2.2 or 2.4

[pvcar]

well ive been thinking about what engine i want to put in my 72 gt when i get back to the states, im looking at getting one through ogts but not sure which one i want to get, im think either the 2.2 or the 2.4, only thing is i want it to be somewhat quick ive read about having to use the s-10 clutch for the 2.4, what about the 2.2. also will my 32/36 weber be good enough for a 2.2 or 2.4. also what is recommended for the tranny i dont remember but i think i read if u put the 2.4 in u have to change over to the 5 spd because it will destroy the 4spd?also does anyone no what the going price for a new 2.2 or 2.4 is these days? well any thoughts tips or suggestions are welcome.
Spc Juneau

[heimue]

For any engine larger than an original 1.9 you do want the 5-speed. I have the 5-speed on my original Manta 1.9, and it was the best investment after buying the Manta itself.
As far as engine choices: Your wallet decides how big or fast you wanna go.

Dieter

[pvcar]

well i guess that means im gonna get the 5 spd any estimated prices on a good 5 spd? also i saw in a recent post forget were but someone mentioned a 2.4 goes for about 2500 from ogts, price really isnt key in my decision but i think i might go with the 2.2, one thing is how much conversion needs to be done to fit a 2.2 into a gt, ie heater core removed ect. ive got time once i get back and i will be doing all the work myself so that means parts are what im spending the money on. also will the weber 32/36 be enough for the 2.2?
Specialist Juneau out

[RallyBob]

A 2.2 and a 2.4 block are a direct fit into your GT. You will have to swap your 1.9 oil pan and pickup tube to the new engine however. No cutting is required to fit either shortblock, they are dimensionally identical.

If you use the 2.2/2.4 head, then you will either have to use the 2.2 EFI intake (2.4 EFI doesn't fit under the GT's hood), or modify your stock 1.9 intake manifold (welding required) to fit the raised 2.2/2.4 intake ports. A 32/36 Weber will let the engine run, but you will lose a lot of power compared to the stock European HP ratings.

In essence, larger displacement breeds greater torque, but increased airflow adds horsepower. So if you graft the stock 1.9 head, cam, intake, Weber, and exhaust onto a 2.4 block, you will gain virtually no HP....maybe 10 hp due to the higher compression and greater pumping efficiency of the longer stroke engine. But you will primarily gain torque. The only way to gain substantial HP is by upgrading the head, induction, and exhaust over the stock 1.9's systems.

[West Coast GT]

As to your issue regarding a 5-speed; Do go with the 5-speed. Even the stock 1.9 engine needs another gear. I find I don't run out of horsepower at freeway speeds, but rather, I run out of RPMs. You can run @ 70 mph, but you'll be pushing 4k rpm.

I've heard that with an upgraded engine plus 5-speed manual you'll be turning around 2300 rpm @ 70 mph. I'm guessing that even with larger displacement and bigger carb, you'll get better freeway fuel economy. (talk to OpelWasp on this matter, he's upgraded his)

My recommendation: Go with the 5-Speed or you'll be wishing you did every time you climb in your car.

I understand it's a chunk of change, perhaps you can justify it as a part of the combat pay allocated for yourself. Of course, all this can be moot if you have a family, which needs' come ahead of a 5-speed in a two-seater.

[David McCollam]

Used 2.4L running, $2,500 + Freight costs to ship & crating.
9.0 inch Pressure Plate & Clutch Disk, $342.00
Throw Out (release) Bearing, part # 8005 $58.80
Pilot Bearing, part # 8006 $11.00
9.0" USED Flywheel, $120.00
2.4L Flywheel Bolts, part # 6101 (6x needed) $7.20 each

With both the 2.2L & the 2.4L engines Stock EFI, or after market dual side drafts must be used, or the Stock 1.9L intake manifold can be modified to fit.

2.2L USED, Un-Tested & Modified EFI system, $800.00
A Used 2.2L EFI system comes with:
A. Intake Manifold 2.2L (fits 2.2L & 2.4L cylinder heads)
B. Throttle Plate
C. Air Flow Meter
D. Boot, Air Flow Meter to Throttle Body
E. 2.2L, 2.4L Thermostat Housing
F. Fuel Injectors
G. Computer
H. Wiring Harness
I. EFI Distributer & Module

Additional parts needed.

