Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 162

Thread: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

  1. #21
    Hybrid booster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    857

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    Quote Originally Posted by OmniLuvr View Post
    nice info...
    I believe this, plus the shape of both 2.2 and 2.5 "turbo" pistons have very little area to work with the quench pad (is this what you meant, or are you talking about "squish" distance from top of piston to quench pad?)
    Yes - with little area to work with, whatever can be achieved becomes critical.
    Already knowing the excessive thickness of our head gaskets, anything that can be done to improve these areas provides significant return on investment.

  2. #22
    Moderator Turbo Mopar Staff Force Fed Mopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Greenville/Spartanburg SC area
    Posts
    7,557

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    So basically, the ideal head might look like a bathtub head on one side and a modded swirl on the other?
    Rob M.
    '89 Turbo GTC

    2.5 TIII stroker, 568 w/ OBX and 3.77 FD

  3. #23
    Slugmobile & MeanMini Caretaker Turbo Mopar Contributor wheming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Raleigh Area, NC
    Posts
    4,809

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    Quote Originally Posted by Force Fed Mopar View Post
    So basically, the ideal head might look like a bathtub head on one side and a modded swirl on the other?
    I'm glad someone else thought it looked like a bathtub style chamber! I was thinking the same thing.
    I'm sure there is much more to it though!
    Wayne H.

    '91 Dodge Spirit ES 2.5L turbo 5spd
    '05 PT GT 2.4T HO autostick (RIP)
    '89 Plymouth Acclaim 2.5L turbo auto, "Slugmobile" yes, THE Slugmobile!
    '89 Dodge Caravan SE 2.5L turbo auto, "Mean Mini" yes, Gus' Mean Mini! (Current best 11.699 @ 114.43 mph! - Oct 15th, 2022 Cecil County Dragway, MD)
    MeanMini dragracing videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...URZLB1RxGYF6vw
    and other cars, trucks and motorcycles
    https://www.youtube.com/user/SlugmobileMeanMini

  4. #24
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    san diego, california
    Posts
    1,548

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    I'm glad someone else thought it looked like a bathtub style chamber! I was thinking the same thing.
    I'm sure there is much more to it though!
    or not that much more to it

  5. #25
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Piedmont, Ohio
    Posts
    4,109

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    Here is the FM head that is on my van.

    Ian Adams Function>Form 1990 shadow scrapped, too rusty:( 1991 Spirit R/T Scrapped, parts sold:( 1989 Turbo Caravan Daily beater with built-[I]ish [/I]​engine slowly evolving into weekend turbo beater.

  6. #26
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Coos Bay, Oregon
    Posts
    5,439

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    Re-post the photo.....
    Great stuff for great cars! Poly engine mounts and bushings at: http://www.polybushings.com

  7. #27
    Moderator Turbo Mopar Staff Force Fed Mopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Greenville/Spartanburg SC area
    Posts
    7,557

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    Quote Originally Posted by wheming View Post
    I'm glad someone else thought it looked like a bathtub style chamber! I was thinking the same thing.
    I'm sure there is much more to it though!
    Actually now that I think about it more, it'd probably look more like an old wedge on the plug side, and the modded swirl on the other. Look at the FM head just posted and imagine the bevel on the exhaust side continued over to the intake side. I'd probably fill in the top of that side to where it would be flush with the head deck surface for quench purposes. Or maybe with a slight angle towards the center.
    Rob M.
    '89 Turbo GTC

    2.5 TIII stroker, 568 w/ OBX and 3.77 FD

  8. #28
    Hybrid booster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    857

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    It is much like starting with a 'G' or bathtub chamber but one item that is beneficial on the FB is the shallower chamber.
    This provides an improvement on the short side turn due to the seat rings being further into the chamber and the gain on the port radius.
    It's minimal but every little bit counts.

