[GThound]

Hello,
the easiest way and without too much hassle is to mount Wiseco CIH 2.4 pistons, height of 31.15 and diameter 96 (4 Wiseco ASC-07351 Opel Custom 1.020 X 3.8380 Forged Performance Pistons) with Toyota connecting rods length 138mm x55mmx22mm only the width is to be reduced ( Connecting Rods for Toyota Camry MR2 Celica GT SX 5SFE 5S-FE 2.2L ) on a 2.2 cih
;-)

That sounds like a good recipe. I would give it a go if I had a 2.2 Liter CIH. I am starting with a 1.9 liter and stroking the crank to get it to 2.4 liters. I like the idea of custom pistons to dial in the pin height, compression ratio, etc. I will keep on the lookout for a 2.2 liter block, but likely to the 1.9 liter starting point due to availability and cost.

 

[Commodåren]

Easier and cheaper to just use the stock 2,2 crank, bore a 2 or 2,2 liter block to 97 mm and buy a set of Wiseco pistons with the stock 2,2 compression height. Enem used to sell ones back in the day. Rod ratio 1,65. Displacement 2291cm³.

 

[kwilford]

Easier and cheaper to just use the stock 2,2 crank, bore a 2 or 2,2 liter block to 97 mm and buy a set of Wiseco pistons with the stock 2,2 compression height. Enem used to sell ones back in the day. Rod ratio 1,65. Displacement 2291cm³.

Speaking out of turn, but perhaps understanding the OP's practicalities, Opel CIH's 2.0 and especially 2.2 engines are rare to non existent in North America.

He has a 1.9 engine that he wishes to stroke it's crank and bore out the cylinders, using aftermarket pistons and rods. So perhaps a workable option from your suggestion is to get his 1.9 crank stroked from 69.8 mm to the CIH 2.2 spec 77.5 mm, and the Wiseco 97 mm pistons. But he still needs rods to match the stroke and piston pin-to-deck height.

 

[Commodåren]

I know that he has a 1,9 block, but he wrote "I will be on the lookout for a 2,2 liter block". As I understood it, the previous poster suggested a 2,2 liter engine using Toyota rods and custom made pistons, so I just told a cheaper and easier alternative using a stock(or welded) 2,2 crank and stock 2,2 compression height Wiseco pistons. And stock 1,5 to 2,2 128 mm rods(which I forgot to mention in my previous post). No extra machining besides boring, except bushing the small ends for 22 mm pins.

 

[Autoholic]

Something to consider in this is cost. He wants to keep it as inexpensive as possible. He already has a stock set of 2.4 rods on hand. Buying custom pistons to go with those rods will likely cost less than buying stock rods for a Toyota and stock pistons for a 2.2 CIH. A set of Toyota rods will cost you at least $400 and a set of 2.2 CIH pistons from Wiseco will cost you at least $600. I just looked these up to get an idea on prices. So we're talking roughly $1000 to go with that option, over paying Wiseco for a custom set of pistons that will cost a little more than their stock pistons. He could even just use the C24NE pistons, if the 1.9 crank can be worked for an 85mm stroke.

This is going to be a street engine, right? If that's correct, then the regular 2.4 stroke can provide plenty of torque. I use to think I want a high revving engine too until I really thought about it. In a street driven vehicle, you rarely need that. If you want a fast street car, you want an engine with plenty of low end torque. In this application, it's perfectly fine for the engine to top out at 6,000 RPM.

 

[GThound]

I am getting ready to send out my crank shaft for welding and offset grinding and have a few observations and questions.

Here is a 1.9 rod (128 mm) on the left and a 2.4 rod (134 mm) on the right.

Yes, forged, 134 mm long, and bronze-bushed for 22 mm floating pins.

Just as Bob indicated, the small end of the rods are brass bushed and there is an oiling hole to lubricate the floating pins. See the yellow circled area in the pic below. Thumbs up. 👍 Good news.

What confuses / concerns is that there doesn’t appear to be an oiling hole for the main bearings on the big end of the 2.4 forged rods. I see an oiling hole on the stock 1.9 rod yellow circled on the left but no oiling hole on the 2.4 rod on the right. Help me understand what I am missing and if I should be concerned.

The second question is related to the thrust bearing. I have heard that it is best to send it along with the crank to avoid the need to have the crank machines again locally. I like the efficiency of doing it all at once if I can. That said, I was not planning to buy bearings until after the crank is stroked. But it seems that the thrust bearing comes with the other main bearings. So how do I get the proper sized thrust bearing? Do I just need to get it undersized? To me that makes sense as the surface of the crank seems to be some surface corrosion in that area.

Lastly, as i am treading new ground f(for me) any advice on brand and sourcing of main bearings? I am going to hold off on rod bearings until I get the crank back.

 

[RallyBob]

Weirdly, some 2.4 rods have the oiling holes and some do not.

Like the 1.9 rods, it’s just to spray extra oil under the pistons.

FWIW, aftermarket rods don’t have this hole at all, and they last just fine. I suspect the oiling has more to do with attaining 200,000+ mile reliability rather that anything else.

Here is a 2.4 rod I prepped years ago. As you can see, it has the oil holes.

 

[GThound]

Weirdly, some 2.4 rods have the oiling holes and some do not.

Like the 1.9 rods, it’s just to spray extra oil under the pistons.

FWIW, aftermarket rods don’t have this hole at all, and they last just fine. I suspect the oiling has more to do with attaining 200,000+ mile reliability rather that anything else.

Here is a 2.4 rod I prepped years ago. As you can see, it has the oil holes. View attachment 454840 View attachment 454841 View attachment 454842

Thank you Bob. That is good news. I did try to fit the 2.4 rods and bearings on the 1.9 crankshaft and they fit as expected.this, I will proceed with the 2.4 forged rods and have crankshaft craftsmen turn the rod journals back to factory spec.