High Pressure Fuel Pump (part # 16022 $209.00)
High Pressure Fuel pump Assembly ($50.00 used)
EFI Fuel Filter (part # 15054 $22.00)
EFI Pre-Filter ( $5.00)
Manta B, EFI Throttle Cable {special order} ( $74.40)
Air Filter Adapter (part # 16001 $65.00)
K&N Filter for Air Filter Adapter (part # 16002 $45.00
or Use a 2.0L Manta B air filter box assembly.
Longer upper radiator hose, most likely cost $19.00 - $33.00 depending upon length needed

@$4330, plus, 5-speed conversion and transmission @$1200-1500.

So, about $6,000, plus labor.

Dave

[RallyBob]

Originally Posted by West Coast GT You can run @ 70 mph, but you'll be pushing 4k rpm. I've heard that with an upgraded engine plus 5-speed manual you'll be turning around 2300 rpm @ 70 mph.

I know Opels are buzzy, but they're not that bad!

Calculating a 3.44 final drive, 1:1 4th gear, 23.39" (165/80-13) tire, you get 3300 rpm @ 70.49 mph. The Getrag 240 overdrive ratio is .805, so that leaves a final drive ratio of 2.7692. Which is about 2650 rpms @ 70.32 mph, or a 700 rpm/19.5% drop at that speed. Opels are just noisy by nature so it always seems like they are revving like crazy on the highway!

Bob

[tekenaar]

Originally Posted by RallyBob A 2.2 and a 2.4 block are a direct fit into your GT. You will have to swap your 1.9 oil pan and pickup tube to the new engine however. No cutting is required to fit either shortblock, they are dimensionally identical. If you use the 2.2/2.4 head, then you will either have to use the 2.2 EFI intake (2.4 EFI doesn't fit under the GT's hood), or modify your stock 1.9 intake manifold (welding required) to fit the raised 2.2/2.4 intake ports. A 32/36 Weber will let the engine run, but you will lose a lot of power compared to the stock European HP ratings. In essence, larger displacement breeds greater torque, but increased airflow adds horsepower. So if you graft the stock 1.9 head, cam, intake, Weber, and exhaust onto a 2.4 block, you will gain virtually no HP....maybe 10 hp due to the higher compression and greater pumping efficiency of the longer stroke engine. But you will primarily gain torque. The only way to gain substantial HP is by upgrading the head, induction, and exhaust over the stock 1.9's systems.

. . . to see 2.4 head/block with modified 2.2FI in GT, click link above.

. . . to see 2.2 SSD engine based on much modified 1.9 head/block with 2.2 crank in GT, click here.

[hrcollinsjr]

What are the different specs and characteristics of the 2.2 vs. 2.4 engines?

Thanks,
Harold

[BobCGT]

Originally Posted by heimue For any engine larger than an original 1.9 you do want the 5-speed. I have the 5-speed on my original Manta 1.9, and it was the best investment after buying the Manta itself. As far as engine choices: Your wallet decides how big or fast you wanna go. Dieter

Last winter,I installed the Getrag 240 and 2.0 EFI from OGTS into my 1.9L GT.

I had a Weber 32/36 prior to the change and while that carb did fine,since the tranny and EFI change,the car is just a pleasure to drive.Starts right now,everytime,engine runs smoother and I really like the extra gear of the 5 speed.The trans seems quieter too,especially on the eway.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by BobCGT especially on the eway.

What's an "Eway" ???

[BobCGT]

Sorry,
Its short for expressway.

[RallyBob]

Originally Posted by hrcollinsjr What are the different specs and characteristics of the 2.2 vs. 2.4 engines? Thanks, Harold

2.2 CIH
The 2.2 is directly based off the 2.0. It uses the same block casting as the 2.0 in fact, only the 'VIN' number identifies it as a 2.2 engine. The crankshaft is forged, with a 77.5 mm stroke (3.051"). It weighs about 2 to 2.25 lbs less than a 1.9 crank, or about 34 lbs. The bore is 95 mm, the total displacement is 2197 cc's. Pistons are flat-top cast aluminum Mahle's with two valve reliefs, with a compression height of 1.619" typically, and a normal 2.0/2.0/5.0 mm ring stack. Rods are 128 mm long (5.039") center-to-center, and are cast steel like the later 1.9's and the 2.0's (as well as interchanging with them).