  9. #29

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    Quote Originally Posted by 5DIGITS View Post
    It is much like starting with a 'G' or bathtub chamber but one item that is beneficial on the FB is the shallower chamber.
    This provides an improvement on the short side turn due to the seat rings being further into the chamber and the gain on the port radius.
    It's minimal but every little bit counts.
    I will have to agree with everything you have posted in this thread. The best 8V head for performance would have had attributes from both castings.
    I have found the G head to be easier to make close to right. The next head I do will be a Swirl, but not for me, for a friend.

    The best performing chamber I have done ended up like this.............
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	bare head 037.jpg 
Views:	484 
Size:	79.6 KB 
ID:	59777  
    best 1/8 ET-6.16 sec. best 1/8 speed-119.70 Best 1/4 MPH 145.5, Best 1/4 ET 9.65 sec. 8 valve NO NITROUS!!

  10. #30
    boostaholic Turbo Mopar Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Columbia City, Indiana
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Stramer View Post
    I will have to agree with everything you have posted in this thread. The best 8V head for performance would have had attributes from both castings.
    I have found the G head to be easier to make close to right. The next head I do will be a Swirl, but not for me, for a friend.

    The best performing chamber I have done ended up like this.............

    Warren,

    Everything you do is pure art. I wish I had the skills and talent to do what you do.

    I am soaking up everything in this thread. The timing couldn't be more perfect, as I'm preparing to get started on my latest motor build. This information is priceless.

    I do have a question for all you guru's though. I know we are talking about theoretical best chambers, but if you guys are suggesting filling in the chambers for better quench, what do you do about compression ratio? Doing that is going to raise it tremendously correct? And if so, how do you compensate? Larger dish in the piston? If so, doesn't that negate the squish you are trying to create by modifying the chamber?

    Sorry for the newby type questions, just hoping to expand my knowledge of combustion chambers...

  11. #31
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Coos Bay, Oregon
    Posts
    5,439

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    ^^^^^^ good question!!!
    Great stuff for great cars! Poly engine mounts and bushings at: http://www.polybushings.com

  12. #32
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor zin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    4,479

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    Shape the dish in the piston to mirror the chamber, set the pin height to achieve proper quench with the gasket you'll be using while setting the depth of the dish to achieve the desired compression ratio.

    Yep, custom pistons are a must if we hope to get real benefits.

    Mike
    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry

    Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
    - Edmund Burke

  13. #33
    boostaholic Turbo Mopar Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Columbia City, Indiana
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    Quote Originally Posted by zin View Post
    Shape the dish in the piston to mirror the chamber, set the pin height to achieve proper quench with the gasket you'll be using while setting the depth of the dish to achieve the desired compression ratio.

    Yep, custom pistons are a must if we hope to get real benefits.

    Mike
    That's basically the answer I was figuring I would get. That's going to be one heck of a hole in the middle of the piston...

  14. #34
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    san diego, california
    Posts
    1,548

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    I do have a question for all you guru's though. I know we are talking about theoretical best chambers, but if you guys are suggesting filling in the chambers for better quench, what do you do about compression ratio? Doing that is going to raise it tremendously correct? And if so, how do you compensate? Larger dish in the piston? If so, doesn't that negate the squish you are trying to create by modifying the chamber?
    if there is also material taken out to deshroud the valves I think its kind of a wash. Plus, with better tuning abilities now and "other" fuels, I don't think compression is that big of a deal? especially when changing the camber design, that is what is trying to be accomplished, a chamber that is less detonation prone and better flowing, win win! ive also ran g-head pistons with a swirl head up to 18 psi, I'm sure I could have taken it farther but wanted to be "safe" on lw rods.

    I think with a tighter squish and larger quench area, this would also negate the "extra" compression if there ended up being any after the rest of chamber work was done. I still think a better piston design would help much more, but that equals way more $ for custom pistons than most would want to spend... maybe one day...

