simplify things.
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/Chrysler%20Intake%20Build/WG1-1.jpg

cordes
10-28-2010, 10:42 AM
Very impressive. I'll be looking forward to more pics and progress for sure.

Aerosmith145
10-28-2010, 11:25 AM
Here's a link to my Photobucket album -

http://s26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/

Vigo
10-28-2010, 11:35 AM
Each time it seems to get nicer!

Honestly i dont think your intake can GET any nicer... its the best 1pc build ive ever seen, and ive been scouring the forums trying to find all the modded intakes for a long time now.

Also, i think you could get some decent money out of your old setup there (.63 ford housing, downpipe and external gate). Especially depending on what the gate is.

cordes
10-28-2010, 11:36 AM
You should put it in that omni for sure.

Do you do all this work yourself? It's pretty impressive.

Aerosmith145
10-28-2010, 12:08 PM
Thanks much guys!

Yep, I'm a machinist/fabricator for a racecar company in North Georgia. I was a Lego kid for sure. :D

1BADVAN
10-28-2010, 01:10 PM
so did you build that intake? I wish i could get something like that

rx2mazda
10-28-2010, 05:21 PM
that intake is sweet! Looks like DJ's intake, only on a 8V.

turbovanmanČ
10-28-2010, 05:33 PM
Looks great.

Sure stock valve sizes will be enough?

Aerosmith145
10-28-2010, 06:24 PM
Dynamically speaking, our valve sizes are collectively much less of a power inhibitor than our horrid afterthought intake and exhaust manifolds. If I end up missing out on 20hp, I won't really care :)

turbovanmanČ
10-28-2010, 06:32 PM
Fair enough.

Vigo
10-28-2010, 10:57 PM
Dynamically speaking, our valve sizes are collectively much less of a power inhibitor than our horrid afterthought intake and exhaust manifolds.

True that.. consider what we've seen and heard about how much the flow numbers on our stock head go down when you bolt the stock manifolds to it.

The manifolds need a LOT of improvement before the head becomes the weakest link. I also plan to follow this method of better manifolds on stock head.

Of course my intake wont be that nice..:wow1:

Spycker
10-29-2010, 04:17 AM
pure sex!

Aerosmith145
10-29-2010, 10:18 AM
Update: I made some head pressure testing fixtures for checking combustion chamber (valve) sealing, and regular coolant pressure test. I thought my valves sealed well, but MAN!! Bubbles launching out of the ports. Coolant passages and cracks between valves checked out A-OK.

Valve job time!

spoolinhard
10-29-2010, 10:26 AM
I thought that 3.3 v6 springs were too spongy. Could this be part of your problem?

Very nice looking setup BTW.

cordes
10-29-2010, 10:50 AM
What is the longest you could have made the runners in your opinion?

Aerosmith145
10-29-2010, 12:33 PM
The 3.3 springs are too spongy. Better springs are in the cards for sure.

The runner length inside the factory 1 piece continues all the way up until about 1.5" from the top of the casting. Is that what you were asking?

cordes
10-29-2010, 12:38 PM
The 3.3 springs are too spongy. Better springs are in the cards for sure.

The runner length inside the factory 1 piece continues all the way up until about 1.5" from the top of the casting. Is that what you were asking?

Esentially. How long is that actually? I've been trying to visualize a way to keep the longer runners while increasing plenum size like you did.

turbovanmanČ
10-29-2010, 01:04 PM
I thought that 3.3 v6 springs were too spongy. Could this be part of your problem?

Very nice looking setup BTW.

They are, like 60 lbs at the seat, :wow1:

Aerosmith145
10-29-2010, 01:08 PM
Well, mine were 100 at the seat when shimmed for proper bind. But still not much of an improvement over stock. Anyone have an opinion on the dual spring setup chris sells?

turbovanmanČ
10-29-2010, 01:11 PM
Well, mine were 100 at the seat when shimmed for proper bind. But still not much of an improvement over stock. Anyone have an opinion on the dual spring setup chris sells?

You already have the conicals, just buy the comp cams setup, a few are using them.

spoolinhard
10-29-2010, 01:24 PM
You already have the conicals, just buy the comp cams setup, a few are using them.

Yes, I am running a comp cams setup. IIRC its is set 995

Aerosmith145
10-29-2010, 01:27 PM
Can anyone else confirm set #995?

turbovanmanČ
10-29-2010, 01:32 PM
Can anyone else confirm set #995?

Search around, :eyebrows: You even replied to my group buy post, :p

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34227&highlight=comp

GLHNSLHT2
10-29-2010, 08:44 PM
26995's. LOVE MINE! My 2.5 hits 7200rpm without breaking a sweat and sounds like a smooth running 16v doing it.

Aerosmith145
10-30-2010, 03:36 PM
Search around, :eyebrows: You even replied to my group buy post, :p

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34227&highlight=comp

To which no one replied. :clap:

I splurged and bought the 995's. $96 shipped on compcams.com. I already have the LS1 retainers, but I don't like the fact that our keepers are 8* an the ls1 retainers are 7*. Know of a source for our style keepers in 7*?

turbovanmanČ
10-30-2010, 05:02 PM
To which no one replied. :clap:

I splurged and bought the 995's. $96 shipped on compcams.com. I already have the LS1 retainers, but I don't like the fact that our keepers are 8* an the ls1 retainers are 7*. Know of a source for our style keepers in 7*?

I don't mean for buying, for the part number, :p

Why are you concerned about the keep angle, no on has EVER had an issue.

Ondonti
10-31-2010, 07:24 AM
Is the 995 really necessary if you can get 100# on a beehive with a smaller lighter retainer?
Seems a waste if you don't rev over 8k or are running a monstrous cam.

Shadow
10-31-2010, 11:26 AM
Pretty sure my Cranes from FWD performance are only 105lb closed and they're working perfectly with the F4 cam.......

turbovanmanČ
11-01-2010, 04:00 AM
Pretty sure my Cranes from FWD performance are only 105lb closed and they're working perfectly with the F4 cam.......

Yeah, most of them are around 100-110 IIRC.

Too bad Crane went bye bye, :( Although their quality took a dump near the end, cost me a few bucks, :censored:

Aerosmith145
11-01-2010, 10:14 AM
Why are you concerned about the keep angle, no on has EVER had an issue.

See title. :D

More-so, I opt to make things fit with precision. Just the way I am. It makes me cringe to think of two parts that are designed to taper-lock to not.. taper lock. Who knows, might be one more little step towards a motor that doesn't act like such an ancient dinosaur.

turbovanmanČ
11-01-2010, 02:05 PM
See title. :D

More-so, I opt to make things fit with precision. Just the way I am. It makes me cringe to think of two parts that are designed to taper-lock to not.. taper lock. Who knows, might be one more little step towards a motor that doesn't act like such an ancient dinosaur.

Hahhaaha, well don't know if that applies here, :p

Aerosmith145
11-01-2010, 03:21 PM
Lol, of course it does! Even for us 8V guys:D

The use of greater-angle keepers will sometimes lower your retainer and shorten your installed height. With the 995 springs, the 1.7" seat pressure is ~135 lb. I don't want more than that (which I would get if I have a shorter install height). I just used a valve micrometer to check installed heights, and our Chrysler 8* locks lowered it .015 compared to some equal height 7* locks. Keep in mind, I have 7* LS1 retainers. Yes guys, junior high geometry still works and applies to us! Who woulda thunk it? :D

Shadow
11-01-2010, 10:45 PM
See title. :D

More-so, I opt to make things fit with precision. Just the way I am. It makes me cringe to think of two parts that are designed to taper-lock to not.. taper lock. Who knows, might be one more little step towards a motor that doesn't act like such an ancient dinosaur.

Good man, 1/2 the reason ppl went so gung ho on the PT lifters and conicles is because they couldn't figure out how to properly put together the stock V/T in the first place! lol Would Really suck to change to all that stuff and not do it right! :lol:

Aerosmith145
11-02-2010, 10:56 AM
I know it. I guess it just comes with being a machinist. "A thou's a mile!" :D

To update everyone, I'm modifying that v-band elbow to make the downpipe come down and back right under the (wastegate side) edge of the turbine housing. That will place it dead center in the tunnel. Welding it today. Pics to come.