The head of the 2.2 has raised intake ports (compared to the 1.9's/2.0's), and has factory valves that are 1.77" (45 mm) and 1.57" (40 mm). It has the highest stock intake port flow of any true production CIH Opel head, at 122 cfm. The exhaust port flows 77 cfm. Lifters are hydraulic, cam is comparable to US-spec 1.9's in terms of lift and duration. The valve retainers are improved like the 2.0's, and are not as prone to breakage as the 1.9's. The intake and exhaust valve springs are symmetrical, unlike the 1.9's, and the tapered exhaust spring design is not longer used. There is still an exhaust rotator used, but the spring seat diameter is different than the 1.9's. Apparently only the first year (1984) 2.2 heads did not have hardened exhaust seats, but after that they all have induction hardened seats (not inserts) for use with unleaded fuels. The 2.2 exhaust manifold is not far from the 2.0 manifold in terms of air flow. With the factory EFI (there was a less common version with an electronic carburetor), the engine is rated at 115 ps (metric horsepower), or about 113 SAE net HP.

2.4 CIH
The 2.4 differs in a number of ways. The block is specific to this engine, and has reliefs cast into the crankcase to clearance the reciprocating parts. The bore is still 95 mm, and the total displacement is 2410 cc's. The 85 mm (3.346") stroke crankshaft is also forged, and normally has 8 counterweights instead of the usual 4, and it weighs about 43 lbs. This crankshaft also has fine-thread flywheel attachment bolts, again, the only production version of the 4-cylinder CIH's to vary from the 'norm'. There are apparently some versions that have a lighter 4-counterweight crank, but I have not seen one personally. The connecting rods are forged, and measure 134 mm (2.755") from center-to-center. The small end is bronze bushed for a floating pin, and the pin diameter is 22 mm, instead of the 'normal' 23 mm. The big end of the rods use the same journal diameter as the other CIH's, but the rod bearings are unique to this engine, they do not interchange with the other 4-cylinder CIH engines. Pistons are cast Mahles, and have a factory dish of about 11.8 cc's. The rings are smaller than the other CIH engines too, at 1.5/1.5/3.0 mm thick.

The 2.4 head at first glance looks identical to the 2.2, but there are some minor differences. The valves are the same size as a 2.2, but they feature a chrome-plated stem for increased wear resistance compared to the 2.2. Viton valve stem seals were used on this head for the first time. The port locations are identical, but the intake ports are a bit smaller than the 2.2's (floor is raised 1/16"), and they flow less, only 110 cfm. The exhaust ports are in fact larger than the 2.2's, mostly in width, and they flow 93 cfm.
The cam is negligibly different, for all intents the same. Lifters are again hydraulic. The 2.4 exhaust manifold is substantially larger than all the other CIH versions, and can support quite a lot of power. The outlet flange is larger too, so bigger downpipes may be added. The most noticeable improvement is the 2.4 EFI intake, and engine management. The previous CIH's all used some form of L-Jetronic or LE-Jetronic, which are relatively primitive, but the 2.4 stepped up to Motronic EFI and a crank-triggered ignition system. The intake manifold also has longer runners of appreciably larger cross-section than the 2.2 intake, however it is large enough to not fit under the hood of many versions of US Opels (especially GT's!). The 2.4 was rated at 128 PS, or about 125 SAE net HP.

HTH,
Bob

[hrcollinsjr]

Bob,

That was part of what I was looking for. Now for the other part, "seat of the pants" differences?

Thanks,
Harold

[RallyBob]

Originally Posted by hrcollinsjr Bob, That was part of what I was looking for. Now for the other part, "seat of the pants" differences? Thanks, Harold

It depends again. Most 2.4's don't have the complete 2.4 supporting components (intake/EFI/exhaust manifold), and are therefore choked down. To me stock 2.4's are very boring. Stock 2.2's are probably equally boring, but they don't feel as sluggish.

For my money, a stock 2.2 is more 'spirited' than a 2.4, it certainly revs quicker. And 2.2's tend to be cheaper. Throw in 97 mm forged pistons, early forged 1.9 rods, and you have a 2291 cc engine that loves to rev to 8000 rpms! And you still have money left over for improved induction and a strong camshaft.

