oh, and do they bolt right up to a gt?

 

131 flywheel hp, 130 ft lbs torque

 

Does anyone know what horse the stock 2.2 has at the flywheel?

It's rated at 115 ps (metric hp), which equates to roughly 112-113 SAE hp.

Bob

 

can you bore, crank, rod, and piston your way to 130? and which is better on the stock 2.2, FI or web 32/36?

 

Bob, I guess the real ? is, should I buy the complete FI 2.2 with about 60000 miles on it for 1500, or should I follow your crank, rod, piston ect and get the same or more?

 

can you bore, crank, rod, and piston your way to 130? and which is better on the stock 2.2, FI or web 32/36?

130 hp is easy to get out of a 2.2, in fact I built a streetable 2.2 that made 214 hp with twin 45 DCOE Webers on pump gas.

The stock 2.2 EFI intake manifold is very restrictive however. A 32/36 Weber would make less power, and besides that there are no bolt-on intakes to fit a downdraft Weber carb onto a 2.2 head. Either a 1.9 or 2.0 EFI intake can be welded and modified to fit the 2.2 head, or a European 3.0 EFI intake can be purchased and cut/welded to fit the 2.2 head.

Bob

 

Bob, I am really interested in your 2.1 kit previously talked about in another post. Its either that, or start with this 2.2. What do you think? and if you dont mind, what are some simple things you would do with the 2.2.

 

The 2.1 litre kit will take a while to develop and test, so there is no pricing structure yet.

My only fear with a 2.2 with 60k (miles or km?) is the possibility the piston skirts have collapsed. The 2.2 engines have weak pistons which tend to go bad at a relatively low mileage.

But assuming the engine is in good condition, it's simple to upgrade for a few more hp. The induction can be updated with either a modified 2.0 intake manifold or a cut-down 3.0 intake manifold. The exhaust system can be improve with a 2.25" main pipe and high flow mufflers. And the stock hydraulic camshaft can be upgraded, preferably to a custom split-profile grind. With these few mods you can see about 140-145 hp. The stock 2.2 head breathes very well, it just needs the induction and exhaust systems freed up a bit to let it make power.

Bob

 

stock to stock, what do you think the hp difference is between the stock 1.9 and the stock 2.2?

 

stock to stock, what do you think the hp difference is between the stock 1.9 and the stock 2.2?

In real-world, at the flywheel hp, a 2.2 makes about 112-113 hp
(rated at 115 ps). An early model 1.9 (high compression/solid lifters) makes about 82-85 hp (rated at 90 ps), and a later model smog 1.9 makes about 62-65 hp (rated at 78 ps).

I've found that stock 1.9's are really weak, even lower than they're rated. Probably due to the Solex carbs not working all that well, and the fact that points need to be perfectly adjusted to make optimal power.

Bob

 

My only fear with a 2.2 with 60k (miles or km?) is the possibility the piston skirts have collapsed. The 2.2 engines have weak pistons which tend to go bad at a relatively low mileage.

I can attest to this. That is exactly what happened to my 2.2. The one I have in the "Conrero GT" has been bored .040 over using Venolia pistons Bob sold me.

Bob- Wow! 214hp on the 2.2 w/ 45's? Anything super special you did to the engine? Is the power coming from modifing the head mainly?? I'd especially be curious what combo of chokes, jets etc you used on the carbs. I will be stopping by CarbsUnlimited soon to get my "starting" jets/chokes for my 45's for my 2.2.

 

Now i am confused, my stock 1.9 has 65.5 hp at the wheels (had it dynod 4 times last year) I thought the 72 gt had about 102 at the flywheel and significantly less (like 65.5 at the wheels). So I wonder how much I will be stepping up to with the stock 2.2. And if I put 1500 into my 1.9, can it have the same results as buying the stock 2.2?

