Long rod motors? - Page 2

**Shane@DBPerformance** · 08-12-2005

Steve, I only reved yours a bit past 8000 on the dyno. We had it set at 8000 most of the runs, then I bumped it up to 8200, to keep from hitting it so often. Fix the fuel and lets turn the boost up to 35psi.

Running a 2.4l at 8500 is like running a 2.0l at 9600. The piston speeds are very high at those RPMs. Probably a decent amount past what most V8 engine building books would consider reasonable for even a race motor.

Getting a DSM to make good power past 8500 RPMs anyways takes a lot more parts and work than most have. Back on my 2.0l, I think my peak power was around 7500, while on the 2.4l, peak power is around 6600.

Pushit2.0 · 08-12-2005

By the book a 60-1 is a bad turbo for a DSM, but it sure seems to work just fine for most people. books and real world they are different, sometimes.

~John

**Shane@DBPerformance** · 08-12-2005

Yea, Isaacs didn't like over 30psi much.

**1ViciousGSX** · 08-12-2005

6 one way, half a dozen the other.

If you are building a "high end" engine with aftermarket rods and pistons, there really isn't that much of a cost difference. So take your pick.

**1ViciousGSX** · 08-12-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by EclipseGST

Off topic: Welcome back Mike.

Thanks, glad to back.

TrboVan · 08-12-2005

Interesting topic.
My stock 2.2 liter mopar could only rev to about 6,250 before losing power.
Now on my new race motor I went with a long rod setup and 2.5 pistons to see if I can get it to go at least 7,000.
Hopefully someday I can make it to the track and see if it was all worth it!

-Bryan

**Shane@DBPerformance** · 08-12-2005

I would think your head or intake manifold would be the main reason for a lack of topend power on the 2.2l motor.

TrboVan · 08-12-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecoli

I would think your head or intake manifold would be the main reason for a lack of topend power on the 2.2l motor.

Head I agree,
Intake I do not. I have a hard time believing that the intake tract has anything to do with the power being made.
Show me some plots that show someone making more power due to an intake only change. (no other changes). I will even accept throttle body size.

-Bryan

**1ViciousGSX** · 08-12-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecoli

I would think your head or intake manifold would be the main reason for a lack of topend power on the 2.2l motor.

DITTO

**1ViciousGSX** · 08-12-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrboVan

Head I agree,
Intake I do not. I have a hard time believing that the intake tract has anything to do with the power being made.
Show me some plots that show someone making more power due to an intake only change. (no other changes). I will even accept throttle body size.

-Bryan

WHAT!?!?!?!

I guess that's why people do back-to-back dyno runs that show improvements after changing from a stock intake to a SMIM. Put a 2g intake on a 1g and see what happens.

TrboVan · 08-12-2005

Must be something inherant to the damn 2.2
Noone I know has made more power with an intake change.
Then again, it is back-yard style intakes with Old Milwaukee telling the guy where to out the welds.

**Shane@DBPerformance** · 08-12-2005

I don't actually know anything about the 2.2l intake manifold, just generalizing. Usually on most kinds of cars, top end power fall off can be fixed by cams, or big plenum/short runner intake manifold, or some head work. Sheetmetal intakes often help DSMs in the upper RPMs more than cams do.

SlowWhite · 08-12-2005

I'll see what the turbo does, if it continues to make more airflow the higher it goes I'll continue to raise the Rev limit.

slowbubblecar · 08-12-2005

I kind of doubt the turbo will be making more power higher than your 8500 redline.

**Goat Blower** · 08-12-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecoli

Steve, I only reved yours a bit past 8000 on the dyno. We had it set at 8000 most of the runs, then I bumped it up to 8200, to keep from hitting it so often. Fix the fuel and lets turn the boost up to 35psi.

Ahh, I thought you said we had the limit at 8500. Whew, I feel better.

Actually, it runs like a champ, I just set it back to AWD, time to go test her out.

08-12-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by JET

What the hell are you talking about?? The crank doesn't get changed at all, just the rods and pistons.

with regard to a dry sump, once you start using one the crank doesn't have to plow through all the oil in pan since the scavenger pumps keep the oil level in the shallow (custom) pan very low. i would call that less parasitic drag.

i never mentioned anything about changing the crank.

**JET** · 08-12-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by mastadonic

with regard to a dry sump, once you start using one the crank doesn't have to plow through all the oil in pan since the scavenger pumps keep the oil level in the shallow (custom) pan very low. i would call that less parasitic drag.

i never mentioned anything about changing the crank.

Next time mention what you are talking about. You didn't mention anything about talking about the dry sump system. You can't expect us to read your mind.

**Shane@DBPerformance** · 08-13-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by mastadonic

with regard to a dry sump, once you start using one the crank doesn't have to plow through all the oil in pan since the scavenger pumps keep the oil level in the shallow (custom) pan very low. i would call that less parasitic drag.

i never mentioned anything about changing the crank.

The crank doesn't plow through oil in a normal wet sump either. The oil level is well below where the crank spins.

SlowWhite · 08-13-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowbubblecar

I kind of doubt the turbo will be making more power higher than your 8500 redline.

Edit - Probably right Just looked at my dyno charts again right at 8K my power band starts to drop down a little. So that'll probably fallow suit once I rev to 8500rpms. Hopefully won't be that much of a power drop like my 20G used to do.

slowbubblecar · 08-13-2005

That would be one huge turbo if it did that. I am sure the turbo you got will put down good power high up but not higher at 8500 than 8000.