2.2 Need More Power

[Bert]

^^^^^^^^^ That transmission is simply gorgeous. What paint did you use for the casing?
Are the side cover and intermediate plate from California Motorsports?
Johan

No paint for the mag case. It was tumbled to clean up the surface. It will oxidize eventually.

The side cover is from Guard Transmission. There is also a LSD hiding behind it.

The intermediate plate is from Carquip.

I also have short 2,3,4 gears with a freeway 5th gear.

[Richy]

Sorry about the confusion UWAN . but a stock 2.4S has a specified CR of 8.5 to 1 , but in reality is around 8.2 to 1 . Relatively low , so therefore the popular 2.2S piston mod , which requires some caution so the CR won't be too high .

[stout]

No paint for the mag case. It was tumbled to clean up the surface. It will oxidize eventually.

The side cover is from Guard Transmission. There is also a LSD hiding behind it.

The intermediate plate is from Carquip.

I also have short 2,3,4 gears with a freeway 5th gear.

Fabulous setup, Bert.

901 goals…

[Uwon]

No paint for the mag case. It was tumbled to clean up the surface. It will oxidize eventually.

The side cover is from Guard Transmission. There is also a LSD hiding behind it.

The intermediate plate is from Carquip.

I also have short 2,3,4 gears with a freeway 5th gear.

Agreed. Nice setup.
Good to know for when I get into the 901.
Cheers,
Johan

[Jonny042]

I've read the following article many times over the years, it might provide some food for thought:

https://www.excellence-mag.com/issue...troke-shootout

I've also read in various places that the non-counterweighted "T" crank is actually plenty strong and is nice and light. Perhaps others could chime in....

Assuming you keep the 2.2T crank, a 2.5 build would be possible - get some 2.7 cylinders re-plated, JE pistons with the appropriate dome volume to give an appropriate compression ratio for 91 octane, port the heads to "S" specs, some new cams to suit, and Pauter makes a nice lightweight 130mm rod (495 grams!) and etc.

We'll talk about MFI later but seriously, carbs might be more simple.....

As for the car being too ugly to show off - everyone likes a "before" photo!!!!

[Jonny042]

My engine gained 35 hp and a lot of driveability on the dyno, but to our dismay lost nearly 20 horses when the factory airbox went back on and we tried one last run. It gained about 12 hp back after we pulled the snorkel and air filter out to try one more pull, but it was the end of the day. I have since added a GT3 Cup-style filter setup to the factory airbox, but have not been back to the dyno. I'll "guess" that the engine loses 8-10 hp with the airbox. I am curious what it would make with rain hats, but I prefer the aesthetics and acoustics with the airbox.

I read this with interest (and horror!)..... don't want to sidetrack Johan's thread but would be interested if anyone has any more experience with a similar power loss using the factory airbox. I recently completed a pretty hot short stroke 3.2 with a custom big bore (41mm throttles, larger stacks) MFI system. I'm running the stock 2.4 air box with a K&N filter. Haven't been to the dyno, but looks like something I might need to focus on. If a relatively small motor is choking on the airbox I can't imagine what might be happening with mine.

[Jeff Higgins]

I just read through this entire thread, and I'm kind of surprised that no one has asked already - so I will. What exactly is this motor right now? You say you have a build sheet - could you share it? The only reason I ask is that, in this day and age, it would be a bit unusual for someone to rebuild a motor to dead stock 2.2 T specs. Does it already have different P's & C's, different cams, etc.? The Webers stand out as non-standard (T's had Zeniths), so is there a possibility other items were upgraded?

[stout]

I read this with interest (and horror!)..... don't want to sidetrack Johan's thread but would be interested if anyone has any more experience with a similar power loss using the factory airbox. I recently completed a pretty hot short stroke 3.2 with a custom big bore (41mm throttles, larger stacks) MFI system. I'm running the stock 2.4 air box with a K&N filter. Haven't been to the dyno, but looks like something I might need to focus on. If a relatively small motor is choking on the airbox I can't imagine what might be happening with mine.

