What about taking a 2.2S stock and installing a 2.4 crank? What would that do to the compression? I am a big fan of the 2.2S, but was thinking.... Chris
What about taking a 2.2S stock and installing a 2.4 crank? What would that do to the compression? I am a big fan of the 2.2S, but was thinking.... Chris
- Chris-Early S Registry#205
- '70 911S Tangerine
- '68 911L Euro Ossi Blue
The 2.4 has a different character. The longer stroke makes it less 'rev-happy'. A bit more torque, but a different type of fun. If I had a 2.2S I'd leave it as is.
Now, putting high compression 2.2 pistons in an existing 2.4, that's a different thought. If my 2.4T needed a rebuild, it would probably get higher compression.
- Arne
Current - 2018 718 Cayman, Rhodium Silver, PDK
Sold - 1972 911T coupe, Silver Metallic; 1984 911 Carrera coupe, Chiffon white; 1973 914 2.0, Saturn Yellow; 1984 944, Silver Metallic
Sorry, no disrespect intended but this mantra gets very boring. When non-engine builders and non-racers pontificate about "reving" what is meant exactly? Free reving with no load? Who cares? I'm pretty sure all that matters is what happens when we're assaulting the gas pedal and spiritedly rowing through gears.Originally Posted by Arne
Installing 70.4 crank and rods in a 2.2S is a no brainer. With no other mods this is an easy bump of 20hp to a stock 2.2S. Think about what 20hp and more torque does for "reving" while under load. And if free reving your motor is what you're all about (weird) and you want your high comp 2.4 to "sound" like a short stroke, simply reduce MOI by introducing a plethora of mods including just one of these:
Lightened crank
Ti rods
Lightened flywheel/clutch
With the pricing disparity currently between 66mm and 70.4mm cranks it's actually cheaper to build a high comp 2.4 than a stock 2.2S. As far as remaining "true" to the spirit and character of a 2.2S? Sorry, more hp trumps everything. Plus it's nothing that can't be easily unwound later on.
Ok, off my soapbox.
Duly noted, Frank. My seat time in either 2.2 or 2.4 S's is limited, quite some time ago, not back-to-back, and both were quite stock. I remember the higher compression 2.2 being more engaging and fun. Had the 2.4 had the higher compression of the 2.2, my memories might be completely different.
So I recant my earlier comment, people. Please defer to those who have more recent and broader experience than I do.
- Arne
Current - 2018 718 Cayman, Rhodium Silver, PDK
Sold - 1972 911T coupe, Silver Metallic; 1984 911 Carrera coupe, Chiffon white; 1973 914 2.0, Saturn Yellow; 1984 944, Silver Metallic
I dunno, maybe a different perspective, but when it comes to street cars, for me, character > speed.*
An engine builder I know recently put it better than most writers have (and I'll include myself):
I've nearly stopped referencing HP/torque numbers altogether. What the engine FEELS like while driving is everything. If you want to talk about HP and torque, you should also be asking about what RPM peak torque is at. You should be looking at the area under the curve. Yes, peak HP and peak Torque aren't that much higher, but the area under the curve is larger. So if you're going to propose a by-the-numbers comparison, you SHOULD be looking at far more than just peak HP/torque. It's like deciding if a birthday cake is going to be amazing or mediocre based on sugar quantity. There's so much more to a cake than just sugar. There's so much more to an engine than peak HP/torque.
That really resonates with me, and I've found engine character to be a funny thing. The 2.5-liter 986 had a really sweet engine...it made better noises (especially as Variocam switched over...) than the 2.7, even if the 2.7 had notably better torque. I preferred the smaller engine, and would take a 986 2.5 over a 986 2.7—as I don't much care which one is faster on the street...while the noises it makes matter quite a bit. Conversely, a 2.5-liter E30 M3 is a gem where the standard 2.3 doesn't do much for me. Kinda thrashy, and not as much fun to rev out as the 2.5 (big caveat: the 2.5 was a Metric Mechanic build, not a factory Evo engine). Back to Porsche: The 996 3.4 was sweeter—to me—than the 996 3.6, buuuuut the "same" 3.6 in the 997.1 Carrera had regained a fair bit of sweetness (so Frank is exactly right, there are things you can do, and the three he listed are go-tos). Sharkwerks' 3.9-liter GT3 engine remains the all-time high point for flat six character on the street, pulling smoothly all the way up to 8800 rpm...and I prefer it to the "better"/torquier 4.1 from the same builder.
It also seems like some displacements may suit some engines. Straight sixes seem to like 2.5 and 3.0 liters for some reason...or maybe it's just the particular engines sampled, as I can't claim much seat time in BMWs post 2012~. As for flat sixes, I have yet to meet a 2.5 or 3.4 I don't like, regardless of whether it's air/oil- or water-cooled. Or, for that matter, turbocharged. There's something very sweet about the sound and feel of a 2.0-liter flat six, and a 2.2...and then there are always the really well built outliers. It's funny stuff that probably is tough to put a finger on, and may not be intentional in some cases—but I can see why people can get hung up on it. We car people are a funny bunch…
*Racing, of course, is a different parameter, and I'll take whatever is fastest, thank you.
I will jump on what Pete stated above with a quote from Jim Schrager 'The 1970-to-1971 2.2 liter S with MFI is the absolute top choice. These 2.2 S engines are short-stroke, high-compression powerhouses without substantial emissions-control clutter and they have a powerband with gobs of high-rpm torque. With their MFI still intact, they make a spine-tingling shriek as they shoot to redline'.
I really dig my stock 2.2 S and will never alter it.
Jay
1946 Willys Army Jeep
1956 356A Cab
1957 356A Speedster
1959 Austin-Healey Sprite
1962 356B Notchback
1969 911T 'Speedster'
1971 911S
1974 Ford Ranchero
1986 911 Carrera Cab
1993 Audi V8Q
2001 Mazda Miata 'Daughters Car'
2008 Audi S6
2018 Panamera 4S 'Wife's Car'
Come to Portland, drive my 2.0L S with airport ratio 1-4 and a X 5th. You’ll never entertain modifying your motor again.
Tom F.
'67 911S Slate Gray
'70 911T 2.8 hotrod (in progress)
'92 964
#736
Wait... What?
You deleted my texting/water bottle joke Chuck?
My comment asking how he used all his free time in between 4th/5th was never meant to be inappropriate! I was merely mocking him.
2.2S is a fine motor but to think that it's some type of Nirvana experience is laughable.
I have no intentions of altering the engine in my stock 71S; the power is wonderful.
But that's just because I'm lazy.
Last edited by Frank Beck; 03-08-2019 at 09:24 AM.
..............................
And yet someone so boring can irritate you so much.
My cross to bear.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
