Engine rebuild - what options?
19 December 2003, 09:52 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: roth
Posts: 3,310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bottom end failed on my STi6 Type R, crank, rod, and most likely piston and bore damamge. what are my options to put it right?
rebuild with new original parts?
rebuild with uprated parts? such as?
second hand bottom end
new bottom end?
2.5 litre bottom end?
am not after BIG power, but if got to spend some $ i wouldnt mind seeing some power for my pound, main thing i want is some reliabilty.
cheers, peccy.
rebuild with new original parts?
rebuild with uprated parts? such as?
second hand bottom end
new bottom end?
2.5 litre bottom end?
am not after BIG power, but if got to spend some $ i wouldnt mind seeing some power for my pound, main thing i want is some reliabilty.
cheers, peccy.
19 December 2003, 10:05 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has the bottom end COMPLETELY failed? 
That's unusual. Most common failure we see is the big end shell failure, with most commonnly damage being limited to the big end of the crank, sometimes recoverable.
You are unlikely to get any more power out of a mechanical rebuild, unless you go for a stroker kit?
As this type of failure, (in our experience) is usually caused by det, if you rebuild with stronger internals, det can still cause the same problem again, even with stronger rods/pistons.
If you want extra power as well, then it wil cost you more than just the price of a 'strong' rebuild.
Mike
Scooby Mania
That's unusual. Most common failure we see is the big end shell failure, with most commonnly damage being limited to the big end of the crank, sometimes recoverable.
You are unlikely to get any more power out of a mechanical rebuild, unless you go for a stroker kit?
As this type of failure, (in our experience) is usually caused by det, if you rebuild with stronger internals, det can still cause the same problem again, even with stronger rods/pistons.
If you want extra power as well, then it wil cost you more than just the price of a 'strong' rebuild.
Mike
Scooby Mania
19 December 2003, 10:20 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: roth
Posts: 3,310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
engine is currently being stripped down to find the full extent of the damage, but from listening to it the general opinion was the crank and had dropped a rod, then i treid to drive 20mile home, in this time the engine turned into a bag of spanners and seized up! mostly likely causing more damage, doh!
i intend gettin a ECUTEK remap once the work is complete to run safely on UK fuel, hopefully to prevent any more det.
i intend gettin a ECUTEK remap once the work is complete to run safely on UK fuel, hopefully to prevent any more det.
19 December 2003, 10:27 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 3,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peccy,
If I was you I would go for the US STi 2.5 bottom end. Might cost more in having to mod heads but I think it would be worthwhile.
I think Scoobyclinic had one in stock last time I e-mailed them.
Damian.
If I was you I would go for the US STi 2.5 bottom end. Might cost more in having to mod heads but I think it would be worthwhile.
I think Scoobyclinic had one in stock last time I e-mailed them.
Damian.
19 December 2003, 10:31 AM
#5
you arent that technical it seems peccy. If it dropped a rod, as you call it, you would have a bloody big hole in the block.
I cant believe you drove it after it was diagnosed with a damaged bottom end, that is just plain stupid and could have doubled your rebuild costs if you have killed the block/pistons as a result.
Based on your posts i would say you arent the right person to go specifying a rebuild, you need to take it somewhere reputable and tell them what you want to achieve. A standard rebuild with an ECUTEK remap will give you circa 300BHP/300lbft torque, which is plenty enough in a TypeR for most people.
I cant believe you drove it after it was diagnosed with a damaged bottom end, that is just plain stupid and could have doubled your rebuild costs if you have killed the block/pistons as a result.
Based on your posts i would say you arent the right person to go specifying a rebuild, you need to take it somewhere reputable and tell them what you want to achieve. A standard rebuild with an ECUTEK remap will give you circa 300BHP/300lbft torque, which is plenty enough in a TypeR for most people.