 

in my opinion, for 1500 bucks you can get 115 HP out of a stock 1.9 engine.you have the crane and weber, which is a good start. virtual dynos rate my low compression engine at 103-104 HP with 32/36, pertronix, .435 lift, 230 duration@.050, tubular header, and the adapter on the carb to run the origional cold air system. does this sound right bob?

minus carb and crane, you can surely spend 1500 bucks to get to the 115 mark. i have less than 500 dollars worth of high performance stuff in m engine without the carb and ignition to get close to the 115HP, so 1500 should get you there and possably surpass it.

 

ok custom venolias are around 115 each. add in pins and rings for around 100. Fresh billet cam for 75 and 75 again to have it ground. 120 for gaskets and 150 for bearings. Somewhere around 450 in head work and 150 in block and rod work. My math puts that at 1580 without shipping or taxes. On the down side a 32/36 won't feed it, you would be looking DGAS minimum. The up side is you would be pushing closer to 150 horse. With that you might want to consider a better tranny and clutch, but then you also have to stop the thing too.

Just some things to consider as you progress on this.

 

Bob- Wow! 214hp on the 2.2 w/ 45's? Anything super special you did to the engine? Is the power coming from modifing the head mainly?? I'd especially be curious what combo of chokes, jets etc you used on the carbs. I will be stopping by CarbsUnlimited soon to get my "starting" jets/chokes for my 45's for my 2.2.

That's with a .040"-over 2.2 with 10.8:1 compression, Total Seal rings, a 2.0 head (not 2.2) with 1.88" intake and 1.60" exhaust valves (outflows a stock 2.2 head by a bit however...124.5 cfm intake and 104 cfm exhaust), roller rockers and stud girdle, and a decent camshaft (.476" valve lift, 246 @ .050", 108 lobe separation). The intakes are Magnoletsi....extensively ported, exhaust was a 2.4 manifold with custom 2.5" exhaust system. Webers are 45 DCOE with 36 chokes. Idles smoothly at 900 rpms! Peak power is admittedly high @ 7900 rpms, but torque was a minimum of 140 lb ft from 2800-almost 7000 rpms. Peak torque of 155 lb ft. It was also very tractible on the dyno, taking full throttle and loading from 1500 rpms with no bogging.

I will pull the jets out and check numbers for you today.

HTH,
Bob

 

Now i am confused, my stock 1.9 has 65.5 hp at the wheels (had it dynod 4 times last year) I thought the 72 gt had about 102 at the flywheel and significantly less (like 65.5 at the wheels). So I wonder how much I will be stepping up to with the stock 2.2. And if I put 1500 into my 1.9, can it have the same results as buying the stock 2.2?

Actually, with 65 hp @ the wheels, you're doing quite well. Most of the late model (post 1970) 1.9's made about 47-52 hp @ the wheels. They were rated at 78 ps at the flywheel.

The real confusion is with the hp ratings of the pre-'71 engines. First of all, they were rated at 90 ps in Europe. We got the exact same engine here before 1971, but it was rated at 102 hp (gross). The US only started rating engines in SAE (net) hp in 1971, so that 102 hp number was vastly inflated....it was the same engine as the 90 ps European version. Figure that with a Weber carburetor though, and an electronic ignition such as a Pertronix, the early engine should make an honest 95 hp at the flywheel, which is not too bad really. To get up to 115 hp, you could do a cam swap, port the intake, put on a 38 DGAS and a nice custom exhaust and you'd be right there, without buying a 2.2.

Bob

 

I'd especially be curious what combo of chokes, jets etc you used on the carbs.

Here's the breakdown:

45 DCOE
36mm chokes
150 main jet
185 air corrector
F16 emulsion tube
55 F8 idle jet
45 pump jet

Keep in mind if your compression is lower and/or your cam is smaller these numbers will be off-base. I'd probably put in 34 chokes for a lower compression engine with a smaller cam. Also gearing choices affect the usable powerband. The car this engine was designed for has a 3.89 rear axle and a close ratio Getrag (3.30 1st gear, 1:1 5th).

Bob

 

AWESOME!! Thanks Bob!!

 

just wondering bob... whats was that the most powerfull N/A motor you built?