[jeff denton]

In planning the new engine for the 2006 version of Speedway GT, the 2.2 keeps popping up. Now, I don't know a lot about this one, I see it is basically a stroked 1.9 but its head is improved as per valve sizes and intake port design. So, a 1.9 "thick web" block with a 2.2 crank and 2.2 head would then be a real 2.2, right, or do I need a 2.2 block... Well the 1.9 intake doesn't work then, can it be "fitted" or is there a 2.2 manifold that will take a two barrel Holley with some baseplate adapting? There must be something different about the rod length, or is it a different pin location in the piston?
I'd sure appreciate any help in brainstorming this, I want to be prepared when I take this idea to the track Tech Officials. It is not exactly legal as per the rule about using the "engine available in model used" but concessions can be made, they generally would impose a "weight penalty" on a car doing something like this but my car already weighs in just right for a 2200 cc, I wouldn't mind adding some left side ballast to satisfy a penalty.
Their first question would be "what year and model Opel would a 2.2 be found in?" to which my current answer would be "I dunno."
Thanks in advance for any help.
Last night at the awards banquet I got an awesome huge trophy and a nice paycheck for Rookie of the Year and Fifth in Points. In the ensuing party a lot of bench racing occurred, some goals were set, my goal for next year is to WIN a main event. We've got our work cut out for us...

 

[ConreroGT]

The 2.2 head is a little different from a 1.9. You'd need a different waterneck for sure. (with means diffrent hoses) Also, the exhaust/intake ports don't quite match the 1.9's either I don't believe (?) I have a 75 Sprint manifold on mine, but I had to use "special" intakes from Risse to fit the sidedrafts. Otherwise I think everything else fit like normal.

I think the 2.2's were used on 85-86 model Kadetts ?? I remember reading it somewhere. In fact I think it was the cut-sheet Gil gave mean when I purchaced the block. It had a timeline of CIH motor history. I'll see if I can find it. I'm sure someone will chime in with the answer before me...


~k

 

[RallyBob]

So, a 1.9 "thick web" block with a 2.2 crank and 2.2 head would then be a real 2.2, right, or do I need a 2.2 block...

A 2.2 block is in fact the exact same as a 2.0 block. It has a 95 mm bore compared to the 93 mm bore of a 1.9 block. The crank has a stroke of 77.5 mm instead of a 1.9's stroke of 69.8 mm. The rods are cast steel (junk) and are the same dimensionally as a 1.9 rod. Pistons have a raised pin height, and are flat-tops. You could bore a 1.9 block and fit a 2.2 crank to make it a 2.2 litre engine.

Well the 1.9 intake doesn't work then, can it be "fitted" or is there a 2.2 manifold that will take a two barrel Holley with some baseplate adapting?

I've only seen EFI-equipped 2.2's, but my understanding is there was an 'electronic carbureted' version (Zenith I think) available in some countries. Not sure about the carb pattern. I've modified 1.9 intakes to fit 2.2 heads before, with a bit of drilling, welding, and grinding.

Their first question would be "what year and model Opel would a 2.2 be found in?" to which my current answer would be "I dunno."

First year for production was 1984, most of the ones I've seen came from Rekords, but there were probably other models they came in as well.

Bob

 

[jeff denton]

Thanks Bob and Con,
That the 2.2 was produced before our rulebook cutoff date of 1985 will help.
I'll need to further research this "zenith" manifold, to adapt a 1.9 to the 2.2 head will freak them out, that would be pushing my luck. There's always been too much parts mixing in this class, the rules insist the engine be all of what you claim it to be, and here they mean stock.
The piston pin is higher in the piston, this is good for a high RPM engine, correct?
I see the compression is 9.4, will the 2.2 need lots of decking like the 1.9 to get maximum compression? And is there a deck height specification published, unlike the 1.9 (as I understand)?
I suspect the main snag will be the manifold.
Then should the whole idea be rejected by Tech we go back to the new 1.9 plan. I just like the idea of a few more cubic inches, yet still be a bit smaller than the Fords.

 

[GTJIM (R.I.P.)]

1.9 Block ...

Jeff, All you really need is a 2.2 crankshaft and suitable pistons.
By fitting the 2.2 crank into a 1.9 block and boring to 94mm - plenty of wall thickness left - you can use some 255 CI Ford pistons and the forged 1.9 Opel rods. You may have to get a custom pin height for the pistons - but you would be using nice forged ones eh?
With the 1.9 head you would have a real increase in compression ratio too.
That would mean only a crank to source from the UK - they were used in about 1984-87 Vauxhall Cavaliers and Carltons too.
The 2.2 crank is 1/4" longer in stroke but a few pounds lighter than the 1.9/2.0 crank so it still revs real well. See if you can get the standard 2.2 vibration damper/pulley and hold on bolt with the crank as the bolt is larger than the 1.9 - and a vibration damper is a good thing with the longer stroke 2.2 crank .....
I am building one of these for my GT - though with a 2.0 block for even more capacity! Can go out to 97mm bore size ......... just some food for the "rats" which inhabit our brains.