Aerosmith145
11-02-2010, 12:03 PM
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/214da448.jpg

Got my 26995 springs. What a difference compared to the 3.3's!

Aerosmith145
11-02-2010, 01:38 PM
At 1.650 install height, 146 closed, 271 open at .460 lift.
At 1.700 install height, 136 closed, 256 open at .460 lift.

Respectively,
The 3.3's were:
79, 219
66, 199.

Sorry vanman, you were right on that one! Bad memory :)

turbovanmanČ
11-02-2010, 02:28 PM
I know it. I guess it just comes with being a machinist. "A thou's a mile!" :D

To update everyone, I'm modifying that v-band elbow to make the downpipe come down and back right under the (wastegate side) edge of the turbine housing. That will place it dead center in the tunnel. Welding it today. Pics to come.

I envy you machinists, :hail:


At 1.650 install height, 146 closed, 271 open at .460 lift.
At 1.700 install height, 136 closed, 256 open at .460 lift.

Respectively,
The 3.3's were:
79, 219
66, 199.

Sorry vanman, you were right on that one! Bad memory :)

Hehehehehe, :p

Vigo
11-02-2010, 03:28 PM
Did you have any performance problems with the shimmed 3.3s?

turbovanmanČ
11-02-2010, 03:29 PM
Did you have any performance problems with the shimmed 3.3s?

I did.

Aerosmith145
11-02-2010, 04:55 PM
I had a high rpm flutter, pretty sure we know why.

Aerosmith145
11-02-2010, 07:13 PM
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/d44c1bea.jpg

turbovanmanČ
11-02-2010, 07:22 PM
Bah! :p

Aerosmith145
11-02-2010, 07:41 PM
Haha, I'm sorry. But this is turning out to be so much fun! I find myself watching the clock in anticipation for my next DIY part.

Might have to shield my rack lines.

Vigo
11-02-2010, 10:21 PM
I find building stuff is more fun than using it. Im a weirdo. lol

Aerosmith145
11-02-2010, 11:38 PM
Quick junky table shot of turbo hanging on the new dp
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/ce291518.jpg

Shadow
11-02-2010, 11:44 PM
Now that's what I'M talkin about! :clap:

Ondonti
11-03-2010, 02:23 AM
Thanks for the real life numbers there. I might go with those springs if I can get the install height on my setup higher then 1.58" (OEM LS1 retainer on a 3.0 valve). 4.6 modular springs require me to machine the spring seat and are weaker at 1.6"

What install height are you using?

rx2mazda
11-03-2010, 03:59 AM
Quick junky table shot of turbo hanging on the new dp
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/ce291518.jpg

sexy!

Dave
11-03-2010, 06:39 AM
Good lucking stuff here!! Really great to see a fine collection of parts that you apparently did your research on. :clap:

Reaper1
11-03-2010, 07:48 AM
Darn it...we need a "like" button! Lol :thumb:

Reaper1
11-03-2010, 08:13 AM
Darn it...we need a "like" button! Lol :thumb:

Dave
11-03-2010, 09:33 AM
"Dave" likes this. :thumb:

Aerosmith145
11-03-2010, 09:37 AM
Haha, thanks guys!

Aries_Turbo
11-03-2010, 10:03 AM
what retainers and keepers did you use on those springs?

Brian

Aerosmith145
11-03-2010, 10:23 AM
On which ones, the 3.3 or 26995? I had the 3.3's set up with ls1 retainers (7*) and stock locks (8*). I wasn't happy with the springs or the angle misalignment. With the 26995's, I will probably continue to use the LS1 retainers if I can find more 7* locks with our groove patterns on them. I found one pair in a random keeper box, but I don't know what they came off of. Anyone know of a source for 5/16" (.3125") 7* keepers with our single and triple groove patterns?

Pat
11-03-2010, 10:31 AM
Looking good!

I'm very interested in the lock options to run the LS1 retainers. Let us know what you find.

Aries_Turbo
11-03-2010, 11:26 AM
could we use a tapered reamer or something to cut it to 8deg?

Brian

Aerosmith145
11-03-2010, 03:58 PM
After digging through tons of information, I almost just don't care anymore. Looks like I'll just use factory style keepers. :rolleyes:

Aries_Turbo
11-03-2010, 06:56 PM
werent folks running the gm 3100 valve spring retainers with the 3.3 springs? are those 8* and will they work with the 995's?

Aerosmith145
11-04-2010, 08:23 PM
Yeah, I heard that somewhere. I might check one out.

Just uploaded some more pictures on Photobucket!
These pictures are just for fun. That's a naked head. The intakes just sitting there and the turbos not there.
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/4a3b0f07.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/3deb50db.jpg

Aerosmith145
11-04-2010, 08:30 PM
Update: Decided to set up some 44mm/37mm ss valves. Figured it's time :)

cordes
11-04-2010, 08:31 PM
Wow, you must not weigh much.

Nice engine bay.

Aerosmith145
11-04-2010, 08:35 PM
Haha, 220. Standing on the strong parts!

cordes
11-04-2010, 08:42 PM
Haha, 220. Standing on the strong parts!

Wow, I guess so. I couldn't stand up there in my garage anyway though. I'm forced to stick my hand up.

Aerosmith145
11-04-2010, 09:09 PM
Us southern folk don't have to worry about rotting radiator support structures. ;)

cordes
11-04-2010, 10:31 PM
Us southern folk don't have to worry about rotting radiator support structures. ;)

Rub it in. :p

1BADVAN
11-04-2010, 10:55 PM
How much $$$ for you to build me one of those intakes :) that is a sweet engine bay

Vigo
11-04-2010, 11:57 PM
How much $$$ for you to build me one of those intakes

Why, who would be interested in the BEST INTAKE EVER BUILT OFF A 1PC EVAR?!?!?? :p

wallace
11-05-2010, 07:47 AM
Where did you source your radiator from? Looking good!

Aerosmith145
11-05-2010, 05:11 PM
It's a retired Indy car radiator I scored from school a while back was in a motorsports program). Was enough to cool an 800HP IRL car, so I should be alright. :D

cordes
11-05-2010, 06:46 PM
It's a retired Indy car radiator I scored from school a while back was in a motorsports program). Was enough to cool an 800HP IRL car, so I should be alright. :D

So long as you're going 100+MPH anyway. ;)

turbovanmanČ
11-05-2010, 07:00 PM
werent folks running the gm 3100 valve spring retainers with the 3.3 springs? are those 8* and will they work with the 995's?

Correct, the 3100 is the one to use.

Aerosmith145
11-05-2010, 07:27 PM
What's the difference between the 3100 and ls1?

ShadowBrad
11-05-2010, 07:35 PM
Awesome engine bay shots. Can't wait to see it completely finished. Keep up the progress!

-brad

turbovanmanČ
11-05-2010, 07:38 PM
What's the difference between the 3100 and ls1?

Not sure but if you say the LS1 is 7 deg, then that's the difference, as 3100's are 8 deg.

Aerosmith145
11-05-2010, 10:28 PM
The LS1 and 3100 retainers appear to be the same exact part. Oh well, doesn't really matter. Already have these!

Thanks for the compliments guys. A lot of work has been put into this thing. It's all labor of love though!

turbovanmanČ
11-06-2010, 03:25 PM
The LS1 and 3100 retainers appear to be the same exact part. Oh well, doesn't really matter. Already have these!

Thanks for the compliments guys. A lot of work has been put into this thing. It's all labor of love though!

That could be, memory is getting rusty, :p

Aerosmith145
11-07-2010, 11:51 AM
About the retainer issue, I have drawn up a cad model of the perfect retainer. 8*, +.050, and made of titanium. I already have a bunch of 1.25" stock that I make rings out of. Should be perfect! Screw searching for them :D

Aries_Turbo
11-07-2010, 12:06 PM
you gonna make some and sell them?