The 2.4 has more grunt down low, but it peaks at 4800 rpms, and it pretty much falls on it's face after that thanks to the mild cam and the large displacement. It is slow to rev, but smooth. 2.4's need a BIG cam to feel somewhat sporty.

If we are talking modified engines then the 2.4 has more potential in terms of sheer displacement, but I still like the 2.2 crank for some reason. I've revved prepped 2.2 shortblocks to 9500 rpms. 2.4's...not so much!

[hrcollinsjr]

Bob,

I did have a clue but wanted a confirmation.

THANKS!

Harold

[neuropel]

Bob,

Is all this information just off the top of your head?

Todd

Originally Posted by RallyBob 2.2 CIH The 2.2 is directly based off the 2.0. It uses the same block casting as the 2.0 in fact, only the 'VIN' number identifies it as a 2.2 engine. The crankshaft is forged, with a 77.5 mm stroke (3.051"). It weighs about 2 to 2.25 lbs less than a 1.9 crank, or about 34 lbs. The bore is 95 mm, the total displacement is 2197 cc's. Pistons are flat-top cast aluminum Mahle's with two valve reliefs, with a compression height of 1.619" typically, and a normal 2.0/2.0/5.0 mm ring stack. Rods are 128 mm long (5.039") center-to-center, and are cast steel like the later 1.9's and the 2.0's (as well as interchanging with them). The head of the 2.2 has raised intake ports (compared to the 1.9's/2.0's), and has factory valves that are 1.77" (45 mm) and 1.57" (40 mm). It has the highest stock intake port flow of any true production CIH Opel head, at 122 cfm. The exhaust port flows 77 cfm. Lifters are hydraulic, cam is comparable to US-spec 1.9's in terms of lift and duration. The valve retainers are improved like the 2.0's, and are not as prone to breakage as the 1.9's. The intake and exhaust valve springs are symmetrical, unlike the 1.9's, and the tapered exhaust spring design is not longer used. There is still an exhaust rotator used, but the spring seat diameter is different than the 1.9's. Apparently only the first year (1984) 2.2 heads did not have hardened exhaust seats, but after that they all have induction hardened seats (not inserts) for use with unleaded fuels. The 2.2 exhaust manifold is not far from the 2.0 manifold in terms of air flow. With the factory EFI (there was a less common version with an electronic carburetor), the engine is rated at 115 ps (metric horsepower), or about 113 SAE net HP. 2.4 CIH The 2.4 differs in a number of ways. The block is specific to this engine, and has reliefs cast into the crankcase to clearance the reciprocating parts. The bore is still 95 mm, and the total displacement is 2410 cc's. The 85 mm (3.346") stroke crankshaft is also forged, and normally has 8 counterweights instead of the usual 4, and it weighs about 43 lbs. This crankshaft also has fine-thread flywheel attachment bolts, again, the only production version of the 4-cylinder CIH's to vary from the 'norm'. There are apparently some versions that have a lighter 4-counterweight crank, but I have not seen one personally. The connecting rods are forged, and measure 134 mm (2.755") from center-to-center. The small end is bronze bushed for a floating pin, and the pin diameter is 22 mm, instead of the 'normal' 23 mm. The big end of the rods use the same journal diameter as the other CIH's, but the rod bearings are unique to this engine, they do not interchange with the other 4-cylinder CIH engines. Pistons are cast Mahles, and have a factory dish of about 11.8 cc's. The rings are smaller than the other CIH engines too, at 1.5/1.5/3.0 mm thick. The 2.4 head at first glance looks identical to the 2.2, but there are some minor differences. The valves are the same size as a 2.2, but they feature a chrome-plated stem for increased wear resistance compared to the 2.2. Viton valve stem seals were used on this head for the first time. The port locations are identical, but the intake ports are a bit smaller than the 2.2's (floor is raised 1/16"), and they flow less, only 110 cfm. The exhaust ports are in fact larger than the 2.2's, mostly in width, and they flow 93 cfm. The cam is negligibly different, for all intents the same. Lifters are again hydraulic. The 2.4 exhaust manifold is substantially larger than all the other CIH versions, and can support quite a lot of power. The outlet flange is larger too, so bigger downpipes may be added. The most noticeable improvement is the 2.4 EFI intake, and engine management. The previous CIH's all used some form of L-Jetronic or LE-Jetronic, which are relatively primitive, but the 2.4 stepped up to Motronic EFI and a crank-triggered ignition system. The intake manifold also has longer runners of appreciably larger cross-section than the 2.2 intake, however it is large enough to not fit under the hood of many versions of US Opels (especially GT's!). The 2.4 was rated at 128 PS, or about 125 SAE net HP. HTH, Bob