 

[jeff denton]

Thanks Jim, my you certainly have it all figured out!
My concern about building a 2.2 this way will sound alarms at tech, we really can't build Frankenstein motors legally, the idea is to keep it pretty stock. I will continue this query by pricing an OGTS 2.2 assembly, they show up in the catalogs, then approach the Tech man for his opinion. Chances are to be approved might require a class meeting, since I am shooting for less than 2300 cc's the Ford boys might not have a problem. Or will they? I don't know. Of fifteen cars in the class only four can consistently beat mine, and one of them is a Toyota. Those four have veteran drivers, too. But do they see me as a threat to their own trophy collection? They should!

 

[GoldGT]

Well I don't know if this question belongs in this thread, but then.....
Bob, I understand the drilling and grinding associated with putting a 1.9 intake on a 2.2 head, but what is the WELDING part? I am sort of preparing an either/or situation as far as EFI vs Carb for my 2.2. Just in case I can't get the EFI done in time for Carlisle I thought I would throw on a carb.

 

[baz]

jeff the ports where they go onto the head dont match as the 2.2 has a "raised port" ie higher set hole
so you have to have more metal welded onto the manifold so it can be reshaped to raise it up and match the new head

 

[jeff denton]

So, is it the dowel pin hole that has to be moved? Is the port itself bigger as well as raised up in the head?

 

[RallyBob]

Jeff, the 2.2 intake ports are bigger in width and in height, they're spread further apart, and they're around 5/8" higher on the head than a 1.9's. The intake dowels are in the same place on the head (so technically they're lower compared to the intake ports), but they're 6mm in diameter compared to 8mm on a 1.9 head.

But, a few pics might help to convey the difference.

 

[tekenaar]

Some more 2.2 suggestions (94x77.5)

Thanks Jim, my you certainly have it all figured out!
My concern about building a 2.2 this way will sound alarms at tech, we really can't build Frankenstein motors legally, the idea is to keep it pretty stock. I will continue this query by pricing an OGTS 2.2 assembly, they show up in the catalogs, then approach the Tech man for his opinion. Chances are to be approved might require a class meeting, since I am shooting for less than 2300 cc's the Ford boys might not have a problem. Or will they? I don't know. Of fifteen cars in the class only four can consistently beat mine, and one of them is a Toyota. Those four have veteran drivers, too. But do they see me as a threat to their own trophy collection? They should!

Here's what I did on my 2.15 SSD (DHLA) engine . . . basically:
Bored 1.9 block to 94mm for 2.2 deck height, forged 94mm pistons with .912" (Ford) pins, moly top ring, total seal second ring, 3-piece oil ring. Bored forged 1.9 rod small ends to 'press fit' Ford tool steel pins (stronger, lighter). Ground 2.2 crank main and rod bearing journals and thrust surfaces 0.010" under. Zero balanced rotating assembly.

Used standard Opel 2.2 valves (exhausts turned down to 1.5") in 1.9, 12-bolt head with 3-angle valve job and intake and exhaust runner blending per Bob L. Installed shallow, hardened exhaust seats, new bronze valve guides with tops machined for umbrella valve seals. Used Norris springs and exhaust spacers and 8 stock 'intake' retainers (lighter of the two) and locks. Used Legere .465"/224°@.050"/110°LC cam set 2° retarded with solid stock lifters.

Intake is welded, bored and ported 48mm Steinmetz SSD manifold with single DHLA48 sidedraft plumbed with hand fabricated filtered cold air system. Exhaust is header and 2.25 pipes and turbo muffler.

Ignition is resprung (per Bob L.) '75 distributor with Pertronix set at 11° BTDC initial timing, MSD5 spark controller and Bosch red coil firing Bosch W7BC "Super" plugs. That's basically it except for a lot of little finishing touches . . . remote oil filter, remote thermostat controlled oil cooler, 5-blade clutch fan, hand fabricated reduced size (14%) twin crank pulley . . .

Just offering some food for thought . . . you could use big, synchronous (if allowed) jetted Weber DGxV downdraft on ported, stock manifold and '75 'Sprint' manifold. I'd route some sort of 'cold air' system to it and 'heat shield' all underhood fuel lines.