Brian

Aerosmith145
11-07-2010, 03:48 PM
Potentially, not sure.

turbovanmanČ
11-08-2010, 06:55 PM
About the retainer issue, I have drawn up a cad model of the perfect retainer. 8*, +.050, and made of titanium. I already have a bunch of 1.25" stock that I make rings out of. Should be perfect! Screw searching for them :D

You suck, :p

Aerosmith145
11-09-2010, 10:02 AM
If I get more interest, I could for sure. Basically a proper-angle 8* LS1 retainer that adds .050" installed height AND provides clearance for the rocker. Hmm.. Would definitely solve my VT issues! I'm doing research on materials now.

Aries_Turbo
11-09-2010, 11:01 AM
im interested, obviously depending on price. :)

Shadow
11-09-2010, 11:39 AM
So wait a second. Your telling me that everyone running conicles is also running the Wrong keepers? WTF :confused2:

Aries_Turbo
11-09-2010, 11:50 AM
unless someone knows of a 8deg retainer or 7 deg keepers with the correct grooves and isnt sharing the info...

Brian

Aerosmith145
11-09-2010, 12:27 PM
Not necessarily the wrong retainers, just not a set that fits well and optimizes your install height.

turbovanmanČ
11-09-2010, 02:28 PM
So wait a second. Your telling me that everyone running conicles is also running the Wrong keepers? WTF :confused2:

I just ran stock keepers on mine, both are 8 deg.

Aerosmith145
11-09-2010, 06:27 PM
Both what are 8*?

I'm making new retainers to avoid milling ".050 off my spring seats. I want a 1.700" install height, if I'm not being clear. 20 lbs of pressure relieved from my valvetrain, and proper bind.

Aerosmith145
11-09-2010, 06:27 PM
Both what are 8*?

I'm making new retainers to avoid milling ".050 off my spring seats. I want a 1.700" install height, if I'm not being clear. 20 lbs of pressure relieved from my valvetrain, and proper bind.

Aerosmith145
11-09-2010, 06:38 PM
Both what are 8*?

I'm making new retainers to avoid milling ".050 off my spring seats. I want a 1.700" install height, if I'm not being clear. 20 lbs of pressure relieved from my valvetrain, and proper bind.

Shadow
11-09-2010, 07:00 PM
Holy triple threat Batman! :lol: Sounds good to me. :clap:

turbovanmanČ
11-09-2010, 07:49 PM
Both what are 8*?

I'm making new retainers to avoid milling ".050 off my spring seats. I want a 1.700" install height, if I'm not being clear. 20 lbs of pressure relieved from my valvetrain, and proper bind.

Agreed, nice going.

The 3100, LS1 and stock retainers are 8 deg, :p

Aerosmith145
11-09-2010, 07:56 PM
The chevy stuff is apparently whatever you want to believe it is lol

8valves
11-09-2010, 09:42 PM
I found way too much misinformation on what the LS1 stuff really was in comparison to what stock stuff was a few years back when I did this.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/Eight_Valves/100_0243.jpg

PAC Racing 1518 Premium Nitrided springs, with Ti retainers. I can't recall what locks I used, since i was on an IMSA intake valve and a +1 exhaust.

Aerosmith145
11-10-2010, 06:39 PM
My ported cylinder head's in the classifieds. I'm looking for another head to do something "different" with. :D

Anyone have a 445 or 287 G head?

1984rampage
11-10-2010, 06:48 PM
I have one that I believe is NOS or VERY low miles

Aerosmith145
11-12-2010, 09:57 PM
Hey guys, I drilled and trimmed the TU header, and took some photos when test fitting. Enjoy!
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/f8a32787.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/068a3937.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/d0837dc7.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/802a37e8.jpg

Aries_Turbo
11-12-2010, 10:38 PM
http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=26673&stc=1&d=1289615863

Aerosmith145
11-12-2010, 10:51 PM
Hahaha!! That sneaky Moo Cow. I like the cat paw turbo emblem!

Aerosmith145
11-20-2010, 08:53 PM
Dupe post.

Aerosmith145
11-20-2010, 08:56 PM
Decked my block, finally. We used a new type of single tooth cutter on our Sunnen. Turned out nice, after we had to further-clearance the holder... The wavy look is WD40.
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/c479fd7d.jpg

Aerosmith145
11-20-2010, 08:59 PM
And decided to upgrade the rot-o-magic thermo housing with some alloy lathe/waterjet/weld-work!
New upper rad pipe as well.
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/e6eb6b2e.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/fe862ce3.jpg

2.216VTurbo
11-20-2010, 09:03 PM
Nice to see a flat deck without all the typical steam passage cracks.:eyebrows: Looking forward to more pictures of your fabricated pieces, nice work:clap:

Aerosmith145
11-20-2010, 11:47 PM
Thanks for the kind words. There's nothing in the world i enjoy more than building this stuff!
Now, for as long as I've been lurking here and TD, I've never heard of the term "steam passage". Other than dirty humor, what are those?

rx2mazda
11-20-2010, 11:52 PM
I just love quality builds with quality fabrication. Keep it up. BTW, thats one sexy tig bead..:clap:

Dave
11-21-2010, 12:34 AM
Very nice work! :clap: I love seeing our cars getting this kind of fab work. :thumb: Keep it coming.

8valves
11-21-2010, 01:53 AM
What size rod are you using, 1/16"? 3/32" pure tungsten? Gas lens? Looks nice. :)

2.216VTurbo
11-21-2010, 01:58 AM
Thanks for the kind words. There's nothing in the world i enjoy more than building this stuff!
Now, for as long as I've been lurking here and TD, I've never heard of the term "steam passage". Other than dirty humor, what are those?

The little holes in the deck of the block that *aren't* in a non-cross drilled block, those are steam passages. Prolly some term I made up tho;) I wish I could get my TIG welder to lay a bead like that, I'm sure it's the welder and not me:D

turbovanmanČ
11-21-2010, 01:59 AM
Damn dude, looking good, again, I hate you guys will the right machinery, :( :D



Nice to see a flat deck without all the typical steam passage cracks.:eyebrows: Looking forward to more pictures of your fabricated pieces, nice work:clap:

He's talking about this pic, the CD or cross drill holes between each cylinder but he's got it backwards, the blocks are fine, its the head's that crack and its not really a biggy if they do.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/c479fd7d.jpg

AzShadow
11-21-2010, 04:11 AM
nice work! subscribed

Aerosmith145
11-22-2010, 05:26 PM
Hey, what angle do you guys normally run for valve de-shrouding? In a perfect world, with enough surrounding material, of course.. :eyebrows:

This is a quickie I did with a 45* shroud to match the seats. 44mm and 37mm valves. Not exactly to scale... at all. :D

Aerosmith145
11-22-2010, 05:30 PM
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/0414b336.jpg

Aerosmith145
11-29-2010, 12:45 AM
Perhaps a change of direction is in the cards.
Anyone have a strong urge to acquire my one-off 8V stuff?

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/db4added.jpg

Aerosmith145
12-01-2010, 09:47 AM
Apparently people get more excited about the 8v projects.. :D

Don't worry, the same amount of love will be going into this configuration. I'm working on some CAD drawings as I'm posting this.

Aerosmith145
12-02-2010, 10:40 AM
Made a test-fitting jig for placement of the turbo on the header I'll be making. It tilts 45*, is slotted for a couple inches fore and aft, and has multiple slots on the x axis for trial fitting. I think I found the sweet spot!

Vigo
12-02-2010, 12:49 PM
hmmm, good idear. You might be able to rent that thing out! :p

forcedfedmopar
12-02-2010, 01:38 PM
i am extremely interseted in your set up as ive wanted to build a hybrid for along time. take plenty of pictures and document all of the machine work you do. WE REALLY need a step by step in the KC and you would be the perfect person to do it.:thumb:

Keep up the good work.

Aerosmith145
12-02-2010, 05:05 PM
hmmm, good idear. You might be able to rent that thing out! :p

I plan on it! :thumb:

Aerosmith145
12-02-2010, 05:17 PM
Another angle. Finally, I can SEE my turbo! :thumb::thumb::thumb:

Mmmm...

Vigo
12-02-2010, 11:56 PM
Speaking of which.. what turbo is it?

