optimisation

[thor]

hello ,
for a 2.2 S how to improve the power without changing any original parts . In the wayne's book there is some good idea like to improve the air flow in the block , to polish the head . For example to polish the air induction in the head ? what are the other ways ?
thanks

[Wayne 962]

Hmm, that's very tough - you're only going to get modesst improvements without replacing anything. I would say that the best way would be to make sure that your fuel injection and valves are adjusted properly...

-Wayne

[thor]

thanks wayne but what is the the more simple modification or part to change to obtain a very good result ?

[jluetjen]

I doubt that there is much that you could do to a 2.2S to improve the performance except to make sure that it is working as the factory designed. Keep in mind that from the factory it has 180HP and 147 lb-ft out of 2.2 liters. Let see how many other cars approach that sort of performance...

BMW M1 (Street version)
Ferrari 206S
Porsche 944 S2
66 Traco CanAm Cevy
Grp 44 Jaguar XJS B-Production Race car of the mid-70's.
'67 Toyota 2000 GT
Dino 308
Ferrari 330GT 2+2
Ferrari 275 GTB/4
A Loyning Formula Ford engine of the mid-80's

OK, it's not the world's best motor, so who rates higher for power (and torque) per liter? Well the following cars are slightly ahead of the 2.2S...

Mercedes 300 SL (Street)
'66 Chaparral Chevy
Group A BMW 635 and 323 Race Cars
BRM 1.5 V8 F1 Engine from the early '60's
Eagle Weslake V12 from 1967.

I guess my point is that the engine is a great performer right out of the box and there isn't much that you can do to "improve" on it short of a complete re-engineering job, which still may not be as good. The engine is almost as efficient as a F1 engine from about 6 years before the "S" engine was designed, and not far off from the Eagle Weslake F1 engine which had some really good people trying to get better performance out of it. 10 years later, the might of BMW was hardly able to do much better in their Group A race engines.

[thor]

well I'm ok with you. I 'm rebuilding my engine and want to seek every where the details . then that was the meaning of my question. Actually I m balancing all the parts in movement and that's my approach .

[Shuie]

These engines are just about optimized from the fatory. Take some weight off the car if you dont want to change parts. Convert to a single battery in the smugglers box. Replace your spare tire and toolkit with a cell phone and a roadside service plan.

[Wayne 962]

Originally posted by thor
thanks wayne but what is the the more simple modification or part to change to obtain a very good result ?

This may sound rude, but the answer might be "driving lessons?" You can get more out of your car if you put it on the track and know it inside and out, rather than squeezing another .1% HP from small tweaks.

The answer is really nothing. You can't rebuild the engine without replacing original parts and expect to get any more HP out of it. *Maybe* some polishing of the heads (that's a big Chevy thing), but I doubt it...

-Wayne

[thor]

I ask this question because someone in paris have a 2.2S engine and its car was in a mag and has 218 HP without any racing parts./Then I asked him and the answer was an optimisation by a "GURU" but I doubt a lot for this value .
But Wayne I m agree with you with the driving lessons .
thanks .I will put photos of my work very soon

[Wayne 962]

I would take that info with a grain of salt. Besides, the definition of "racing parts" typically means things like titanium valve spring retainers and rods, etc. You can get a lot more power simply by swapping parts from other year engines, and increasing compression, etc.

-Wayne

[thor]

a question to specialists of the head flows. Is it really helpfull to decrease the lenght of the guide which is in the flow to decrease the losses ??

[philippeF]

[message deleted]

[thor]

[message deleted]

[Wayne 962]

ENGLISH ONLY ON THIS SITE!!!

-Wayne

[thor]

I apologize for the french answer
The answer of philippe was not to do the modification due to the loss of reliability (it increases the gap of the valve) . But for me I heard that a specialist in the south of france do this modification to reduce the losses. May be there is some experience of this modification here .

[jluetjen]

I'll share with you what I do know and you can draw your own conclusions. I'm not sure that I'm a specialist rather then an analyst of data that others have published.

* 2.2S heads flow more then enough air for over 210+ HP (as used in the 2.7RS) or more in the case of smaller capacity engines. Getting more then 210 HP from a 2.2 puts you in the realm of full-race motors which don't have great drivability at low rev's and poor gas mileage.
* 2.2 T/E heads (which you don't have) flow enough for about 165-180 HP. In their case it might help, but consider the following...
* In general, Porsche's ports get wider as they approach the corner and the valve guides. As a result, even with the valve guide protruding, the cross sectional area of the port does not appear to be a constraint. You could actually make the head's performance worse by making the cross section too great in that area of the port and thus lose your intake velocity. This could very well be the case if the constraint is actually elsewhere in the port as it appears to be in the T/E heads.

My suggestion -- don't bother changing the valve guides. Reducing their length will most likely reduce your valve or valve guide life some (since the lateral (rocking) forces on the valve will be distributed over a smaller area) without any worth while improvement in engine performance. If this were a Spitfire motor, the answer would most likely be very different, but it's a Porsche motor and all of the data suggests that Porsche's engineers really had their motors figured out pretty well.

[thor]

thanks a lot for your answer