 

[davegt27]

so that how you do that

ha ha i am always learning stuff from Bob

edit: oops you to Otto always a wealth of knowledge i hope you take it to your next dyno shoot out



david

 

[GoldGT]

Finally got back to the computer to answer BAZ's answer. What I did was to drill 2 new holes in the intake for the dowel pins, that allowed me to raise the stock 1.9 intake manifold up to the port locations on the 2.2 head. Then I ground the clamping bosses on the intake so that the washers would fit. Seems to me there is nothing else to do, no welding, no nuttin'. This does not include the porting work that can still be done.

 

[Hiro]

Two more infos about the 2.2CIH:
- this CIH was also fitted in the Senator/Monza second generation (1985?)
- crank is either cast or steel, I had both, don't know the rationale for this.
HTH,
Hiro

 

[RallyBob]

Seems to me there is nothing else to do, no welding, no nuttin'.

Welding a flange to the bottom (per my 3rd photo) is a good idea, since the intake bolts are holding the intake to the head primarily from the bottom half only, resulting in uneven torquing. Not doing this may result in vacuum leaks, and you don't want to lean on the intake while the engine is running without it!

Bob

 

[jeff denton]

This intake manifold deal is gonna be the hardest obstacle. To pass through tech, that is. Simple enough for the street where there are no rules, but in my application the book simply states "no modifications to intake, no porting, no gasket matching". This is even clearer than the rules Joe was going by when he got in trouble for his little "tent" in the plenum, remember his awful hassle recently?
I was tipped that making my 1.9 block into a 2.2 block won't fly, either, because then I'm breaking the rule that allows only .040 overbore. Putting the 2.2 crank in the 1.9 block also disobeys the forbidden "stroking" rule...
I gotta know more about the manifold Bob mentions, let's call it the "Zenith Manifold" unless somebody has a more proper term.
Where is one? Anybody have any ideas where to start looking?
Once I find out how available one might be, I'll proceed. Haven't priced a 2.2 from OGTS as their phone message says they're closed til Wednesday.
Boy this thread has brought out some interesting stuff.

 

[jeff denton]

A little more research, some phone calls, and a discussion of a 2.2 GT with the tech man brought me to a decision.
First, a 2.2 complete, running or rebuildable from OGTS is $1200, only two left, they will cost more after these two are gone.
According to Gil, there is no such thing as a stock, downdraft carbureted manifold for a 2.2 on this particular planet, as he put it.
Using a 2.2 in my car does break Engine Rule A, as it was not offered in any GT from the factory. My fellow racers in the compact class would not consider any concessions of any kind to allow the bigger engine, which I don't blame them! I'm already consistently in the top five out of fifteen, twenty more horsepower (the estimate I provided) could so easily move me up a few notches even with a hundred pound weight penalty.
So, it's gonna be another 1.9 liter engine. The tech man says my question about how the two fastest cars run on 110 octane and get away with it can only be answered by the camshaft grinder. It's about boosting cylinder pressure, even with low compression ratios. That would be the only legal explanation, as the parts and dimensions affecting compression ratio have to be stock.
I need to figure out exactly how that works, I've never had to deal with such strict rules before...

 

[davegt27]

http://murray.faithweb.com/formulas.htm

http://www.datsuns.com/Tech/Dynamic-compression.htm

http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/cam-tech-c.htm

i was trying to find another link on dynamic compression ratio

but i cant find it


http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/runnertorquecalc.html


HTH
Davegt27

 

[GTJIM (R.I.P.)]

So .... a "stock" 1.9 ....

Gotta shave those rules "finer than frog's hair" as Smokey would say!

1.9 block bored to 94mm (+0.039") - decked to have piston tops at "zero" to 0.005" above the cylinder head mounting surface. Stock 1.9 crankshaft stroke. That is about it for the short block - except for spot on balancing and clearancing the bearings to 0.002" - 0.025" to loosen things up as much as possible.

Cylinder head - gotta find one of the "19H" small chamber 1969 cylinder heads to get the compression ratio up as high as possible with stock components - or a 1.5 head if you can get away with it ........
Fit the biggest "stock" valves available - 2.0 ones if possible.

The cam is where you will have to make all your power - "Help Bob!"

"Stock" intake manifold - extrude hone the b*****d!

A lot of attention to detail will be needed to get every "stock" component to work together to produce optimum torque and horsepower in the exact rev ranges that you run on the track ......

Wish I was there! Lots of fun to be had next season.

 

[RallyBob]

According to Gil, there is no such thing as a stock, downdraft carbureted manifold for a 2.2 on this particular planet, as he put it.

There is, I've seen pics of them before, I've just never owned one. I can check with some European contacts I have to find out just how rare they are.

Bob