GLHNSLHT2
12-02-2010, 11:57 PM
looks like a GT30R with a ford housing to me.

Aerosmith145
12-03-2010, 11:13 AM
^^ Yep, sure enough.

Who else out there has sunken there block-off plugs into the block a little? Mine ended up being about 5-10 thou under deck. I'd hate to resurface the block again. I didn't know the first time around I'd be going the hybrid route.

Vigo
12-03-2010, 02:04 PM
I was just reading about that in some other thread and the consensus was that it was pointless to grind them down to the deck as opposed to just turning them in farther so they sat below the deck in the first place. Therefore, i dont see why you would need to resurface the block unless you gouged it?

Dave
12-04-2010, 09:19 PM
I was just reading about that in some other thread and the consensus was that it was pointless to grind them down to the deck as opposed to just turning them in farther so they sat below the deck in the first place. Therefore, i dont see why you would need to resurface the block unless you gouged it?

I read that as well... doesn't make sense as you'd think the gasket needs surface for sealing. :confused: Unless there is no pressure at that location?

Curious though, not to thread jack by any means, but can you still use the 8V pistons when swapping to a 16V head? Of course lift and duration would sure come into play.

Vigo
12-04-2010, 10:40 PM
Well i think those holes are an oil drain (no pressure) and 2 feeds, which are sealed by the plugs and not the gasket. I dont know crap about hyrbrids though so i could be wrong.

ShadowBrad
12-05-2010, 01:14 AM
Yes the three holes at the front of our block are simply oil drains for the stock 8-valve head, along with the vent hole between the head and crankcase and the oil feed passage. Yes they are all sealed by the plugs but they should be surfaced level with the block's deck. The three large oil drains in the front of the block need to be level with the surface of the block due to the coolant passages coming very close to them on the 2.4L head and head gasket and some people that have just sunk their plugs below the deck's surface have had coolant leaks in this area. If you don't want to have your block resurfaced after installing the plugs, simply install them slightly below deck and fill in on top of them with a high temp epoxy that will expand/contract with the block. Then after the epoxy hardens level it off as close to the block as you can without gouging the block, then when it's extremely close, take a brand new utility knife blade and scrape across the epoxy with each ends of the blade extending onto the deck's surface. The blade will scrape away at the epoxy without digging into the block making them about as level as you can get by hand. I know others have done this with epoxy, although I don't know what method they used to level the epoxy with the block. I had my block resurfaced, but I didn't know that the plugs I used in the oil drain holes were hollow and I used this method to fill the void in there centers.

Vigo
12-05-2010, 02:16 AM
Good info, thanks!

GLHSHELBY
12-13-2010, 03:48 AM
Why, who would be interested in the BEST INTAKE EVER BUILT OFF A 1PC EVAR?!?!?? :p

I hope it is pretty good.Looked like it flowed very well and everything.It`s very nice to compare it side by side with a stock intake manifold he had cut open for comparison. I can`t wait to get it on:thumb:

GLHSHELBY
12-13-2010, 03:59 AM
Made a test-fitting jig for placement of the turbo on the header I'll be making. It tilts 45*, is slotted for a couple inches fore and aft, and has multiple slots on the x axis for trial fitting. I think I found the sweet spot!

with all that custom work I saw today I`m sure you`ll have this thing running 16v in no time.:D

Aerosmith145
12-13-2010, 04:35 PM
with all that custom work I saw today I`m sure you`ll have this thing running 16v in no time.:D

You liked that? :D

He walked in to buy my manifold and I showed him hoards of strange things I've made for these motors. Block pressure tester, head pressure tester, combustion chamber pressure tester, billet dummy piston for blueprinting, billet 1.375" dummy cam for checking warped heads, etc, etc, etc..

Hope you're happy with it! :thumb:

turbovanmanČ
12-13-2010, 06:18 PM
Looks good as always, :p



Curious though, not to thread jack by any means, but can you still use the 8V pistons when swapping to a 16V head? Of course lift and duration would sure come into play.

Yes, but I think 2.2's need valve reliefs.

ShadowBrad
12-13-2010, 08:25 PM
Yes, but I think 2.2's need valve reliefs.

Correct. If building a 2.2L the pistons need to have the extra valve reliefs cut into them to clear properly. Or you can just buy the 2.2L Hybrid pistons.

A 2.5L though can be converted to a hybrid while still using the 2.5L 8v pistons.

turbovanmanČ
12-13-2010, 08:28 PM
Correct. If building a 2.2L the pistons need to have the extra valve reliefs cut into them to clear properly. Or you can just buy the 2.2L Hybrid pistons.

A 2.5L though can be converted to a hybrid while still using the 2.5L 8v pistons.

Yeah, that's it, :p

Dave
12-14-2010, 10:04 AM
Damn so literally all you need is the head and manifolds, tap and plug front return holes and run external return lines in the back? That's it???

Reaper1
12-14-2010, 12:16 PM
Well, IIRC you need to do something about the came and crank gears, accessory drives, distributor (if you don't use the right intake), and you have to plug up holes on the head as well.

Turbo224
12-14-2010, 06:29 PM
Wow, im not sure how I missed this build. Nice work there. :thumb:

turbovanmanČ
12-14-2010, 06:58 PM
Damn so literally all you need is the head and manifolds, tap and plug front return holes and run external return lines in the back? That's it???

What Reaper said and if you want a/c, have fun, :eyebrows:

Aerosmith145
12-14-2010, 07:32 PM
Well, IIRC you need to do something about the came and crank gears, accessory drives, distributor (if you don't use the right intake), and you have to plug up holes on the head as well.

Yep, and run an external oil feed, find the correct headgasket that biases coolant flow from right to left, grind big notches in the passenger side engine mount bracket, find correct dowels and studs for the head, potentially plug the cross-drill passages in the block (anyone?), and either modify your power steering bracket, swap it for another body styles, or lose it.

This 16v deal keeps bringing up more and more issues. Oh well, part of the fun!

GLHSHELBY
12-15-2010, 02:05 AM
Yep, and run an external oil feed, find the correct headgasket that biases coolant flow from right to left, grind big notches in the passenger side engine mount bracket, find correct dowels and studs for the head, potentially plug the cross-drill passages in the block (anyone?), and either modify your power steering bracket, swap it for another body styles, or lose it.

This 16v deal keeps bringing up more and more issues. Oh well, part of the fun!

just wondering ,when just doing the head swap to 16v ,is it still a non-interference motor ?

turbovanmanČ
12-15-2010, 03:19 AM
just wondering ,when just doing the head swap to 16v ,is it still a non-interference motor ?

If you have valve reliefs on the 2.2 and use stock cam's but as always, you should check.

Aries_Turbo
12-15-2010, 08:47 AM
the 2.4L head is a valve to valve interference setup anyway regardless of valve reliefs so it will now be an interference motor anyway.

brian

Pat
12-15-2010, 09:13 AM
the 2.4L head is a valve to valve interference setup anyway regardless of valve reliefs so it will now be an interference motor anyway.

brian

Even at stock lift?

Aries_Turbo
12-15-2010, 12:24 PM
Even at stock lift?

yup. if the ex and int are both open, they will hit. its not 100% of the time, its sorta like russian roulette.

Brian

turbovanmanČ
12-15-2010, 02:22 PM
the 2.4L head is a valve to valve interference setup anyway regardless of valve reliefs so it will now be an interference motor anyway.

brian

That's true, but I think its a non piston interference engine still.

rx2mazda
12-15-2010, 07:29 PM
This thread is lacking more sweet pics!

Turbo224
12-15-2010, 07:34 PM
This thread is lacking more sweet pics!

Totally agree! :D

ShadowBrad
12-15-2010, 08:49 PM
I believe that the 2.5L with proper 16v pistons is a non-piston to valve-interference motor, with the stock 2.0L or 2.4L cams of course.
On the other hand though, I'm pretty sure that the 2.2L, even with the proper pistons, is still a piston to valve interference motor. I could be wrong though, but as was said, when building an engine of this type, it's _ALWAYS_ a good idea to toss some clay on top of the pistons and check the clearances anyways.
And either way, if you are turning any kind of RPMs and your timing belt snaps, there is enough inertia in the cams to keep them spinning enough that the intake and exhaust valves will sometimes collide with one another since they won't be in sync with each other any longer.