19 December 2003, 10:49 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: roth
Posts: 3,310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
steady on john dont rub it in lol
just trying to get an idea of my options, was told it had dropped a rod but only by listening to it, am hoping for a cheap solution - new crank, but think i may have blown my chances of that, will have a better idea when the engine is stripped down...
just trying to get an idea of my options, was told it had dropped a rod but only by listening to it, am hoping for a cheap solution - new crank, but think i may have blown my chances of that, will have a better idea when the engine is stripped down...
Trending Topics
19 December 2003, 10:55 AM
#8
Since you are not going to go for massive power, I would recommend speaking to mark at lateral performance (not sure on whoelse can source them?) about sourcing a us sti 2.5 block. Basically the new sti in america has a 2.5engine and you can get this is a short block. You can then remove your short block, bolt on your heads and use all your other parts exhaust manifold, inlet manifold etc.
John Banks recently fitted a us sti 2.5 block and seems to having great results (see here: http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...179486&Page=17 ). Bearing in mind he has also upgraded his turbo etc. but you get the idea
If you are going down the big power route, you could do what I did back in october 2001 and order a 2.5litre block, closed deck, with billet steel pistons rods etc from perfourmance in australia : www.pms.net.au . I have had no problems (touch wood with it!). But this will be more money.
The low down torque of a 2.5 is amazing and I feel well worth it. As you said you don't want to go mad, so I would say it would be best to go for a us sti 2.5 block. You will should also consider upgrade your fuel pump at the same time.
John Banks recently fitted a us sti 2.5 block and seems to having great results (see here: http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...179486&Page=17 ). Bearing in mind he has also upgraded his turbo etc. but you get the idea
If you are going down the big power route, you could do what I did back in october 2001 and order a 2.5litre block, closed deck, with billet steel pistons rods etc from perfourmance in australia : www.pms.net.au . I have had no problems (touch wood with it!). But this will be more money.
The low down torque of a 2.5 is amazing and I feel well worth it. As you said you don't want to go mad, so I would say it would be best to go for a us sti 2.5 block. You will should also consider upgrade your fuel pump at the same time.
19 December 2003, 01:05 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22b mafia?
explain!
regardless, I would agree with what christian said.
Mark has us sti engines in stock which will replace your damaged 2.0 short block.
The 2.5 is semi closed and should be good for over 400 bhp and lbft as it stands now with no issues.
You already have the heads, so a remapped ecu is all you need.
Turbo and drivetrain torque is nonsense.
you can have the 2.5 produce the same power as your engine did before but with more low down torque and at less boost using the same turbo. if you want to you can go for bigger figures by doing what has been told.
the 2.5 is identical in appearance and fitting etc so don't let that put you off.
explain!
regardless, I would agree with what christian said.
Mark has us sti engines in stock which will replace your damaged 2.0 short block.
The 2.5 is semi closed and should be good for over 400 bhp and lbft as it stands now with no issues.
You already have the heads, so a remapped ecu is all you need.
Turbo and drivetrain torque is nonsense.
you can have the 2.5 produce the same power as your engine did before but with more low down torque and at less boost using the same turbo. if you want to you can go for bigger figures by doing what has been told.
the 2.5 is identical in appearance and fitting etc so don't let that put you off.
19 December 2003, 01:20 PM
#14
fitting a 2.5 engine could screw up your insurance costs, you will have to declare it, so if you do consider going down that route check ALL aditional costings.
Doing this 2.5 route is being discused often and as yet it isnt a proven way to go, if you arent that interested in big power as you sugest, then keeping it stock is a good route to follow.
Doing this 2.5 route is being discused often and as yet it isnt a proven way to go, if you arent that interested in big power as you sugest, then keeping it stock is a good route to follow.
19 December 2003, 02:04 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: roth
Posts: 3,310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T-uk, hmmm good point, was sounding V good till you said that.
but
as the boost drops of before 7k, i dont often drive that high anyay?... and the extra low down torque would more then compensate for this?
still hoping to keep it stock though if cost effective.
but
as the boost drops of before 7k, i dont often drive that high anyay?... and the extra low down torque would more then compensate for this?
still hoping to keep it stock though if cost effective.