Right?

Asked here and elsewhere after that day on the dyno, and searched a lot of forums re: this issue. Very little good info out there. IIRC: There are definitely different snorkels, a lot of snorkels have been modified (cut short, typically), aftermarket "Cup style" filter mounts (I moved to one of these—thanks Marco!), metal housings and plastic airbox housings (though there seems to be disagreement about when each was used, and on what, and whether the various metal or various plastic airboxes for carbs and/or MFI are the same internally), and various opinions re: the phasing within the airbox not being all that great.

I prefer the factory airbox over rain hats when it comes to intake noise, but would love to know more about what works with what, any tricks to ensure you're not losing power or too much power, etc. Hard to believe it cuts 8-20 hp, as Porsche used it for a very long time and that's a lot of power to leave on the table—even in the 911 SC/RS…

[Jeff Higgins]

Right?

Asked here and elsewhere after that day on the dyno, and searched a lot of forums re: this issue. Very little good info out there. IIRC: There are definitely different snorkels, a lot of snorkels have been modified (cut short, typically), aftermarket "Cup style" filter mounts (I moved to one of these—thanks Marco!), metal housings and plastic airbox housings (though there seems to be disagreement about when each was used, and on what, and whether the various metal or various plastic airboxes for carbs and/or MFI are the same internally), and various opinions re: the phasing within the airbox not being all that great.

I prefer the factory airbox over rain hats when it comes to intake noise, but would love to know more about what works with what, any tricks to ensure you're not losing power or too much power, etc. Hard to believe it cuts 8-20 hp, as Porsche used it for a very long time and that's a lot of power to leave on the table—even in the 911 SC/RS…

I've had trouble finding definitive information as well. Or even any consistency. I've seen dyno charts indicating that the stock housing makes more power than rain hats or open stacks, and I've seen those results reversed. I started getting curious many years ago (15 or more) when a bunch of us local R Gruppers got together for a dyno day, and one of the guys brought enough in the way of different intake and exhaust set-ups to run a bit of an informal comparison.

The car had a 2.2 "S" spec motor. He brought the stock metal air cleaner housing and a pair of rain hats with K&N filters underneath. Exhaust was SSI's, with two muffler options, a Leisritz dual out sport muffler and a Dansk single out sport muffler. We ran four intake configurations - housing with and without filter installed, rain hats with filters, and open stacks. Each of these were run with both mufflers, for a total of eight configurations (fortunately, there were about a dozen cars there, so we had time to swap components while others were on the dyno). The day's "winner", surprisingly, was the stock housing with the filter teamed with the single out.

There really wasn't a big spread with regards to the "peak" numbers, maybe eight to ten hp and ft lbs. We didn't really get all analytical regarding "area under the curve", but the smoothest lines, lacking in any peaks and valleys or flat spots, was also with the "stock" setup. One huge caveat to all of this, however, was that this was an MFI car, and it arrived tuned for the stock set-up, with no effort being made to make any adjustments for the changes in intake and exhaust.

At the end of the day I think we all decided just to run whatever looks pretty and sounds good. None of it made a big enough difference on a stock, street going 2.2 "S" motor to entice one to sacrifice sound or looks for some blistering increase in performance. It just wasn't there to be had.

[G69]

My '69S is stronger with the factory airbox than with a lightweight K&N filter. I'm thinking the K&N's lid was too close to the tops of the velocity stacks and caused problems. The factory airbox has a nice crown over the stacks. I don't use a snorkel- I bought an additional one and cut off the snorkel. You will find if you are running MFI that every change above the stacks will require a new mixture setting. That's why CMA is so strict about new air filter, ect.

One has to wonder if a design team who can build a MFI flat six is asleep at the wheel with the air cleaner...

It's possible my car would be stronger WITH the snorkel- Ha I like the sound.

There's no doubt straight stacks is best. It got too loud for a street car for me.



https://youtu.be/HMadYY5JQmA

(No this isn't my car-)