@Aerosmith: If you are using the stock thermostat location on the 2.0/2.4 head the factory DOHC Neon MLS head gasket is perfectly fine just the way it comes.(There is a hole in the gasket with no hole in the block near the #4 cylinder, this hole can be drilled into the block deck with an 1/8" drill bit.) On the 2.0/2.4 engines the water pumps and thermostat are both on the timing belt end of the engine so the stock neon gasket already has the coolant flow biased the way it needs to be. Now if you decide to block off the stock thermostat location in the DOHC head and mount the 'stat on the flywheel end of the head like some have, the Neon head gasket needs to be modified. I think what needs to be done is the coolant flow holes in the gasket all need to be made the same side since the coolant would be flowing from one end of the engine to the other. Don't quote me on that, but I know that's the general idea.

As for plugging the cross drilling holes in the block. I don't have any idea about that. I built my engine on a TBI Common Block so I didn't have any cross drilling.

Also, why do you need to grind chunks out of the passenger side engine mount? I know it's been quite a while since I pulled the engine out of my Shadow, but I'm pretty sure that I used the factory '88 Shadow mount without modification.

Dave
12-15-2010, 09:45 PM
Good info! ^^^

Now more pics!

GLHSHELBY
12-16-2010, 04:33 PM
Good info! ^^^

Now more pics!

+1:D:amen:

Aerosmith145
12-16-2010, 10:25 PM
Im waiting on a couple dominos to fall before i get to the next step. Im building this motor frim bottom up, and I need pistons.

Aerosmith145
12-29-2010, 11:15 AM
Ok guys, I pulled the '89 2.5 block out of my 65k GTC, and I'm definitely going to use this block instead. PERFECT cross-hatching. I'll chop up the other one for a valve interference observation block. Might do a little work with Spin-Tron later on. But anywho, I went the conventional route this time around and used NPT plugs instead of cnc press-fit plugs. Less tension on the block and easier to get flush with a re-surface. I also resized the two stud holes for 15mm dowels, tapped the cross-drill holes (10-24 fits perfectly with no drilling, only tapping), and blue-loctited some 1" set screws. I may use JB weld to fill in the holes and bring them flush, or just leave them as-is. Tell me what you think so far.

2778527786277872778827789277902779127792

bakes
12-29-2010, 11:44 AM
You still have the pics for Kc section of the cut up block??????????

Aerosmith145
12-29-2010, 11:56 AM
I havent chopped it yet. Ill probably just chop a big notch in the front of one of the cylinders to allow viewing of valve interference. Do you need a cross-section for some reason?

Somewhat like this.

larryB
12-29-2010, 01:33 PM
[QUOTE=Aerosmith145;758087]Ok guys, I pulled the '89 2.5 block out of my 65k GTC, and I'm definitely going to use this block instead. PERFECT cross-hatching. I'll chop up the other one for a valve interference observation block. Might do a little work with Spin-Tron later on. But anywho, I went the conventional route this time around and used NPT plugs instead of cnc press-fit plugs. Less tension on the block and easier to get flush with a re-surface. I also resized the two stud holes for 15mm dowels, tapped the cross-drill holes (10-24 fits perfectly with no drilling, only tapping), and blue-loctited some 1" set screws. I may use JB weld to fill in the holes and bring them flush, or just leave them as-is. Tell me what you think so far.[QUOTE]


I did the same thing with the cross drill holes, except I used red locktite and cut the screws off flush with the deck so they would get surfaced along with the other plugs. I also added some set screws to help support the cylinder walls along the top front of the block. Was any of this necessary? I have no idea, but I haven't noticed any drawbacks other than the extra time to do it.

Aerosmith145
12-29-2010, 01:48 PM
That's a nifty idea! Although I wonder what impact that will impose on knock resonance and thermal expansion? But as you stated, no drawbacks noticed; it must work! :thumb:

I love ingenuity.

Aerosmith145
12-29-2010, 02:15 PM
Update:

I ordered a Fel-Pro Permatorque MLS SRT4 headgasket, and I like the way it looks - a lot. Much thinner than I anticipated: .038 uncompressed. It falls within my calulations of 8.8:1 CR givin my other dimensions. But if I had a modern motor with more beef and better material, I wouldn't use a gasket anyways. Maybe next time, when I'm running a Cosworth F1 motor in the GTC :thumb:

And.. coming in the mail are ARP rod bolts/main studs, along with the usual engine rebuild stuff (bearings, seals, bushings etc). I'm also having a set of Wiseco 2.2 pistons made without the valve reliefs, so I can make them fit this application. I'd rather do it myself and know I have a non-interference motor (valve-to-crown anyways...). More pictures to come!

ShadowBrad
12-29-2010, 10:01 PM
What are the differences between the SRT4 head gasket and the regular DOHC Neon MLS gasket? When I built my engine I remember a few people telling me to use the Neon gasket. I was using a 95-99 head though. You're using an SRT4 head aren't you? There might not be any difference at all, just something to double check.

Aerosmith145
12-30-2010, 09:57 AM
Well, I have a 99 Cirrus head right now for mockup, but I intend to get a later AC-J code head from an SRT4 or PT-T. I think the gaskets are ALMOST identical (they're not because of different part numbers), but I feel anything made for a turbo motor should be considered over something made for a non-turbo. That's my thinking anyway. I'm being hopeful here :D

Aries_Turbo
12-30-2010, 12:06 PM
i think there is a difference in one of the drains on the SRT/PTGT head. like an additional port to the block or something like that.

Brian

Aerosmith145
12-30-2010, 01:39 PM
Yes, that's correct. I forgot about that! The oil feed (drain?) on the back of the block is larger in 2003+ vehicles, and the gasket matches it. No biggie for those of us using a traditional block.

Aries_Turbo
12-30-2010, 04:14 PM
I also added some set screws to help support the cylinder walls along the top front of the block. Was any of this necessary? I have no idea, but I haven't noticed any drawbacks other than the extra time to do it.

ive seen honda guys do this on their open deck blocks with threaded rod that is the same alloy as the block. they screw them in so the rod just touches the cylinder and JB or locktite them in.

with the cyl breakage that youve had in the past larry, im sure this cant hurt. :)

Brian

Aerosmith145
12-30-2010, 06:02 PM
ive seen honda guys do this on their open deck blocks with threaded rod that is the same alloy as the block. they screw them in so the rod just touches the cylinder and JB or locktite them in.

with the cyl breakage that youve had in the past larry, im sure this cant hurt. :)

Brian

Refer to my new post "Common Block SONIC Testing Results". The thin walls of these bores are quite surprising! Definitely makes me realize the oh-holy common block is not indestructible!

Vigo
12-30-2010, 09:58 PM
Refer to my new post "Common Block SONIC Testing Results". The thin walls of these bores are quite surprising! Definitely makes me realize the oh-holy common block is not indestructible!
Possibly true, but considering how many people aren't breaking them, some at a pretty high power level, the old internet adage would apply: If you break a cylinder, "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG."

Aries_Turbo
12-30-2010, 10:02 PM
yeah they do have limitations.

i know larry had the top of a cyl or two break off into the water jacket as did russ jerome.

Brian

glhs0426
01-01-2011, 12:25 AM
The only difference in a SRT-4/PT-T head vs. the same year non-turbo head is the exhaust valves. If you want a new stock set let me know. I upgraded to a +2mm in a weak moment.

Aerosmith145
01-01-2011, 01:16 AM
Good to know, thanks!! Might take you up on that. How much?

glhs0426
01-01-2011, 11:23 PM
You have a PM.

rx2mazda
01-02-2011, 03:01 AM
TIII block ftw, strongest CB. IIRC, Brian said he Sonic test a TIII block against a standard CB and the TIII was better and thats why he uses them.

