http://www.allpar.com/mopar/22t.html
Printable View
always nice to re-read this stuff. You always pick up somethimg
Thanks! That's a good read. I haven't seen that one before. Regular grocery items are what you may possible spot on the Food Lion Ad.
rife with errors, but nice.
Yeah the 2.2 being used on Hitler's jet ski during WWII was somewhat debatable but nobody is perfect!!!!
1) All Chrysler turbocharged engines had multiple-port fuel injection in the US, making them, for some time, the only Chrysler engines to hold that honor.
False, see FFV 2.5. Chrysler also made non turbo PFI engines in Mexico.
2) Turbo II — a more powerful version using a charge air cooler (usually but incorrectly called an intercooler), producing around 174 hp (starting in 1988, these had black manifolds).
False, 1987 (Shelby Daytona)
3) Turbo III — the rare semi-experimental engine with dual overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, and returnless fuel injection, producing an absurd 224 horsepower
Rare semi-experimental? It had been development since 1982 and was produced for 3 years. They made more Spirit R/T's than VNT CS Shadows or Daytona's.
4) Two other setups, even less well-known and rarer, were used in the Cosworth-head M4S and in the TC by Maserati.
The Cosworth head was NOT a production head. If you are going to bring that up there is at least 2 other designs you should mention as well.
5) The first production Chrysler turbocharged engine was a 2.2 liter four-cylinder, launched in 1984, and generation 142 hp at 5,600 rpm and 160 lb-ft of torque at 3,200 rpm — around 30 hp and 30 lb-ft more than the best power made by any other 2.2, and competing with the bigger 3-liter Mitsubishi V6 in power — while turning in superior fuel economy.
The 3.0 mitsu did not debut till 1987 1/2, the 2.2 turbo proceeded it by several years. There was no competition as the V6 was not an option yet.
6) To make the engine, Chrysler dropped the compression ratio to 8.5:1 by using deep-dished, strutless, lightweight pistons. For durability, they strengthened the valves and springs, and used better-sealing rings, a special cam, select-fit bearings, and special exhaust manifold; a diecast aluminum cylinder head cover was added, mainly for looks. One key change was switching from a single throttle body injectors to four individual fuel injectors.
The bearings were not "select fit" and the valve cover was NOT for looks but noise suppression and oil control.
7) We ran Fast Burn heads on the 2.5L and the big advantage was that with the Fast Burn head, wide open throttle spark timing was lower than with the standard head, so you didn’t have to worry about spark knock too much and you didn’t need premium fuel. That made a big difference for the turbocharged engine.”
Premium fuel was ALWAYS specified, decal was on fuel door or quarter panel with Shelby Chargers.
8) Boost calibration changes in 1991 added 2 horsepower and a full 30 lb-ft of torque, so the motor produced 152 horsepower and 211 lb-ft of torque at the same speeds. A different control setup gave it faster reactions, as well.
Manual transaxles only (high torque packages) auto was not rated for the torque.
9) One Chrysler engineer wrote: “Incredible engine. Heads cracked in the 1991 version because some dummy decided to use cast iron plugs in the water jacket holes instead of aluminum.”
Heads cracked since the castings from Lotus were incredibly bad and porous. Chrysler identified this issue as far back as 1987 in an engineering report I have.
10) The timing belt tension had to be set so high to overcome “tow roping” of the timing belt, i.e. the timing belt going into negative tension. Tow roping is a belt killer. This problem was caused by the extremely low valvetrain friction from using roller rockers, combined with the DOHC setup.
No, the belt tension was high since Lotus spec'd out the valve springs for some ridiculous spring rate for an rpm that the motor would never, ever see in its lifetime. There is offset retainers available to reduce the pressure and help prolong the belt and cam life.
I have noticed tons of spelling errors in Allpar articles as if nobody there has spell check. They do have some good stuff there.
Even if you have to take it with a grain of salt or maybe a bucket full.....
Thank you for the additional information.
Dave
wow, talk about the creator being forgotten (Me, Stuart Davis). I was even the interface to the Chrysler-Shelby Development Center for years. I developed it, they stuck Shelby's name on it to market it.
