2.2 Turbo, 2.3L Swap or 3.1 Rebuild/Swap?

[Koots]

That's why I want to build my lowly 2.2L. Being a Corsica with a 2.2L and TH125C, it is probably the turdiest L-car possible, but that's what makes for a true sleeper. The only giveaway cosmetically will be the LTZ grille cover and 15% rear tint to distinguish it from the average Grandma Corsica on the road (Coincidentally, this Corsica came from a new Grandma who needed a minivan instead).

Plus, I was quite surprised at how much abuse my old 2.0L could take in my 88 Cavalier. I had the motor seize up 3 or 4 times because of how much oil it would burn and leak, but throw in a few liters of 15W40 and it would start moving again...even if it did sound like a diesel lawnmower. So I'm confident that a carefully built 2.2L could really take some punishment, as long as I keep the boost under double digits for any length of time.

[Koots]

Also, I can definitely turbo this car for less than $2500. I shouldn't have to spend anymore than $1000, but that could change at anytime. I could easily spend close to $500 on a wastegate and BOV, but the stock wastegate should be more than sufficient.

[Koots]

I got one step closer in my modifications today, I went and stripped the entire intake/fuel injection system from this 2000 Sunfire I recently came into possession of...the Previous tenants left it here, I took it as payment for having to clean up all the soiled diapers and garbage they left behind.

Anyway, the fuel rails and injectors will be utilized for a top-feed injector conversion, which will actually allow me to upgrade to any size injector I need. As the stock side feed injectors are capable of fueling on 2-3PSI before you are at 100% duty cycle and running lean.

The manifold and TB may be used as well, but the manifold requires and adapter plate to match up and those cost money...so I'm gonna have to have one designed and machined or just modify the stock manifold (stupid upper plenum with tiny built in throttle body!!!).

This will require tuning, which I've been researching a lot lately, for both my car and my Silverado. If I wanted to go through the trouble, I could swap in this 2200 and tune it with the same tuner as my Silverado (I'm looking at HPTuners), but I think burning my own chips is a simpler answer...

Anyway, just typing out ideas as they come to me All is subject to change

[Rettax3]

So far as the tiny TB, I wouldn't worry that much. It is a major power-limiter as it restricts the flow on the stock setup, but with forced induction, breathing is totally different on the engine's intake side. Look at it this way: what is smaller, the TB at wide open, or the outlet from your turbo's compressor? BTW, if your turbo actually has a larger opening, you seriously need a smaller snail!

It is like the 3400/3.1 hybrid in my '90 turbo 'Retta. I have a fairly aggressively ported set of heads and intake from a 3.1 MPFI turbo LG5 sitting on top of a stock low-mileage 3400. Superdave and others laughed at the setup because the MPFI parts breath so badly compared to the 3X00 engines that even with porting them out the best you can get are flow rates similar to a stock 3400. But, with the turbo pushing air through the intake system at higher pressures and higher velocities, intake flow is no longer the restrictor for power -engine internals and tune are probably the limiting factors on my build, and with stock 3400 injectors on my car I am close to the maximum fuel-flow they can deliver... Plus, higher velocities mean more turbulence in the combustion-chambers which equals more efficiency and increased power, even at less-than-peak RPMs, so optimum intake flow may not mean maximum intake flow... Personally, I would rather have a car with a lot of character that can demolish a stock version of itself than a faster car that anybody can buy. I like your build concept, and applaud your determination on it. I still just feel that your turbo is too big for how you plan on driving your car, and I think you would be a lot happier with a smaller turbo.

[Koots]

I get what you're saying. It's really not necessary to upgrade the TB, but I'll probably end up doing it just because I already have all the parts, including a 56mm TB from a quad 4. This plan does require more work, but will work like stock when it's all done with the ability to upgrade if I decide to push my build a little further.

Having said that, the TB on the 2.2L is only slightly smaller than the 2.8/3.1L, so you are correct in it being more than enough. I am getting way ahead of myself here, but that's what happens when you end up with so many parts to work with....I planned on this car to be a simple commuter, now it's turning into a turbo-sleeper...

[Koots]

Slight delay in my car plans, as I'm going to have to get it on the road ASAP and drive it, work out the kinks and tune it.

My Mom got into an accident and totaled her absolutely MINT 02' Ford Explorer (it was a clean, only had 45,000miles on it and was a pristine and capable little soccer mom SUV...for a Ford). Her insurance is not paying much back on such an old vehicle, so I'm fixing up my 2500HD's little issues and my Dad will take it, then Dad's truck (09 sierra with auto 4WD) will becomes hers.

I will drive exclusively in the car, but that gives me lots of time to become acquainted with it's quirks and conditions. I only drove it for about 3 hours total before I pulled it apart for a headgasket job/exhaust job and floor patching. It has since been 1.5 years and I'm not sure how it's going to run, but I did a lot of work to make sure it was all put back together clean and perfect.

Anyway, c'est la vie But my parents have been very supportive the last few years and it will be nice to give back to them, even in my own stupid way...which is with car stuff and automotive work.

[Koots]

I should add this, The turbo is still in the future. I'll just have to turn it into a daily while I try and gather the remaining parts.