  15. #35
    Hybrid booster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    857

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Stramer View Post
    I will have to agree with everything you have posted in this thread. The best 8V head for performance would have had attributes from both castings.
    I have found the G head to be easier to make close to right. The next head I do will be a Swirl, but not for me, for a friend.

    The best performing chamber I have done ended up like this.............
    Warren... Nice work - beautiful.
    As far as compression, yes... what is done "here" offsets what needs to be done "there".
    Basically, robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

  16. #36
    Moderator Turbo Mopar Staff Vigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    San Antonio,TX
    Posts
    10,798

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    I would say that if you're willing to use custom pistons and chamber modifications then you're probably also willing to tune for the new ignition requirements/knock characteristics and probably willing to tune for a higher octane fuel like e85. But yes it seems like by the time you bring the piston anywhere close to the 'squish pads' you'd need a pretty big hole in the middle to keep similar compression ratio.

    Dont push the red button.You hear me?

  17. #37

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    I'm of the opinion that chamber and piston design is totally dependent on intended application.
    If we are talking about a moderately boosted street engine, on pump gas, then squish becomes a desirable design
    consideration.
    On the other hand, an all out turbo race engine, on good race gasoline or Meth, squish and quench can be unnecessary or even counter productive, especially with a small bore engine like our 2.2L. The pressure differential between the intake port, and chamber is so high at the moment of valve opening, that mixture motion and charge homogenization are pretty much guaranteed.
    I have essentially no squish in my race engine and it has a wide and forgiving tuning window. I don't know, maybe I got it all wrong, but it works for me.
    best 1/8 ET-6.16 sec. best 1/8 speed-119.70 Best 1/4 MPH 145.5, Best 1/4 ET 9.65 sec. 8 valve NO NITROUS!!

  18. #38
    Moderator Turbo Mopar Staff Force Fed Mopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Greenville/Spartanburg SC area
    Posts
    7,557

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    It's one of those things where you either build for it, or stay way away from it. Flattop pistons and compression benefit from quench more than a low compression engine w/ dished pistons would. I have heard the theory that for high boost, lower compression and .060" or more clearance to the head works good because of the increased volume of air/fuel mixture.

    I have a set of Venolia flat tops that I've been hanging onto for a high compression turbo street engine build. Planned on milling block until piston deck height is set to have .035 or .030" quench w/ a standard FelPro gasket. Not sure which head yet.
    Last edited by Force Fed Mopar; 12-07-2016 at 10:06 PM.
    Rob M.
    '89 Turbo GTC

    2.5 TIII stroker, 568 w/ OBX and 3.77 FD

  19. #39
    Hybrid booster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    857

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    Quote Originally Posted by Vigo View Post
    I would say that if you're willing to use custom pistons and chamber modifications then you're probably also willing to tune for the new ignition requirements/knock characteristics and probably willing to tune for a higher octane fuel like e85. But yes it seems like by the time you bring the piston anywhere close to the 'squish pads' you'd need a pretty big hole in the middle to keep similar compression ratio.
    Not necessarily..
    The benefits from a tight squish band can actually support higher spark advance, with the increase in compression and the absence of added chamber size.

  20. #40
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    7,351

    Re: HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

    Now, who has access to a CNC machine and can make copies of all these heads easily and reliably?

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Engine Ed Peters G-head
    By glhs727 in forum Parts For Sale
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-24-2014, 10:04 AM
  2. Engine 782 Ed Peters head, coated Venolia pistons with new/reman rods, etc
    By chipdogg in forum Parts For Sale
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 12-20-2010, 03:19 AM
  3. Engine turbo-cylinder head-8 valve G-head
    By midnighttoker in forum Parts For Sale
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 01-24-2010, 12:17 AM
  4. Engine turbo-cylinder head-8 valve-G head
    By midnighttoker in forum Parts Wanted
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-23-2010, 11:45 PM
  5. Stock turbo G head valves?
    By moparzrule in forum Engine - Block, Piston, Heads, Intakes
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-19-2007, 10:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •