US spec 2.5 STI short engine part no required
13 October 2003, 05:48 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Near Bath
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know the part number for this ?? tried to get the local subaru dealer to order it and they want a model code and chassis number , could get the code from over on NASIOC but doubt if would get a chassis number .
Cheers Dave
Cheers Dave
13 October 2003, 09:25 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Near Bath
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the pistons not forged ? and what is wrong with the rods ?
I'm not after 500 bhp I just want a car the has plenty of torque , I don't like screaming the nuts of cars .
I'm not after 500 bhp I just want a car the has plenty of torque , I don't like screaming the nuts of cars .
Trending Topics
13 October 2003, 09:50 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 October 2003, 10:07 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
175 BHP/litre seems to be commonplace reliable on old UK engines with cast pistons and original rods and only needs about 1.25 bar typically. Is there any reason why the 2.5 short engine should not be up to this? Cheaper and quicker to replace if you do blow it up anyway? A built engine could be more of a shame to lose rather than a far cheaper standard one which has been properly proven to OEM reliability levels?
[Edited by john banks - 10/13/2003 10:08:55 PM]
[Edited by john banks - 10/13/2003 10:08:55 PM]
13 October 2003, 11:36 PM
#10
John - hope you are doing well...LOL at OEM reliability 
Can't imagine how long it would be before we wondered "what would it be like at 1.5 rather than 1.25" - maybe half a mapping session? Having had you map to 1.5 + a bit on standard internals and experienced the results I don't think I could resist the temptation....just to see....
Can't imagine how long it would be before we wondered "what would it be like at 1.5 rather than 1.25" - maybe half a mapping session? Having had you map to 1.5 + a bit on standard internals and experienced the results I don't think I could resist the temptation....just to see....
14 October 2003, 01:07 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 3,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David,
Not that I know anyhting but it quotes the std thickness to be 0.2 and theirs to be 0.31 or something like that. Does not seem enough to me seen as running twice the power to std block.
Then again, running 50 bar like you would want, it would need to be a tad tougher!
Not that I know anyhting but it quotes the std thickness to be 0.2 and theirs to be 0.31 or something like that. Does not seem enough to me seen as running twice the power to std block.
Then again, running 50 bar like you would want, it would need to be a tad tougher!
14 October 2003, 01:11 PM
#20
Hi David,
Is your concern based on the semi-closed block not being able to stand high boost? If so where do you think problems will start? I would like to try 1.6 for starters
Is your concern based on the semi-closed block not being able to stand high boost? If so where do you think problems will start? I would like to try 1.6 for starters
14 October 2003, 02:55 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Leeds - It was 562.4bhp@28psi on Optimax, How much closer to 600 with race fuel and a bigger turbo?
Posts: 15,239
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Callum,
Im fairly sure I know what your upto..
I have no concerns with the block you are doing..
Damian, is that the Block Wall Thickness between bores or the liner thickness..
I have a problem with the 'thickness' between the bores
over boring and stroking to a 2.8 cannot leave more material between the bores unless it is purely stroked.
David
Im fairly sure I know what your upto..
I have no concerns with the block you are doing..
Damian, is that the Block Wall Thickness between bores or the liner thickness..
I have a problem with the 'thickness' between the bores
over boring and stroking to a 2.8 cannot leave more material between the bores unless it is purely stroked.
David
14 October 2003, 03:28 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 3,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PMSL at that pic.The 2.8 though looks to have some kind of liner.
With regards the thickness, I read it on the website analysing the STi block.
http://www.i-speed.us/news/sti_block.shtml
just read comments below pics.
'Notice the depth of the top rib, it is .200 deep by .470 wide. The closed deck we use is .310 deep.'
Lol! again at your pic. It's even more obvious when you scroll down their webpage, as the capacity goes up the wall thickness goes down.
p.s. Send your pic to them and ask to explain lol! I bet they don't reply.
Damian.
14 October 2003, 04:37 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 3,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David,
The pic on their website for the 2.8 actually looks to have a thinner liner and the liners are touching each other.
What capacities are the two you are showing?
Damian.
The pic on their website for the 2.8 actually looks to have a thinner liner and the liners are touching each other.
What capacities are the two you are showing?
Damian.
14 October 2003, 08:38 PM
#28
Ecu Specialist
Dave the pistons are definately cast as Carlos's posted pic shows (and confirmed by looking), Subaru rods are "generally" the weak link and are well worth replacing with the pistons for piece of mind. They are stronger than the two litre rods though, depends on the end objective.
I run 2 bar mid and 1.8 to the red line on my semiclosed deck block but its a two litre so a bit more meat in the sandwich.
bob
I run 2 bar mid and 1.8 to the red line on my semiclosed deck block but its a two litre so a bit more meat in the sandwich.
bob
14 October 2003, 09:24 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Near Bath
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob as I said I don't want huge horse power , tried to get that in the past and found it to expensive , all I now want is an engine that will last and be reliable with about 350 bhp and the same amount of torque . I thought about the 2.5 as it would be less stressed than a 2l .
Also it is cheaper than the original plan of building a 2.33 and money is major restriction , I'm not willing to spend more than 2K in total(includes a garage to fit the engine)
Also it is cheaper than the original plan of building a 2.33 and money is major restriction , I'm not willing to spend more than 2K in total(includes a garage to fit the engine)