Dick Winkles and Mark Rozmen DID NOT develop the Turbo II. An engineer named Jim Prestel started the design of the tuned intake manifold and it was my assignment to "run with it" (Stuart Davis). I have up with the split manifold for servicing the injectors and the nearly "ideal entries" where they mated. ALL the early development was done with a dyno technician, Don Bloom. Later on Mark helped me map out the ultra cold charge air characteristics by pumping a gylcol/dry ice mixture thru the fins of the charge air cooler, as I stood next to the engine stirring the "slush". Dick and Mark had nothing to do with the manifold /intercooler/vehicle integration or calibration. I did all the performance cal, and Gregg Weber at the Proving Grounds did the drive/emissions cal.
The first charge air cooler core was custom made for me by a Sr. Engineer at Blackstone corporation (Larry Barrons). All we had to chose from was the 2" thick Garrett Air-research core from a diesel, that was too restrictive, and it did not provide enough charge air cooling. So Larry and I came up with the first 3" thick core (that went into production). I actually made the sand molds that cast the charge air cooler tanks in the casting lab at the old Highland Park facility. A skilled welder named Joe Trybus welded them on for me. We ran it in a dyno cell (10 I believe).
All I can say is "WOW, did the author get the facts wrong.
A mechanic named Herb Norton put the FIRST turbo II car together for me. It was a K-Car rear end with a Daytona Front end. Here it is in 1985 : http://www.team1.org/first%20Chrysler%20turbo%20II.jpg
Stuart, thanks for the clarification, if you have old pics and stuff you want to share/post that would be awesome!
Welcome to Turbo-Mopar.com Stu. Its good to see you are alive and kicking!
Barry
Thanks for the information. That picture is cool. Quick story: I had a 2 door Reliant that was that color that was rear-ended in Sept., 1983. I used the insurance money to buy my 84 Daytona Turbo which was the first one the dealership sold. I loved my Reliant but is lives on in my Daytona. My Daytona needs a lot of work but someday...... Cool picture!
Awesome! I love history. :)
Yep, I'm kinda back. While my (ex) wife had me sell my 1985 Gunmetal Blue Turbo Z, with one of my best engines and calibrations in it. The wife said we needed a mini van, and the Daytona and 1977 Corvette had to go. (still have the 'vette, not the wife!). As luck wold have it a 1985 Turbo Z (clean from California) showed up on my door step. So I'm trying to figure out to leave it stock, or "do my thing" to it and re-make my Turbo II car again. I saved the very first Turbo II manifold we made. It's been in my garage attic since about 1984.
May need to call in a few "favors" from old friends to chase down some parts.
sure would have been nice if the "ALLpar" history was even close!" I worked for years on that program. It was "my baby".
Added 3-19-17, I made contact with AllPar (Dave) and he double checked the facts and yep, what is written is not correct. He said he is busy with a big story but will re-write the section on T II when he can. At least he put a slight patch in the article that is on line. Still not right, but I appreciate him taking swift action.
Being a "newbie" I guess I can't post pictures yet. But here was the "first" "turbo II" intake manifold Jim Prestel and I designed, and Joe Trybus fabricated it. It actually had 3 tuning peaks as I shuck a Helmholtz resonating chamber in front of the throttle body
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3...21Wb3JKMlI0WE0
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3...VdKOGYtSG9uRWs
And here was Chrysler's first All Wheel Drive, 4 valve per cylinder car (in my driveway in 1984). Some though we didn't work on 4 valve engines until the 1990's, like the AllPar article states. Not only was it a 4 valve, but all wheel drive too! way back in 1984 https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3...nd3UnVqS0tHaGc
and my promotion paperwork the went to a review board that shows what I did (for any doubters) CLEARLY states that I not only did the Turbo II but also installed and calibrated the first 2.5L turbo https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3G4LxfQg6LQeDEzeFBGRWVGWWM
Stuart, welcome to T-M!!
Hopefully you'll be able to keep sharing your Chrysler 2.2/2.5 Turbo experiences with us.
We love the cars, the Engines, the Turbos and the history.
As mentioned Allpar is "rife with errors" as much of whats there are stories gathered from here and there.
The good thing is they are receptive to corrections and recently had a find the "Allpar biggest blunder contest"
Unfortunately its extremely politically correct but I still visit there regularly and contribute occasionally.
I guess you could call me a loyalist as I bought my Omni Turbo Feb, 22, 1986 and its still in my garage.
Back in 1997, before I knew about the internet, I bought the entire M.P. Super 60 deal for my car.
That was a very expensive learning curve but still worth it.:)
Looking forward to more of your posts!!
Thanks
Randy
Welcome aboard Mr. Davis, glad to see some history see the light of day.
Gary
Thank you Mr. Davis for the history of the Tll engine development.