Aerosmith145
01-02-2011, 03:23 AM
Really? Strange, I always thought a common block was the "common" block among all kin motors of the '89+ era. This block I cut up was actually a TIV. So I have the rare forged crank with a sprocket for balance shafts! You know what's slightly funny? The 2.2 TIV and 2.5 both use the same balance shaft assemblies. I'm curious as to how much they will smooth out a 2.2, since all 2.5's I've driven have been buttery smooth with no vibration upon revving. Wonder which motor they were optimized for.. :D

Juggy
01-02-2011, 11:09 AM
TIII block ftw, strongest CB. IIRC, Brian said he Sonic test a TIII block against a standard CB and the TIII was better and thats why he uses them.

i think thats because its the "mexican" casting

---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 AM ----------


Really? Strange, I always thought a common block was the "common" block among all kin motors of the '89+ era. This block I cut up was actually a TIV. So I have the rare forged crank with a sprocket for balance shafts! You know what's slightly funny? The 2.2 TIV and 2.5 both use the same balance shaft assemblies. I'm curious as to how much they will smooth out a 2.2, since all 2.5's I've driven have been buttery smooth with no vibration upon revving. Wonder which motor they were optimized for.. :D

yep TIV block, pretty sure thats the mexican one too??

Aerosmith145
01-02-2011, 12:07 PM
Obviously I need to do some more block comparison. I didn't know there was a Mexican casting...

Reaper1
01-02-2011, 11:58 PM
There are other reasons for using a TIII block. They have other differences besides just the crankcase vent hole and the blocked off distributor hole. The TIII block is its own animal, however since there are a few people making WAY over what people thought to be possible on the "weak" NCB engines, I really don't think the differences will make themselves glaringly known unless you are making STUPID power (over 700hp) or unless you need the engine to sustain a higher amount of power or revs for an extended time.

I've come across several 2.5L TI engines that were Mexican castings, especially in '89 cars.

To ID a Mexican block, look for the letter "N" on the block down near the pan rail between where the oil filter and the old mechanical fuel pump would have been. If that is there, it's a Mexican casting.

HTH! :thumb:

PS, I specifically left out the "exact" differences of the TIII blocks out of professional respect for a friend of mine that showed me in person.

cordes
01-03-2011, 02:09 PM
There are other reasons for using a TIII block. They have other differences besides just the crankcase vent hole and the blocked off distributor hole. The TIII block is its own animal, however since there are a few people making WAY over what people thought to be possible on the "weak" NCB engines, I really don't think the differences will make themselves glaringly known unless you are making STUPID power (over 700hp) or unless you need the engine to sustain a higher amount of power or revs for an extended time.

I've come across several 2.5L TI engines that were Mexican castings, especially in '89 cars.

To ID a Mexican block, look for the letter "N" on the block down near the pan rail between where the oil filter and the old mechanical fuel pump would have been. If that is there, it's a Mexican casting.

HTH! :thumb:

PS, I specifically left out the "exact" differences of the TIII blocks out of professional respect for a friend of mine that showed me in person.

I thought the Mexican blocks were C castings?

135sohc
01-03-2011, 02:29 PM
There are other reasons for using a TIII block. They have other differences besides just the crankcase vent hole and the blocked off distributor hole. The TIII block is its own animal, however since there are a few people making WAY over what people thought to be possible on the "weak" NCB engines, I really don't think the differences will make themselves glaringly known unless you are making STUPID power (over 700hp) or unless you need the engine to sustain a higher amount of power or revs for an extended time.

I've come across several 2.5L TI engines that were Mexican castings, especially in '89 cars.

To ID a Mexican block, look for the letter "N" on the block down near the pan rail between where the oil filter and the old mechanical fuel pump would have been. If that is there, it's a Mexican casting.

HTH! :thumb:

PS, I specifically left out the "exact" differences of the TIII blocks out of professional respect for a friend of mine that showed me in person.


The ID stamping sequence on the bellhousing end of the block will tell you everything. Country of origin, displacement, and intended application.

---------- Post added at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------


Obviously I need to do some more block comparison. I didn't know there was a Mexican casting...


http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?44750-Trenton-vs-Mexico-engine-blocks&highlight=block+mexico


Nothing scientific or doing any destructive testing but there is some external difference between the two. I should update the findings since that thread posting I picked up another 2.5 CB from a parts car and its a Trenton casting

Reaper1
01-03-2011, 08:54 PM
I thought the Mexican blocks were C castings?

Come to think of it....maybe that's right! LOL It's been several years since I really looked for one. Maybe somebody that has one can set the record 100% straight, because now I'm questioning myself.

Dave
01-04-2011, 04:39 PM
Bubba has a block in his garage that's a C casting. Ill ask him.

Reaper1
01-04-2011, 07:44 PM
It'a been confirmed. "C" is a Meixcan casting. Sorry for the mix-up! I've got too many variables, formulas, and symbols swimming around in my head. Sometimes they try to fill in for each other! LOL

Aerosmith145
01-04-2011, 10:01 PM
"The ID stamping sequence on the bellhousing end of the block will tell you everything. Country of origin, displacement, and intended application."

Can you expand on how to do this? I found two strings of characters on the tranny side of my block. I have "C IF" on the back also. Thanks!

Aerosmith145
01-05-2011, 12:53 AM
Well guys, I made a nylon flat-top dummy piston with a 1.596" compression high to mimic the blank Wisecos I have coming from Chris. I made a delrin piston pin, and fitted it all together with my T2 crank and a rod in the sawed-open block. Assembly lube on all the bearings, of course. I then attached my 2.4 head and had some fun with the whole setup!

It's so eye-opening to see our rotating assemblies.. rotating! I turned the cams with a wrench, and observed where they started touching the "piston". Was very neat :D

To make the actual marks on the piston crowns, I will be using some properly-sized bar stock with a sharpened point on one end. With the head where it needs to be, and piston at TDC, I will slide the tool down the valve guide bores and "punch" a small mark on the piston crowns on both intake and exhaust sides. I will then take the dummy piston and fasten it into our Powerhouse Products piston modifying jig, set at 24.46* for the intake, and then 23.5* for the exhaust. The reliefs will be cut larger than the valves by around .100" and probably .100" deeper than the standard max lift as well, to allow for cam swapping and float.

After the valve reliefs are cut, I'll measure their volume. I'm aiming for -15cc total on the crown, including the dish. I will be optimizing the dish shape to take advantage of the quench areas that Chrysler left unused (by sinking their pistons ~.160" into the bores at TDC!!). My pistons will be .006" in-the-hole and have 15cc of total dish.I'll be using a .040" headgasket, and have 52cc combustion chambers. This should put me right at 8.55:1.

Woohoo, progress! :)

135sohc
01-05-2011, 01:22 AM
"The ID stamping sequence on the bellhousing end of the block will tell you everything. Country of origin, displacement, and intended application."

Can you expand on how to do this? I found two strings of characters on the tranny side of my block. I have "C IF" on the back also. Thanks!

Just an example of one of my spare blocks. "3 T 2.2L PC xxxxx.."

93 was the year cast, T for Trenton or (S for Mexico) 2.2 L displacement and PC for passenger car.

Heres the sh!ttiest picture in the world of what I'm talking about... 27999 Some are stamped in a dot line like that and some are stamped with a solid line and easier to see under the rust.

Aerosmith145
01-05-2011, 02:11 AM
Cool, thanks!

Mine reads:
KG172408
9T2.5LPC0022 1

'89 2.5L Passenger Car. Yep!

Thanks for the how-to! :thumb:

2.216VTurbo
01-05-2011, 02:36 AM
Just an example of one of my spare blocks. "3 T 2.2L PC xxxxx.."

93 was the year cast, T for Trenton or (S for Mexico) 2.2 L displacement and PC for passenger car.

Heres the sh!ttiest picture in the world of what I'm talking about... 27999 Some are stamped in a dot line like that and some are stamped with a solid line and easier to see under the rust.

Damn fine info, I've never seen the block breakdowns before:clap:

Juggy
01-05-2011, 06:00 AM
yeah nice. funny you guys mention this. i JUST recently noticed it on the new engine i got here...stamped in with punches real hard and deep. very visible. its a TIII block..but any 8 valve one i have seen, i didnt even really notice the #s as they are in very lightly on any other 4 banger ive seen...