This is something this car was meant to do for a long time now anyway LOL

[Koots]

Well my car is frozen into the ground, so I can either attempt to get it out or I'm stuck with my 2500HD all winter.

Upside to that all, I just ordered HPTuners for it, so once I get the hang of it, I can really have some fun with this thing, hopefully make some money on the side and do my Corsica up right.

So a "Disco Potato" or similar turbo may be in my future.

[SappySE107]

So far as the tiny TB, I wouldn't worry that much. It is a major power-limiter as it restricts the flow on the stock setup, but with forced induction, breathing is totally different on the engine's intake side. Look at it this way: what is smaller, the TB at wide open, or the outlet from your turbo's compressor? BTW, if your turbo actually has a larger opening, you seriously need a smaller snail!

It is like the 3400/3.1 hybrid in my '90 turbo 'Retta. I have a fairly aggressively ported set of heads and intake from a 3.1 MPFI turbo LG5 sitting on top of a stock low-mileage 3400. Superdave and others laughed at the setup because the MPFI parts breath so badly compared to the 3X00 engines that even with porting them out the best you can get are flow rates similar to a stock 3400. But, with the turbo pushing air through the intake system at higher pressures and higher velocities, intake flow is no longer the restrictor for power -engine internals and tune are probably the limiting factors on my build, and with stock 3400 injectors on my car I am close to the maximum fuel-flow they can deliver... Plus, higher velocities mean more turbulence in the combustion-chambers which equals more efficiency and increased power, even at less-than-peak RPMs, so optimum intake flow may not mean maximum intake flow... Personally, I would rather have a car with a lot of character that can demolish a stock version of itself than a faster car that anybody can buy. I like your build concept, and applaud your determination on it. I still just feel that your turbo is too big for how you plan on driving your car, and I think you would be a lot happier with a smaller turbo.

How does restricting airflow increase efficiency in a boosted engine? I am at a loss for what you are stating as facts.

I wouldn't use a 2.2 so I can't really help with the thread. I just skimmed cause I saw 3.1:P

[Koots]

How does restricting airflow increase efficiency in a boosted engine? I am at a loss for what you are stating as facts.

I wouldn't use a 2.2 so I can't really help with the thread. I just skimmed cause I saw 3.1:P

It read as though increasing airflow in a boosted engine was not money efficient, not so much volumetrically efficient. Spending all my time trying to fit a bigger TB wouldn't matter so much once I go turbo.

I used to hate the 2.2L, but they are simple and durable (from my experiences) and will work even better as a turbo sleeper. If I break it, I'll put in another, if I break that one, I'm swapping to 3500 LOL

[SappySE107]

a throttle body on a 2.2 is very different than comparing the gen 2 to the gen 3 in a light that makes that gen 2 look more efficient. Its not. A 2.2 throttle body means practically not a damn thing if you boost it. You will break that motor before you find the limits to the throttle body.

[Rettax3]

So far as the tiny TB, I wouldn't worry that much. It is a major power-limiter as it restricts the flow on the stock setup, but with forced induction, breathing is totally different on the engine's intake side. Look at it this way: what is smaller, the TB at wide open, or the outlet from your turbo's compressor? BTW, if your turbo actually has a larger opening, you seriously need a smaller snail!

It is like the 3400/3.1 hybrid in my '90 turbo 'Retta. I have a fairly aggressively ported set of heads and intake from a 3.1 MPFI turbo LG5 sitting on top of a stock low-mileage 3400. Superdave and others laughed at the setup because the MPFI parts breath so badly compared to the 3X00 engines that even with porting them out the best you can get are flow rates similar to a stock 3400. But, with the turbo pushing air through the intake system at higher pressures and higher velocities, intake flow is no longer the restrictor for power -engine internals and tune are probably the limiting factors on my build, and with stock 3400 injectors on my car I am close to the maximum fuel-flow they can deliver... Plus, higher velocities mean more turbulence in the combustion-chambers which equals more efficiency and increased power, even at less-than-peak RPMs, so optimum intake flow may not mean maximum intake flow... Personally, I would rather have a car with a lot of character that can demolish a stock version of itself than a faster car that anybody can buy. I like your build concept, and applaud your determination on it. I still just feel that your turbo is too big for how you plan on driving your car, and I think you would be a lot happier with a smaller turbo.

How does restricting airflow increase efficiency in a boosted engine? I am at a loss for what you are stating as facts.

I wouldn't use a 2.2 so I can't really help with the thread. I just skimmed cause I saw 3.1:P

Sorry if I was unclear, -in my experiences with motorcycle engines (small engines pushing over 2 HP per cubic inch, normally aspirated -that would be like a 3100 making over 300 HP off the showroom floor), efficiency is everything, and very small changes can result in huge power differences. Smaller carburetors, smaller intake tracts, even restrictive intakes can yield more power at lower RPMs than huge gaping maws -how? It is a fact that combustion-chamber turbulence is, to a point, proportionate to intake velocities. It is further a fact that increased turbulence will also increase flame propagation speed inside the combustion chamber, which increases power and efficiency. But... I did not mean that restrictive intakes in any way increase the power potential of any given engine -just that it might increase its' power at some specific RPMs, somewhere far below peak HP. I also did NOT mean that intake airflow wouldn't limit some engines' power -just not mine or Koots's as we have other limiting factors that we will encounter first. I meant that the tiny 2.2 TB would not be the limiting factor for a turbo-charged build on Koots's engine (I believe we've both stated that pretty clearly). I was just trying to point-out a silver lining in the cloud of limitations... I don't believe that whether or not an engine is boosted would matter to the necessity for turbulence inside the combustion-chamber.