One thing I'm curious about is the durability testing of the Tll engine. What kind of "abuse" did the engine have to survive before being approved for production?
This intake manifold is very cool and makes me wonder if it's the reason for some software in the factory calibration. The software I'm talking about is the rev limit put in place to protect the engine and limit movement of the vehicle in the event of a crash that could break the intake manifold and lose the throttle ability.
I came across this during a nitrous backfire that removed most of my intake manifold and lost throttle control. Yet the engine only revved to about 2500 or 3000 rpms when the tps read closed. I assume the software is present from this old intake manifold design. Am I onto something?
You can verify the software is present by disconnecting the TPS mechanically, not electrically.
As mentioned RPM will be limited to about 3000 even at WOT.
Safety feature in case the TB got knocked off in a crash.
Curious about the "snorkel design" intake as to performance distribution, etc. too.
It seems logical in my minds eye but I think I read it was considered vulnerable in a crash.
Hoping for more posts!!!
Thanks
Randy
Thanks for the warm welcome!
Since I just got a 1985 Turbo Z (just like my original car), I need to catch up on some things. Like where to get some parts (like a replacement bobble strut).
I LOVED working on turbos at Chrysler and did some great things with them. Both for the company and for "friends". I only had the one car and people were always bugging me to run it at the drag strip, which was about 80 miles away. Yeh, the car was fast but we all know the trans was weak. One night I relented and at the green light I dumped the clutch and BAM..... tink tink tink as the differential parts went flying everywhere. We tow strapped it home and I had to catch a ride in to work the next few days as I replaced the trans. I'd drive it out of the hole easy and still make 13.2. Nothing to brag about but I drove it there AND home. That was a "win" for me.
And oh, the "super 60 kit". I tired in vain to get the Mopar performance guys to offer it differently, but failed. And to NOT ala-cart the parts. Like just the computer did no good. not just the turbo. my title was "systems engineer" and it was all a "system". From the minute the air goes in, to the minute it goes out. Those that followed my "systems" approach, did well.
They did a "super 60 kit on Bob Lutz's car, and he thought it was great. A few weeks later word got out that he got beat by a few other turbo cars that were heading INTO work, so he knew they were Chrysler employees, and the WTF flag went up as he was "supposed" to have had the "best of breed" and the best aftermarket part Chrysler had to offer.
I was told to slow down my "outside efforts" as the VP who Bob Lutz asked "who's doing this stuff?" did not "throw me under the bus". Primarily as he himself had one of my configured cars, raced and beat Lutz, and yet didn't want to get incriminated. It actually made a small "blurd" in an issue of Wards Auto World that "Chrysler has spawned an "In-Direct connection", with the story of Bob getting beat and "someone" making faster cars. My phone range again, The VP said "time to go way, way underground" (but he never said stop). Fun times! Some people would get a "Direct Connection" sticker and then some stick on letters and put "IN-" in front of it (to show "IN-Direct Connection). Fast friends knew the other fast friends and we all had fun.
I hope to reclaim some memories with this 1985 turbo Z from California. It looks like mine, but is a T1 not a hot rod T II. Here in Michigan, they don't last even 10 yrs due to rust from all the salt we stick on the roads! Part of me wants to keep it original, part wants to make it fast again!
'Ya know, we had that argument about intake manifolds and throttle bodies on the front of the engine for years as we had the software in place starting about 1986. But us engineers ALWAYS lost in a a design discussion with the ignorant safety people.
Yeh, safer is better, but it held us back. And competitors were doing elaborate warp over or front mounted manifolds, why can't we?? (that didn't fly).
We had the feature there to stop a "runaway" and showed them it worked. But trying to talk sense into a lawyer is futile. Finally, when we went 4 valves/cylinder we had no choice but to put the intake and throttle body on the front. At that time, it just didn't seem to raise the eyebrows of the safety community (or lawyers, as we didn't ask. If we asked, they would have had to render an opinion, which could be used in a lawsuit. So don't ask!)
A great Engineer named Jim Prestel was training me back in 1982. He was toying with tuning organ pipes and setting up "standing waves". I was looking at Helmholtz resonators and we partnered up for some real crazy designs. If you saw the first manifold picture, that wrapped over the valve cover, Jim designed the injector mounting block and the main runners. Then he passed it to me with a challenge of "see how many tuning peaks you can get (3. One at 1800, 2400, 4800rpm. The production manifold just had two). I had just written a program in BASIC called "tune" and it let you very the lengths and resonator/plenum volumes. A mechanic, Joe Trybus and I worked for weeks shoe horning everything in. As you can imagine, the front (at the throttle body) raised up a LOT and we had to make it fit under the hood still.