Aerosmith145
01-05-2011, 10:32 AM
My numbers were VERY light dotted characters. Have to brush and scrub my CLEAN block to bare iron, then lay down some sharpie and wipe the surface off just to see the characters. Go Chrysler!

135sohc
01-06-2011, 01:17 AM
Damn fine info, I've never seen the block breakdowns before:clap:

The service manual tells you lots of things when you read it :eyebrows:

Aerosmith145
01-06-2011, 11:14 AM
I scored a set of '89 Powertrain, Chassis, and Electrical manuals for $5

Here's an update on my little piston project. Check it out!

http://s26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/?action=view&current=Picture004.mp4
http://s26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Aerosmith145/?action=view&current=Picture003.mp4

Austrian Dodge
01-06-2011, 11:14 AM
can't see anything, link doesn't work

Aerosmith145
01-06-2011, 11:44 AM
Should be fixed. Can everyone else see the videos?

1984rampage
01-06-2011, 01:28 PM
Thats pretty cool!

135sohc
01-06-2011, 01:32 PM
works fine for me.

Aerosmith145
01-06-2011, 04:06 PM
Thats pretty cool!

It's neat isnt it? Should come in pretty handy!

Juggy
01-06-2011, 04:15 PM
coool shiiiit man!!!!

ShadowBrad
01-06-2011, 05:37 PM
Really cool idea!

Austrian Dodge
01-06-2011, 05:53 PM
thats awesome!

Reaper1
01-06-2011, 06:24 PM
That is cool! Can you post static pics of the cut block with measurements of the cylinder wall thickness at different points and such? I think that would be pretty benneficial as well.

turbovanmanČ
01-06-2011, 06:56 PM
TIII block ftw, strongest CB. IIRC, Brian said he Sonic test a TIII block against a standard CB and the TIII was better and thats why he uses them.

Yep, also better machined and a different material. :nod:


Really? Strange, I always thought a common block was the "common" block among all kin motors of the '89+ era. This block I cut up was actually a TIV. So I have the rare forged crank with a sprocket for balance shafts! You know what's slightly funny? The 2.2 TIV and 2.5 both use the same balance shaft assemblies. I'm curious as to how much they will smooth out a 2.2, since all 2.5's I've driven have been buttery smooth with no vibration upon revving. Wonder which motor they were optimized for.. :D

TIII's have forged cranks with BS sprockets, :p

Interesting on the BS's, I found an article that said TIII's, TIV's and T1's all used different assembly's. Are you running them on this build? 2.5's really need them, :(

Reeves
01-12-2011, 03:23 PM
I can`t wait to get it on:thumb:

That's what she said.


Obviously I need to do some more block comparison. I didn't know there was a Mexican casting...

There's also differences in stamped 90 and up blocks over 89 and earlier blocks.


real hard and deep....

That's what she said....

Aerosmith145
01-26-2011, 10:50 AM
Update:

Going with a front-exhaust 420a. NOT NEON... 2.0 Avenger. Front mount GT30R gives me goosebumps thinking about it. Picked up a low-mileage entire head assembly with intake manifold, cams, valve cover, and everything else for $60 at the pull-a-part. It looks like I'll only have to use an avenger MLS gasket instead of the PT one. The coolant ports are mirrored.

The fact that everyone seems to be sticking to rear mount turbos makes me want to do it even more. It really makes since if you think about it.

284382843928440

2.216VTurbo
01-26-2011, 11:23 AM
TIme for Neon/Avenger 101. I haven't really kept up on those swaps because I'm old school:confused2: What's the difference between them? Are you building headers or going to flange the Ex manifold somehow?

glhs0426
01-26-2011, 11:33 AM
DCR actually ran that setup. It packages well.

I guess you also noticed the front oil drain is much larger, the exhaust valves are smaller, the intake manifold pattern is different, there are two extra exhaust bolt holes for cyls #1 and #4, there is one hole moved on the valve cover, and the valve cover gasket is slightly different on the 01 and later cylinder heads.

Crower offers cams for the 420A cylinder head.

Someone makes a killer cast manifold for the 420A as well. I'll post it up for you after work.

Aries_Turbo
01-26-2011, 11:53 AM
the same head is found on the 2g non turbo eclipse. a friend of mine turbocharged one of those. used a T2 turbo that he got from me and used a megasquirt.

Brian

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 AM ----------

the only thing you have to now do is route a downpipe under the motor or over the trans or something.

Brian

dodgeshadowchik
01-26-2011, 12:10 PM
So are you putting the 420A head on the 2.2? I heard that this doesn't work 100% on the 2.0L blocks due to a misalignment of the coolant jackets; since the head is 180˚ out. But i believe this can be "fixed." Other than that I beleive the neon head and avenger/eclipse head are not much different.

FYI (in case you are looking for parts): 420A was found in 95-99 Eclipse/Talon non-turbo, non-"rs" or "spyder" on the eclipse side. Those got a 2.4L mitsu engine. or 95-00 Avenger/Sebring coupe

GL with your project. Not to many people do much with the 420A stuff. You might be able to find some more info on dsmtuners.com in the 420A section as well. I'm interested in seeing what transpires!

Aries_Turbo
01-26-2011, 05:27 PM
So are you putting the 420A head on the 2.2? I heard that this doesn't work 100% on the 2.0L blocks due to a misalignment of the coolant jackets; since the head is 180˚ out. But i believe this can be "fixed." Other than that I beleive the neon head and avenger/eclipse head are not much different.

FYI (in case you are looking for parts): 420A was found in 95-99 Eclipse/Talon non-turbo, non-"rs" or "spyder" on the eclipse side. Those got a 2.4L mitsu engine. or 95-00 Avenger/Sebring coupe

GL with your project. Not to many people do much with the 420A stuff. You might be able to find some more info on dsmtuners.com in the 420A section as well. I'm interested in seeing what transpires!

the avenger/eclipse 420a block is identical to a neon 2.0L block. that head will work on a 2.4L as well.

the 95-99 eclipse RS did get the 420a, GS as well. only the spyder got the 2.4L

if you want to wade through rice and BS to find gems, www.2gnt.com has quite a few 420a and 2.4L bottom end/420a head turbo cars.

Brian

cordes
01-26-2011, 07:51 PM
the same head is found on the 2g non turbo eclipse. a friend of mine turbocharged one of those. used a T2 turbo that he got from me and used a megasquirt.

Brian

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 AM ----------

the only thing you have to now do is route a downpipe under the motor or over the trans or something.

Brian

Put the exhaust out the front bumper.

Aries_Turbo
01-26-2011, 08:11 PM
that works too. :)

Brian

Reeves
01-26-2011, 09:46 PM
Put the exhaust out the front bumper.

And put a bell mouth on it!

Like this!

cordes
01-26-2011, 09:59 PM
And put an air horn on it!

Why the air horn?

turbovanmanČ
01-26-2011, 10:38 PM
Update:

Going with a front-exhaust 420a. NOT NEON... 2.0 Avenger. Front mount GT30R gives me goosebumps thinking about it. Picked up a low-mileage entire head assembly with intake manifold, cams, valve cover, and everything else for $60 at the pull-a-part. It looks like I'll only have to use an avenger MLS gasket instead of the PT one. The coolant ports are mirrored.

The fact that everyone seems to be sticking to rear mount turbos makes me want to do it even more. It really makes since if you think about it.

284382843928440

Awesome, i would love to do that some day, :nod:


TIme for Neon/Avenger 101. I haven't really kept up on those swaps because I'm old school:confused2: What's the difference between them? Are you building headers or going to flange the Ex manifold somehow?

Head is backwards, that's it, intake at the back, exhaust up front.


Put the exhaust out the front bumper.

Nah, fender, woot.


Why the air horn?