Some of my supposition stated earlier was based on my experience with my 3400/3.1 hybrid mentioned above -the intake runners and upper plenum are so restrictive that the TB's size is not a major limiting factor, and I am assuming that the 2.2 is engineered in a similar way, as it was not built as an RPM engine, like the 2.3 Quad was. Now, putting a 3.1 MPFI TB (or Koots's 2.2 TB) onto a 3400, N/A or boosted, would certainly restrict the intake to the point where power would be lost in most or all mid-range and higher RPM bands, but such an extreme is also not what I was talking about. Likewise, putting a 90mm VH45DE's TB onto the same 3400 won't help it much anywhere, except for maybe peak RPMs, and will likely hurt performance or efficiency in low RPM bands, particularly considering the severe mis-match between TB size and intake inlet diameter.

Going back to the motorcycle engines, which reveal changes so dramatically that they can actually be noticed as evidence, I have an old Kawasaki Z-1, and it was modified with smaller-bore Mikuni carburetors than the stock TBs, and the low-end torque and throttle-response is significantly increased from stock, so much so that I've actually managed to break a drive-chain on it once (this particular bike is down for a turbo-charging and re-styling project, to be finished once I've got a death-wish). Again, this is real-world, this is fact. It also may not translate as well to other engines as I believe it does, so I stand on what I've said, with the acknowledgement that I may not have said it clearly, and that I may actually be wrong about some of it -it wouldn't be the first time. Cheers.

[Koots]

a throttle body on a 2.2 is very different than comparing the gen 2 to the gen 3 in a light that makes that gen 2 look more efficient. Its not. A 2.2 throttle body means practically not a damn thing if you boost it. You will break that motor before you find the limits to the throttle body.

I've pretty much had my mind set on working with my 2.2L for a while now, so I just assumed you knew I was strictly talking about that particular engine. Other have made reference to the V6's but not on my end since the beginning of this thread.

Rettax's point was that it would make no difference to increase the TB size on my 2.2, especially if I were going to boost it. So it's not something in debate anymore, I was just going to use the free 2.3TB I had sitting around on a intake manifold swap I was thinking of doing, but it's a lot of extra work for the size upgrade when a 3.1L has the same diameter TB blade as the 2.2 (my TB is built into the upper intake, so it's not easy to change LOL).

I know lots of people have opinions about the 2.2/2200, of which a lot of it is warranted, but It's not really a concern for me. I'm familiar with it, I like it's low RPM performance in this car and will boost it. I've still got parts to collect to start the strip down for turbocharging, which will eventually include a MLS head gasket, ARP head studs, mild camshaft, performance valve springs and built TH125C as well. I'm not shooting for anymore than 6-8PSI of boost, which is well within the confines of a daily driver 2.2/2200 to survive.

[Rettax3]

a throttle body on a 2.2 is very different than comparing the gen 2 to the gen 3 in a light that makes that gen 2 look more efficient. Its not. A 2.2 throttle body means practically not a damn thing if you boost it. You will break that motor before you find the limits to the throttle body.

I've pretty much had my mind set on working with my 2.2L for a while now, so I just assumed you knew I was strictly talking about that particular engine. Other have made reference to the V6's but not on my end since the beginning of this thread.

Rettax's point was that it would make no difference to increase the TB size on my 2.2, especially if I were going to boost it. So it's not something in debate anymore, I was just going to use the free 2.3TB I had sitting around on a intake manifold swap I was thinking of doing, but it's a lot of extra work for the size upgrade when a 3.1L has the same diameter TB blade as the 2.2 (my TB is built into the upper intake, so it's not easy to change LOL).

I know lots of people have opinions about the 2.2/2200, of which a lot of it is warranted, but It's not really a concern for me. I'm familiar with it, I like it's low RPM performance in this car and will boost it. I've still got parts to collect to start the strip down for turbocharging, which will eventually include a MLS head gasket, ARP head studs, mild camshaft, performance valve springs and built TH125C as well. I'm not shooting for anymore than 6-8PSI of boost, which is well within the confines of a daily driver 2.2/2200 to survive.

Still glad you are going this route, for all the reasons both of us have mentioned. Sorry if some of my off-the wall comments diluted your thread, that wasn't my intent. And WOTTECH, just to be absolutely clear on my meanings, I don't believe the gen 2s to be more efficient than the gen 3s, but I still see other benefits to the older engines (you could say that I find the gen 2s to be more sufficient ), and don't consider them to be a waste of time, just my opinion.

[Koots]

No worries on derailing any of my threads, I just wanted to clear up any confusion WOTTECH may have had in mine and yours' post.