The reason the mating part looks like the suction end of a household vacuum cleaner is it slowed the air down (the reason for a tuning chamber), and let it spread evenly across the cylinders for near perfect air distribution. Hidden under there were some beautifully machined "ideal entries" (look like velocity stacks on old drag cars). The airflow was outstanding and the performance was great. But the service people would NOT let me wrap the intake over the valve cover for "ease of service", so we evolved to the 2 piece. My only regret on the 2 piece is that I wanted more plenum volume. But you could not get the injectors/fuel rail out with my preferred design (it gave 8 more HP, just by a better design plenum). It was always compromises.... But that was the best flowing, highest HP motor we had at the time. The charge air cooler was actually out in front of the radiator, and the same size of a radiator. So with 325 degrees F out of the turbo, I'd get darn near ambient temperature out if the charge air cooler. The air density was high and cool, the manifold flowed well, and it took LOTS of fuel, which all made power.
The BEST part was we would take this cream colored K-car out on weekends and drag race people on Woodward avenue. Talk about a sleeper!
This is some fascinating info! Keep it coming Stuart!
Now THAT was a passion of all of ours. We designed it NOT to break and for some reason the "bean counters" left us alone. It had a great forged crank, rods, best pistons we could buy and an in 1987 an exhaust manifold with a material called "Ni-Risist" (Some sort of nickle alloy I think). It let me push up the exhaust gas temperatures, and boost up without compromising the exhaust manifold. While others were adding fuel to function as a was to slow the burn and cool the exhaust manifolds, I was at the temperature limits and right that the best power point. The Dyno operator called it "lean and mean" as any deviation would blow something up.
And we would run 600 hrs of durability on a transient test dyno, at multiple loads with lots of full throttle, and expect NOTHING to break. And we passed. Now they reduced the duration and and loads.
In 1988 I was sick and out of work for a while. While I was gone the intake changed, the good components got taken out due to cost (now a face hardened cast crank, not forged) and a few other things. So the 1987 was pretty muck "Bullet Proof". The only weak part was the head gasket but we proved it if was re-torqued after a run it, it was much better. But the engine plant could not do that. It made 175hp. and I had plans to push it over 200 while still running on premium fuel. The culprit was the exhaust system, the pipes were too small and it gave too much back-pressure. I needed to get more air out (think of the whole system as an air in/out system. Any bad part in between screws it up). The "bends" and small pipes were the issue. A 90 degree bend reduced the effective cross sectional area of the pipe by almost 50%. That sucked for exhaust flow. We called them "crush bends" and the tubing wrinkled and crushed so much during the bend operation. You would easily pic up 10hp when you put a hand made mandrel bent system on. But then you'd run out of injector flow (and that is where the +20% injectors came from. my car needed them). +40%s were for the alcohol fuel programs.
But when I came back from months of sick leave (gallbladder surgery), I was the one that was sick as I stared at the new compromised hardware. It was cheaper and determined "good enough". It was too late to change and was a terrible engine to calibrate. The best was the Turbo II for power and durability. There was nothing like standing 3 ft from a T II engine running at WOT for 30 minutes as I checked temperatures and pressures (would not be OSHA Approved now). The engine was groaning against the load, the exhaust was glowing red, and it didn't sound like it was going to blow. It just had a nice "grunt" to it.
well, back then we "borrowed" and AWD unit from a competitor (I think the Audi Quattro?) It was not really a "blessed" program so we had very limited funds. We KNEW from the start that the AWD unit was designed to be mated to an auto trans and could not handle the "shock loads" of a hole shot or "power shift". So we put warning labels on it, and told every driver NOT to do it. It was reserved for executive drives only (but I'd drive it all the time, it cornered great as we had to change the rear suspension and it didn't "plow" into hard corners). Just NO HOLE SHOTS! No power shifts.
Well, numerous people drove it and one day I had about 6 executives lined up. At Highland park we didn't really have a "test track". Just a straight section if asphalt leading to a warehouse representative of about 1/4 mile and "just enough room" to stop before you nosed into a chain link fence. We all nicknamed it "the drag strip". The best part was once and a while a guy on a fork lift would pull out 1/2 way down, carrying a barrel of fuel or oil. It was "exciting" as we both tried not to hit each other. The facilities department sent out memo's that we could not use it like that, but we did anyway. Finally the fork lift drive learned to drive on the far right side, not down the middle. The problem resolved itself.