Maybe to smooth the air, reduce turbulence?

glhs0426
01-26-2011, 11:04 PM
Found the manifold. Symtech labs (http://www.symtechlabs.com/catalog/420a-race-manifold-p-62.html?osCsid=0dbd323d97fb7dfcafc487f178f4dcd2)of fers it. $376

28450284512845228453
http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/images/misc/pencil.png

Reaper1
01-26-2011, 11:38 PM
That is acutally one heck of a nice manifold as long as it's cast with good material and has decent quality control!

dodgeshadowchik
01-27-2011, 09:44 AM
I'm sure you've probably seen this; but this SRT is using the 420A head.
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f258/red-sled-update-432567/

Please post up what you find on this; I've been comming up with a bunch of conflicting information on if it will actually work with no modifacations. Would be nice to get the true story.

Shadow
01-27-2011, 10:23 AM
the exhaust valves are smaller

Smaller compared to what? As far as I understood, both intake and exhaust are bigger than the 2.4l SRT head.

Aries_Turbo
01-27-2011, 01:32 PM
I'm sure you've probably seen this; but this SRT is using the 420A head.
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f258/red-sled-update-432567/

Please post up what you find on this; I've been comming up with a bunch of conflicting information on if it will actually work with no modifacations. Would be nice to get the true story.

its a 95-99 head. it is definitely bolt on compatible with 95-99 2.0L and 2.4L blocks.

it requires minor machining to be used with a SRT bottom end cause they did some small changes with the oil drain/pressure equalization port.

i believe some of the later PT's had these mods too. i dont know what changes may have been made to NGC 2.0L neon sohc. if the old dohc head bolts directly to those motors, the 420a head will work too.

ill get my buddies old 420a HG (if he still has it laying around) and my old SRT HG and the old school 2.0L HG that i have and compare all 3. im going to my buddys house tonight and ill see if i can get his old HG.

Brian

glhs0426
01-27-2011, 01:38 PM
Smaller compared to what? As far as I understood, both intake and exhaust are bigger than the 2.4l SRT head.
2001 and later 2.4L exhaust valves are smaller than 2000 and older 2.0/2.4L exhaust valves. The turbo exhaust valves are a better material than n/a. The intake valves have never changed size, even for the turbo engine. All this is stock of course, no aftermarket discussion.

gkabbt
01-27-2011, 09:10 PM
Here ia another link to the SRT Formus and Darrell Cox explains some in thread #3
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f258/420a-head-need-information-487566/

I have thought about this for the Rampage I am working on but will not happen this year, maybe next Winter.

Gregg

Aerosmith145
01-29-2011, 12:08 AM
Thanks for all the info guys!

One thing I can't really find out is, which headgasket design should one use? The head's the same as the srt4 from the bottom, minus the coolant ports. They are mirrored, so I feel I should use the 420a gasket. Or heck, maybe I'll get cometic to help me.

glhs0426
01-29-2011, 12:29 AM
Just get yourself a replacement 420A MLS gasket and call it a day. IMO, even a felpro (mls) will work and not pop.

Aerosmith145
01-29-2011, 12:36 AM
Except the 420a is open-deck. This is what I'm worried about; the block side of the gasket.

glhs0426
01-29-2011, 09:19 AM
Aren't all 2.0L's open deck, or is my memory failing?

Aerosmith145
01-29-2011, 10:07 AM
Yes, I believe so. Help me connect the dots here - what are you getting at?

glhs0426
01-29-2011, 11:03 AM
Got the parts guy doing a little research right now. I'll have my ducks in a row after the pinewood derby.

Dave
01-29-2011, 11:29 PM
There is a change to the oil drains in the DCR/Avenger head to accomodate our DCR 5 Layer SRT4 proven gasket

That sounds to me that you can use an OE SRT4 head gasket only if you modify the oil drains' passages in the head.

I'm very happy someone is finally trying this on a 2.5. When I found out DCR was doing these I immediately thought of a hybrid swap/Avenger head. Please keep us updated. :thumb:

glhs0426
01-30-2011, 12:31 AM
You should not be concerned with oil drains since you go external with a hybrid. Correct?

Doesn't the 2.2/2.5 block have big enough coolant ports in the deck to accomodate the reversed cooling requirements of a 420a cylinder head? The cooling is biased toward the front in a 420a since the exhaust is there. I had the parts man check some things today and found that in fact the 420a cylinder head does use a different head gasket than a comperable year 2.0/2.4. The short block on a 420a and a comperable year DOHC Neon is the same. So, if the 2.2/2.5 block can push the coolant through a 420a headgasket, run a 420a cylinder head gasket.

ShadowBrad
01-31-2011, 03:24 AM
I would agree. I would run the headgasket that matches the head you are using.

Aerosmith145
02-02-2011, 11:30 AM
Sweet. Thanks guys. I'm getting excited.

Still waiting on my pistons to get here, but once they do I'll be rocking and moving forward again.

Dave
02-03-2011, 11:05 PM
Sweet. Thanks guys. I'm getting excited.

Still waiting on my pistons to get here, but once they do I'll be rocking and moving forward again.

Can't wait, I'm very excited to see this continue.

Chris W
02-14-2011, 08:39 PM
They're here.....

Chris-TU

turbovanmanČ
02-14-2011, 08:55 PM
Flat tops? :confused:

Or are you making your own dish or shape or both? :eyebrows:

Reaper1
02-14-2011, 11:26 PM
Those are NICE!! The ring pack looks to be really low on that thing! Is that because of how thick the crown is or are they just set that low!?

Vigo
02-15-2011, 12:18 AM
The ring pack looks to be really low on that thing! Is that because of how thick the crown is or are they just set that low!?

Low ring pack for minimum meltage / ringland cracking. :p

turbovanmanČ
02-15-2011, 04:09 AM
Those are NICE!! The ring pack looks to be really low on that thing! Is that because of how thick the crown is or are they just set that low!?

That's the way all turbo pistons should be, :p

Aerosmith145
02-15-2011, 10:29 PM
Thanks for the post Chris.

They were ordered as regular old Wiseco T2 2.2 pistons, just without the crown features. I'm tooling up to machine a profile that will match this head I'm using. I'm aiming for 8.6-8.8:1. I will probably do the valve clearances symmetrical to match both the srt4 and 420a heads. That way, if something ends up not working with this 420a head, i can switch to an SRT4 head (which is a little more tried-and-true). I need some rooting though, either way!

Reaper1
02-15-2011, 11:03 PM
Well, it seems my post just up and dissapeared, but Brandon directly addressed the main focus of what I said anyway.

The thing I wanted to add was that if I were to modify the ring pack at all, it wouldn't be the location, but it would be so that different rings could be used. My idea would make using a vacuum system for the crankcase a NECESSITY, however. But, the bonus is that the rings would yeild more power, lighter weight, less wear, less heat, and the vacuum system would help with windage, ring sealing, oil drain back, ect....so really there's NO downside! :thumb:

Aerosmith145
02-22-2011, 03:58 PM
I need someone to measure the minimum crown thickness on some Wiseco 2.2 pistons. Anyone have a set laying around?

turbovanmanČ
02-22-2011, 04:36 PM
I need someone to measure the minimum crown thickness on some Wiseco 2.2 pistons. Anyone have a set laying around?

I have some 2.5's if that helps?

Aerosmith145
02-22-2011, 09:08 PM
Yes, as long as they're wiseco's. Take the (1) total height, minus the (2) distance from the bottom of the skirt to the underside of the crown, then minus the (3) dish depth. Thanks!

turbovanmanČ
02-22-2011, 09:14 PM
Yes, as long as they're wiseco's. Take the (1) total height, minus the (2) distance from the bottom of the skirt to the underside of the crown, then minus the (3) dish depth. Thanks!

Ok, I'll do it tomorrow for you.

Aerosmith145
02-22-2011, 09:26 PM
Thanks man, my goal is to see where the company sets their safe margin for crown thickness. Much appreciated!

Aerosmith145
03-08-2011, 11:20 AM
I'm starting to wonder if I should upgrade rods. What's everyone's gut instinct? I'm shooting for 400~ whp and don't plan to rev it to the moon. ARP rod bolts have already been received, so that's a step forward at least.

I'm getting so excited. I see that big ol' turbo sitting on my shelf in the garage every day... along with hundreds of other cool things.

:D