I just need to figure out what to do regarding the new thrust. Any idea which way the dimension changes? Do thrusts change in diameter to accommodate turning down of the crank journal or is there wear I need to measure in terms of the width of the seat on a CIH engine?

 

[Autoholic]

When the machine shop I used checked the crank and the mains, they told me I'll need 0.01" oversize main bearings after they resurfaced all the journals. I asked them to make sure the crank and the mains were still straight and good to use. The engine still had the original bearings.

OGTS should be able to provide what you need for bearings.

 

[GThound]

BEARINGS & CRANK - I talked to Gil at OGTS. He said that the King main bearings that he sells have consistent width of the thrust bearing even in under sized bearings, unlike the Opel replacements where a 10 under main would have been 0.010” wider. Good news, I am good to send out my crank. Bad news, I could have sent out my crank a while ago. So, I will go ahead and box it up and ship it out.

RODS
I finally got started on refurbishing the 134 mm 2.4 Opel forged rods from Autoholic. Interesting experience as this metal is way different than the cast rods.

First of all, I am no expert by any means, but just sharing my experience. Feel free to hop on in with pro tips. I started by reading some RallyBob and other member tips the excellent Rod thread on this forum.

Connecting rod 'FAQ'

Not really an FAQ, since it goes beyond stock Opel parts, but I though this might be interesting to the engine builders out there. While cleaning up yesterday, I came across numerous sets of connecting rods and thought a comparison was in order. The Crower rods for a Ford 2300 are reasonably...

www.opelgt.com

I picked up tips on what tools to use, what direction to grind in and where to remove material.

I started off by labeling each rod with a sharpie marker and recording the weight of each one. Next I went to work on the beams with a carbide burr in my air die grinder.

I first went after the wide seam in the beam.

Which made a silver stripe as I removed the high area.

I then kept removing material to make it full width.

Then I kept grinding away until the black stripe was gone. I figured this was the low area and weakest point of the beam, so I was just removing material from the stronger regions.

I have not yet done the sanding, but this for me down from an average of 652 grams to 647 grams each. So first pass was 5 grams per rod or 2.5 grams beam side.

Next I went to the big belt sander and took off the corners of the extra mass around the rod bolts, guided / inspired by pics of rallybob opel rod work.

Then I did some head scratching on how to clean up the mass in the corners by the edge of the rod journal and decided to use the mini/mill. It can only take off a few thousandths at a time, but it least it did so in a controlled manner. Below is a live action shot of that process. This got the first rod down to 632 grams. I have shaved off 22 grams from one rod and need to do the other 3. Even one rod takes a while as there are 4 of these surfaces to grind out per rod.

This got the first rod down to 632 grams. I have shaved off 22 grams from one rod and need to do the other 3. Even one rod takes a while as there are 4 of these surfaces to grind out per rod. It is tedious and tiresome and dirty work. So I will rest up and then tackle another one.

 

[GThound]

The next big step in my journey to toque has begun! The first big step in the quest for more torque was building the RallyBob style torquer tented intake manifold. Today, the next big step, I shipped out my crankshaft for the 2.4 stroker motor to Crankshaft Craftsmen in Michigan.

I used the souped-up engineered box and packaging materials in which @krewzer shipped to me a 1.9 big valve head.

Meanwhile, I am testing and refurbishing the head. The first thing I did was modify my cobbled together shop vac flow bench and calibrated it with a Helgesen calibration plate that I 3D printed.

Each hole is designed to flow a specific CFM at 28 inches water vacuum. The holes from smallest to largest flow 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 CFM respectively. I then measured the pressure drop for each hole in the calibration plate using a digital manometer. Then plotted out the pressure drop vs CFM and did a regression analysis to create an equation where CFM is provided as a function of pressure drop. It is admittedly not perfect, especially at low lift. But hopefully the numbers are are on the ballpark. The high lift flow results are repeatable consistent at around 119 CFM at 10” water (I converted from 28” of water to 10”). If these numbers are accurate, this head seems to flow far better than a stock 89 CFM head but not in the realm of a @RallyBob head.

 

[The Scifi Guy]

I sent you a Conversation message.

 

[GThound]

UPS verified that my crankshaft arrived at. Crankshaft Craftsmen, but I have not heard back from them yet. In the meantime, I went back to working on the 134mm forged connecting rods. They all now way 626 grams and have an equal end to end balance.

I had a terrible time get reproducible results when doing the end to balancing. There are professional jigs you can buy but I am only plan to do this once. And, there is a lot to the technique to get consistent results. I ended up taking probably an hundred measurements

Anyway, I did a bit of design and 3D printing and trial and error and ended up using this set up below. It has a plate that fits over the top scale plate and doesn’t move. Then a way to keep the big end in alignment, and a swing to suspend the small end and prevent any weird torque. The vertical pieces are 10 mm aluminum rod from another project.

 

[RallyBob]

UPS verified that my crankshaft arrived at. Crankshaft Craftsmen, but I have not heard back from them yet. In the meantime, I went back to working on the 134mm forged connecting rods. They all now way 626 grams and have an equal end to end balance.

I had a terrible time get reproducible results when doing the end to balancing. There are professional jigs you can buy but I am only plan to do this once. And, there is a lot to the technique to get consistent results. I ended up taking probably an hundred measurements

Anyway, I did a bit of design and 3D printing and trial and error and ended up using this set up below. It has a plate that fits over the top scale plate and doesn’t move. Then a way to keep the big end in alignment, and a swing to suspend the small end and prevent any weird torque. The vertical pieces are 10 mm aluminum rod from another project.
View attachment 455053

Commercial versions use bearings at both ends of the rod so there’s no ‘stiction’,