[pvcar]

sounds like i should go for the 2.2, im not sure if i really want to tear apart a engine i just bought to put pistons and rods in. also is the opel fuel injection very reliable and easy to tune or should i start thinking side draft carbs, i really like the 32/36 but from what ive read the fuel injection is a good way to go. heres my price list and items i will need to get,
-2.2 engine from ogts estimated price 2000
-5 spd conversion for gt 1500
-new clutch/fly wheel, and all the little things 500
-2.2 intake $???
$4000
with f/i
-fuel injection and all the little things 1400
$5400 with fuel injection
looks to be about what i expected, i just hope it will be a quick install, i wont have to pay freight since ill just take a trip up to ogts in my truck and pick everything up. that hazardous duty pay is looking like a nice gt upgrade. how much does a 2.2 intake manifold cost? im just trying to get everything straight so i can have this done as soon as i get back although i still have about 5 months left i like to think ahead.
Specialist Juneau out

[Paul]

Originally Posted by pvcar . also is the opel fuel injection very reliable and easy to tune or should i start thinking side draft carbs, Specialist Juneau out

The FI from the 75 Opel is analog and not considered to be tunable. There are a few small tweaks, but not tunable like digital.... However, installing a MegaSquirt with a Ford EDIS and Nissan/Infinity throttle body will would be everything you want....

[72Rallye]

Bob wrote about the 2.2 CIH: "... and a normal 2.0/2.0/5.0 mm ring stack."
Were there different versions? I have two sets of used 2.2 pistons and they have 1.75/1.5/3.5 rings. On one set the top groove is wide enough to fit a 2.0mm ring, but I always assumed it to be worn out.
I remember hearing something about a piston ring problem with the 2.2 leading to oil smoking. Did they change pistons in later years?
An unrelated question: when milling a piston, what is the minimum safe ring-to-piston-top distance.
Sorry about deviating from the original post subject.

Thomas

[RallyBob]

Originally Posted by neuropel Bob, Is all this information just off the top of your head? Todd

Afraid so. I gotta get a life.

[namba209]

Sorry to hijhack this thread. But I gotta know, 72 Rallye (Thomas), where you at here inSANe Diego, and are you going to the OMC picnic this weekend?

[azopelnut]

Just to clarify Ron, the picnic is next weekend....does that mean you will be there...????

[RallyBob]

Originally Posted by 72Rallye Bob wrote about the 2.2 CIH: "... and a normal 2.0/2.0/5.0 mm ring stack." Were there different versions? I have two sets of used 2.2 pistons and they have 1.75/1.5/3.5 rings. On one set the top groove is wide enough to fit a 2.0mm ring, but I always assumed it to be worn out. I remember hearing something about a piston ring problem with the 2.2 leading to oil smoking. Did they change pistons in later years? An unrelated question: when milling a piston, what is the minimum safe ring-to-piston-top distance. Sorry about deviating from the original post subject. Thomas

Thomas, I've only seen the wider rings on these pistons, but it's entirely possible Opel made changes over the years. They did have a problem with the skirts collapsing on 2.2's as well. Every one I've torn apart had some degree of piston skirt taper...about .005" is normal from my experience. The pistons rock, and the rings lose their seal.

As far as the top ring height relative to the piston top, it depends on the piston material and the heat the rings will be subjected to, as well as the potential of detonation. For forced induction or nitrous, pistons are designed with the top ring substantially lower on the piston to reduce heat damage.

For N/A racing use on aftermarket forged pistons, I have had the top rings as close as .220" from the top of the piston. For forced induction I usually design the pistons with .325" to .375" distance here. If the piston is cast, then it will be more sensitive to damage from detonation, so you want to err on the safe side.