19 December 2003, 03:04 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
don't really think it will suit your needs, it was more a of a flyaway comment since john f has decided that a US market 2.5 engine isn't tested solution.
I personally think yuo would be mad not to buy a 2.5. I would clear it with your insurance company then jump at the chance! especially since the damn things comes semi closed and prebuilt for you.
Can't imagine where else you would get a brand new built compatible short block for the kind of money they go for.
suppose you could ask subaru for a P1 short block!
good luck.
I personally think yuo would be mad not to buy a 2.5. I would clear it with your insurance company then jump at the chance! especially since the damn things comes semi closed and prebuilt for you.
Can't imagine where else you would get a brand new built compatible short block for the kind of money they go for.
suppose you could ask subaru for a P1 short block!
good luck.
19 December 2003, 03:20 PM
#22
How many of these engines have been run for extended miles Adam? By that i mean US bottom ends with UK/Jap spec heads and turbos, cams, ECU's etc?
I am not saying it isnt a valid option, i am saying its untested for any real period of time, we dont yet know how reliable this is going to be. That obviously doesnt matter to you, but it may to other people.
Fitting a 2.5 is going to limit the number of people willing to buy the car further down the line too, its hard enough for people to get insurance on standard spec STi TypeR's, insurance companies tend to treat CC increases more severly than remaps and it may mean you cant sell the car. There is a lot to consider when choosing this kind of change to a cars spec and if you dont particularly want to push the power stakes, why not stick with the least agro option?
I am not saying it isnt a valid option, i am saying its untested for any real period of time, we dont yet know how reliable this is going to be. That obviously doesnt matter to you, but it may to other people.
Fitting a 2.5 is going to limit the number of people willing to buy the car further down the line too, its hard enough for people to get insurance on standard spec STi TypeR's, insurance companies tend to treat CC increases more severly than remaps and it may mean you cant sell the car. There is a lot to consider when choosing this kind of change to a cars spec and if you dont particularly want to push the power stakes, why not stick with the least agro option?
19 December 2003, 03:24 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: roth
Posts: 3,310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
valid points john, and yes i would like some reliabilty for a change, although assumed as im not going for BIG power the bottom end will be fairly unstressed with my current setup? or are there other complications that may arrise?
19 December 2003, 03:31 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
john,
in the absence of det and poor mapping, what exactly are you expecting to go wrong when combining STi5 heads with US short blocks?
the combustion space design ins't wholly different and is mostly determined by the piston anyway.
I take your point about the salability, but since reliability is an issue I would rather achieve the same power as before running lower boost personally.
As far as reliability is concerned peccy's car is hardly showing an impeccable record with the tried and tested 2.0 route which you are suggesting.
This isn't about what I am prepared to put up with, this is about finding a logical solution for peccy.
Peccy have a word with mark about your options and ask john banks if he forsees any issues with what he has discovered on his 2.5 so far.
[Edited by Adam M - 12/19/2003 3:49:17 PM]
in the absence of det and poor mapping, what exactly are you expecting to go wrong when combining STi5 heads with US short blocks?
the combustion space design ins't wholly different and is mostly determined by the piston anyway.
I take your point about the salability, but since reliability is an issue I would rather achieve the same power as before running lower boost personally.
As far as reliability is concerned peccy's car is hardly showing an impeccable record with the tried and tested 2.0 route which you are suggesting.
This isn't about what I am prepared to put up with, this is about finding a logical solution for peccy.
Peccy have a word with mark about your options and ask john banks if he forsees any issues with what he has discovered on his 2.5 so far.