So a few guys drove it, knew the "caveats" and how we would need to do the AWD unit differently "if" we ever produced it. I even had a defined "loop" for them to drive around highland park to go some nice cornering (amongst the burned out houses and decaying city). About the 4th driver decided to do a hole shot. The car jumped about 5 ft, parts came flying out from underneath, and it was done. Without funding I could not fix it. And the interest was starting to grown in a AWD mini van, not a sports car. So the program died. Chrysler was not "real" serious about sports cars beyond simple "tweaks" like the IROC Daytona or GLHS's. We could not compere with the mustangs and Camaro's without LOTS of investment.
MANY years later (like 16?) another was built with better parts. It was evaluated at the Proving grounds (I think Niel Haneman was the driver, a good guy). While it was a "good car" it was not on par with the competition. It was (in my opinion) a bit unfair as they compared a Daytona against exotic European AWD sports cars. A $15k Daytona vs a $35k European sports car, and gee, it was not as good! It just didn't have enough engine power, nor could we push the engine any harder. So again, the concept was abandoned. Chrysler just didn't see the need for it. The Viper was coming into play, so why tweak a Daytona and dilute Viper sales?
Thank you Mr. Davis for taking the time to respond, the information and history that you provided is astonishing!!
" out of nowhere a wild Chrysler powertrain engineer appears!"
Gotta say im really enjoying this so far. I have so many questions, as do others im sure. your finger are going to take a beating typing out all the replies....
So they S-60'd the Bob Lutz Daytona after it was already running the one off 2.5 bar cal and 16psi boost TII set-up?
Great to hear the personal experiences you had developing these cars! Very interesting how pretty well everything you are talking about, slightly larger plenum volume, the over the mtr intake with velocity stacks inside the plenum for equal flow (Warren Stramer :nod:) Quality of exhaust flow to reduce back pressure ect , All jive with what has been proven to produce huge power from this platform all these years later.
Not sure if it fits here exactly Stu but it does jive with your 'Transmission being the weak link' synopsis...
I bought my 87 GLHS new from Anaheim Dodge (about 35 miles from the Putnam Road Whittier Shelby production plant) and soon after befriended a certain 'perfomance parts manager' (that many of us here know;)) in search of a few more HP. He showed me how to bleed the MAP line a little bit with a small nitrous jet mounted in a little section of 1/4 copper tubing(which we now know was a bad idea for the proper A/F ratio but it was a neat trick 'back then') to achieve 14PSI-ish. One day I drove up to the plant to see said certain PPM to go to lunch or something and while I was waiting outside in the lot, three suits came walking up and commented/asked about my red GLHS and how it got that way. I explained to them what the dealership had told me that they had a truckload of GLHS's and they were slow to sell them all so they painted this one to see if that would move it(it did! I picked it over the other black 87 GLHS they had:eyebrows:). So one of the suits says 'pop the hood' and I think I had it up about 3 seconds when one of them pointed to the MAP bleed and asked/said "WHAT IS THAT?? THE TRANSMISSION WON"T HANDLE THAT KID!" Feeling emabarassed and worried about my 2/24 warranty at that point I made some sheepish excuse about the line popping off and that was my fix, closed the hood as soon as possible and made myself scarce...
Weeks (or years) later that same PPM who was by now a buddy of mine talked about Shelby's testing of the Saines(AKA Chiclett) diff where they positioned a 525 equipped car with one wheel on clean pavement and the other on some sand, dumped the clutch at some stratospheric launch RPM and exploded the trans because of as he described it, 'the load being transfered to the case' from the Saines diff. Knowing what we know now many years later the 525 would have likely grenaded anyway with that type of test:nod:
Thanks for your input here Stu, I suspect you will have no problem getting the TM.com community to help you aquire the parts you seek for your new Daytona:eyebrows: Maybe create a 'wish list' of parts that the membership at large can PM you about what they have for you. I know I can personally fill some of that need:thumb:
Oh, this is great! More pics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
welcome to the board!
You should really consider writting down as much of this as you can.
many of us would appreciate all the insite we can get..
we love these cars.
we are the groupies of your "band" that created them.
heck ill ship parts your way to fix up your baby!
got any more neat pictures? would love to save them . and post them for prosperity. host them some where for others.
love the pics and the thread!