2.5 / 2.6 L conversion advice wanted.

[Nik0las]

Jamo,

what is the case with the diesel block and crank? Rods, Pistons........?

[Jamo]

You do know that the RS2 turbo will produce 600nm of torque on the 2.2? Infact it can produce enough to bend the stock rods

This would be the route I would go if you can't get the 92.8 crank or else your looking to go diesel block and crank

You haven't yet experienced the 2.2 20vt so personally use that get it homefried to near 300bhp then decide if you want to stroker it. The turbo car is a different animal to a NA.

[MGaz]

Hmm 2.2 can make power but not more than a stroker, i've not seen a 2.2 hit 1400 bhp like some of the stroker engines by Jonus and the Scandinavian crew

Until you've driven one you can't understand why you would want one, power delivery and torque low and mid range punch is so much better.

2.2 is better for track / hi revving focus as you can get them up to 8500-8600 rpm

Stroker is a street or balls out drag engine

All said don't knock them they have their place, I know members on here trying to tell me not to do it and stick with 2.2 and now they are building strokers engines

keep the 2.2 in this case, the bigger turbo like rusty says for this powerlevel is very good

That was kind of my reason for wanting the stroker.

I wasn't thinking about BIG power, or making more power than a tuned 2.2L engine.

Tho admittedly my experience with the 2.2 20vt is minimal , the idea in my head was however that a 2.5L would 'naturally' produce more grunt low down.. & more power than standard but with MUCH better response, & it would improve on that power 'without' increasing lag..

I guess what i'm saying is, even tho I see that the 2.2 20vt will easily make more power than my car has at the moment when motorway driving, i'd still like to retain some of that NA characteristics where by you plant your foot on a country type lane or up/down back road, and the power kicks in strait away.

even the standard 2.2KV was good at this. there was no waiting around for it to do something, before coming to the next bend or elevation change, & having to change direction & speed You hit the throttle and it just gos! before having to get on the brakes again for the next turn


will a 2.2 20vt do this? I don't know, you tell me?

[GazzaG60]

700 is a lot isn't it.

i see the point jamo but you wont feel 50hp at 600hp plus numbers i dont think. area under the curve id expect you will. like i say if you are going to build you may as well build a stroker.
im not after a dyno queen anyway.

i dont think the OP is looking at high enough figures to warrant the need unless its a want. nothing wrong with wanting.

[Jamo]

I was thinking of taking a punt and buying it, but it's a lot of money to have sitting tied up in a lum of metal.

How much are they? 700 quid I think C&R were asking when I enquired

Thing is Andy you have a stroker engine not installed yet spend the money on that unless your thinking of having another I5 car?

[AndyP]

Wow get them whilst you can. They come from an industrial engine not used in the motortrade according to 034 IIRC

I was thinking of taking a punt and buying it, but it's a lot of money to have sitting tied up in a lum of metal.

[Jamo]

I spoke to C&R about these last week when I was down there. They are getting them from the same place that 034 gets them from and there is allegedly only 1 left, and it's possibly the only one in the world. They have the Audi part number but it does not show up on ETKA, they even sourced the South African version and it's not on there, so they cannot source any more.

Wow get them whilst you can. They come from an industrial engine not used in the motortrade according to 034 IIRC

[Jamo]

id expect the rpm of a 2.2 to out HP a stroker. not torque. we are talking about well built lumps here.

doesn't repo's fast car not run a 2.2?

im not knocking them. its one of the reasons when on the 16v i was going with the bigger crank and the 83mm pistons. its not all about the capacity but the way in which its made.

what im saying is i cant see the point in the outlay for less than the stated hp figures. and the important point of built motor vs stock and ultimately its down to turbo cfm.

2.2 built versus 2.5 built i dont see much in it myself but agree the stroker is a better road orientated move due to RPM.

its on my todo list TBH if i went for more power simply due to the fact id have to build a block anyway.

Repo's car does, it's the highest bhp 2.2 known on the planet, however it's not as powerful as the stroker builds out there.

Read http://www.s2forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4910

dyno plots i've seen of a 2.2 vs 2.5 with the same turbo the 2.5 comes out with a lot higher bhp.

for example gt35r 640 on 2.2 690 on 2.5

[AndyP]

If you want to convert a 2.2 block to a stroker you need the 92.8mm crank, it's a bit rare but C&R enterprises in Nottingham sell them and so do 034 motorsport in america.