Bob

[tekenaar]

Originally Posted by RallyBob 2.2 CIH The 2.2 is directly based off the 2.0. It uses the same block casting as the 2.0 in fact, only the 'VIN' number identifies it as a 2.2 engine. The crankshaft is forged, with a 77.5 mm stroke (3.051"). It weighs about 2 to 2.25 lbs less than a 1.9 crank, or about 34 lbs. The bore is 95 mm, the total displacement is 2197 cc's. Pistons are flat-top cast aluminum Mahle's with two valve reliefs, with a compression height of 1.619" typically, and a normal 2.0/2.0/5.0 mm ring stack. Rods are 128 mm long (5.039") center-to-center, and are cast steel like the later 1.9's and the 2.0's (as well as interchanging with them). The head of the 2.2 has raised intake ports (compared to the 1.9's/2.0's), and has factory valves that are 1.77" (45 mm) and 1.57" (40 mm). It has the highest stock intake port flow of any true production CIH Opel head, at 122 cfm. The exhaust port flows 77 cfm. Lifters are hydraulic, cam is comparable to US-spec 1.9's in terms of lift and duration. The valve retainers are improved like the 2.0's, and are not as prone to breakage as the 1.9's. The intake and exhaust valve springs are symmetrical, unlike the 1.9's, and the tapered exhaust spring design is not longer used. There is still an exhaust rotator used, but the spring seat diameter is different than the 1.9's. Apparently only the first year (1984) 2.2 heads did not have hardened exhaust seats, but after that they all have induction hardened seats (not inserts) for use with unleaded fuels. The 2.2 exhaust manifold is not far from the 2.0 manifold in terms of air flow. With the factory EFI (there was a less common version with an electronic carburetor), the engine is rated at 115 ps (metric horsepower), or about 113 SAE net HP. 2.4 CIH The 2.4 differs in a number of ways. The block is specific to this engine, and has reliefs cast into the crankcase to clearance the reciprocating parts. The bore is still 95 mm, and the total displacement is 2410 cc's. The 85 mm (3.346") stroke crankshaft is also forged, and normally has 8 counterweights instead of the usual 4, and it weighs about 43 lbs. This crankshaft also has fine-thread flywheel attachment bolts, again, the only production version of the 4-cylinder CIH's to vary from the 'norm'. There are apparently some versions that have a lighter 4-counterweight crank, but I have not seen one personally. The connecting rods are forged, and measure 134 mm (2.755" ) from center-to-center. The small end is bronze bushed for a floating pin, and the pin diameter is 22 mm, instead of the 'normal' 23 mm. The big end of the rods use the same journal diameter as the other CIH's, but the rod bearings are unique to this engine, they do not interchange with the other 4-cylinder CIH engines. Pistons are cast Mahles, and have a factory dish of about 11.8 cc's. The rings are smaller than the other CIH engines too, at 1.5/1.5/3.0 mm thick. The 2.4 head at first glance looks identical to the 2.2, but there are some minor differences. The valves are the same size as a 2.2, but they feature a chrome-plated stem for increased wear resistance compared to the 2.2. Viton valve stem seals were used on this head for the first time. The port locations are identical, but the intake ports are a bit smaller than the 2.2's (floor is raised 1/16"), and they flow less, only 110 cfm. The exhaust ports are in fact larger than the 2.2's, mostly in width, and they flow 93 cfm. The cam is negligibly different, for all intents the same. Lifters are again hydraulic. The 2.4 exhaust manifold is substantially larger than all the other CIH versions, and can support quite a lot of power. The outlet flange is larger too, so bigger downpipes may be added. The most noticeable improvement is the 2.4 EFI intake, and engine management. The previous CIH's all used some form of L-Jetronic or LE-Jetronic, which are relatively primitive, but the 2.4 stepped up to Motronic EFI and a crank-triggered ignition system. The intake manifold also has longer runners of appreciably larger cross-section than the 2.2 intake, however it is large enough to not fit under the hood of many versions of US Opels (especially GT's!). The 2.4 was rated at 128 PS, or about 125 SAE net HP. HTH, Bob

Mighty short rod in that 2.4 engine . . .

. . . 134 mm = 5.2755" maybe . . .