I spoke to C&R about these last week when I was down there. They are getting them from the same place that 034 gets them from and there is allegedly only 1 left, and it's possibly the only one in the world. They have the Audi part number but it does not show up on ETKA, they even sourced the South African version and it's not on there, so they cannot source any more.

[GazzaG60]

id expect the rpm of a 2.2 to out HP a stroker. not torque. we are talking about well built lumps here.

doesn't repo's fast car not run a 2.2?

im not knocking them. its one of the reasons when on the 16v i was going with the bigger crank and the 83mm pistons. its not all about the capacity but the way in which its made.

what im saying is i cant see the point in the outlay for less than the stated hp figures. and the important point of built motor vs stock and ultimately its down to turbo cfm.

2.2 built versus 2.5 built i dont see much in it myself but agree the stroker is a better road orientated move due to RPM.

its on my todo list TBH if i went for more power simply due to the fact id have to build a block anyway.

[Jamo]

the capacity will do little extra for the power which is ultimately governed by the airflow provided by the turbo.

the 2.2 will make massive power. as much as the stroker. more even. a stroker maybe can produce an increase with the correct turbo across the lower ranges. i think most of the benifits are masked or enhanced by the fact that strokers have proper istons, balanced, proper rods. in only skimming the stock pistons and weight mtching the scats i cannfeel the difference to a stock I5.

as with anything if you want it go for it. personally i couldn't justify a stroker unless i was looking at 700hp or so. a nic 2.2 does just as well.

its all in the turbo

Hmm 2.2 can make power but not more than a stroker, i've not seen a 2.2 hit 1400 bhp like some of the stroker engines by Jonus and the Scandinavian crew

Until you've driven one you can't understand why you would want one, power delivery and torque low and mid range punch is so much better.

2.2 is better for track / hi revving focus as you can get them up to 8500-8600 rpm

Stroker is a street or balls out drag engine

All said don't knock them they have their place, I know members on here trying to tell me not to do it and stick with 2.2 and now they are building strokers engines

keep the 2.2 in this case, the bigger turbo like rusty says for this powerlevel is very good

[GazzaG60]

the capacity will do little extra for the power which is ultimately governed by the airflow provided by the turbo.

the 2.2 will make massive power. as much as the stroker. more even. a stroker maybe can produce an increase with the correct turbo across the lower ranges. i think most of the benifits are masked or enhanced by the fact that strokers have proper istons, balanced, proper rods. in only skimming the stock pistons and weight mtching the scats i cannfeel the difference to a stock I5.

as with anything if you want it go for it. personally i couldn't justify a stroker unless i was looking at 700hp or so. a nic 2.2 does just as well.

its all in the turbo

[Rusty]

Sound is down to the shells being so well sound proofed and the exhaust being silent as stock. 3" system with minimal silencing will sort that for sure.

Inlet wise, a drilled airbox sounds more like a NA car, a cone filter is a little high pitched for me.

You'll be wasting money running a stock turbo on a stroker, the 2.2 is already on the big side for that turbo.

My car was running stock DP and cats when it pulled 297, it was running a stock IC at 294. Whatever the dyno, you're looking at a strong 280+ and over 300ftlbs on a properly running chipped ABY, that's quite enough with a little weight loss TBH, as I'll happily show you if you're ever over near Brissol

IMO, you're better to get the engine, ECU, fuel system etc. etc. fitted and workign first, then see how you get on with a further 100bhp and 150ftlbs Even a standard k24 7000 with a homefries will be seriously fast in that car, perhaps an RS2 upgrade will be more than enough for any future plans. It'll be 200kg lighter than an S2 for stareters and, as DJones will testify, even a proper quattro starts to become a little mad over 400bhp, let alone a CQ. The 2.2 on a 3076 is hitting 500bhp nowadays, that's got to be enough for most! 400-450 on a 3071 and other, similar turbos.

Don't forget to budget for upgrading the chassis (suspension, brakes etc.) to cope with all the extra ponies and weight, that'll cost quite a few £££. Oh, and you'll want better seats too, those OE seats in the B2s are nowhere near supportive enough.

[Jamo]

A RS2 turbo will not bring you just under 450HP on a 2.2L Jamo. Rather under 400HP. You should know!

I didn't say it would make 450 bhp I said if you aiming under 450 bhp

[Rocco]

A RS2 turbo will not bring you just under 450HP on a 2.2L Jamo. Rather under 400HP. You should know!

yes i had a mistake, surelly it was the fast answer and 400hp are a "bit" excesive for RS2 turbo true??