[Edited by Adam M - 12/19/2003 3:49:17 PM]
19 December 2003, 05:27 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have clocked up a fair few miles in jb's car now and think it is a wonderful combination. with his supporting mods it feels a fairly unstressed 380-400ish bhp on optimax. I see no issue with reliability providing a sensible limit is aimed for ,similar to any other standard subaru block. like them , go too close to the edge and then the risk gets higher , especially with the varying petrol quality we have in the UK.
however , the gearing on peccy's car would make me personally want to keep a high revving engine. if he is not into the standing start stuff then fair enough , otherwise stick to a rev limit that suits the gearing IMO
[Edited by T-uk - 12/19/2003 5:32:30 PM]
[Edited by T-uk - 12/19/2003 5:34:01 PM]
however , the gearing on peccy's car would make me personally want to keep a high revving engine. if he is not into the standing start stuff then fair enough , otherwise stick to a rev limit that suits the gearing IMO
[Edited by T-uk - 12/19/2003 5:32:30 PM]
[Edited by T-uk - 12/19/2003 5:34:01 PM]
19 December 2003, 05:51 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I thought Subaru had proven the EJ257 to 300 BHP on their production US STi models?
What else do we have that is factory/OEM proven to 300 BHP on non-JDM fuel? Errr.... STi 7/8 PPP.
So by that token, the only proven engines that should be fitted for 300 BHP are an EJ257 or STi 7 or 8 swap.
[Edited by john banks - 12/19/2003 5:52:23 PM]
What else do we have that is factory/OEM proven to 300 BHP on non-JDM fuel? Errr.... STi 7/8 PPP.
So by that token, the only proven engines that should be fitted for 300 BHP are an EJ257 or STi 7 or 8 swap.
[Edited by john banks - 12/19/2003 5:52:23 PM]
19 December 2003, 11:39 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 5,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
adamM: "22b mafia?
explain!"
meant in the nicest possible way
when one of you well established 22b.com members posts advice here on Sn, the rest (usual suspects
) usually follow it up and discuss amongst yourselves.. makes for fascinating reading sometimes.
thats all!
good to see a fellow 'non techie' (peccy) getting some decent advice from you guys (best of all:the bullsh*t counter is still dormant)
explain!"
meant in the nicest possible way
when one of you well established 22b.com members posts advice here on Sn, the rest (usual suspects
) usually follow it up and discuss amongst yourselves.. makes for fascinating reading sometimes.thats all!
good to see a fellow 'non techie' (peccy) getting some decent advice from you guys (best of all:the bullsh*t counter is still dormant)
20 December 2003, 08:35 AM
#29
Good thread this. From all the good comments, if I get a US 2.5 from Lateral, can ALL the parts from my perfectly sound STiV3 2 litre fit to this block? Does the 2.5 come fully bolted up so no bottom end assembly at home?
Loking for a 'meccano' type rebuild option for my Hill climber where torque is everything.
My car has RA trans with 4.11 diffs so super short gears, will this present probs other than fuel comsumption?
Graham.
Loking for a 'meccano' type rebuild option for my Hill climber where torque is everything.
My car has RA trans with 4.11 diffs so super short gears, will this present probs other than fuel comsumption?
Graham.
20 December 2003, 12:01 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East Lothian
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hee Hee! See this subjects been raised again.
Now I feel I am in a better position to raise comment.
Having sampled JBs car (Still under tuning to his requirements) and my own STI 5 Type R Ltd.
Both cars running @400BHP,350ishft/lbs.Johns car has undoubtably more low down torque and obtains similar power levels at lower boost,using same Turbo TD05/06/20g.
Gearing certainly played a part. IMO gains found at the lower end eventually got made up as thr revs rise STI revving to over 8000.
with peak power 500 revs higher and freer revving.
After said Non scientific test.( consisting of blasting around trying acceleration tests in various gears. I would have to say that for lazier feeling power delivery the 2.5 certainly delivers.
But I don't feel it has sufficient enough gains over the standard Type R to justify the change.
Remembering the reasons we buy the Type Rs in the first place
The frantic short gear changing and handling.
IMO Sticking a 2.5 in a Type R without changing gearing/Clutch could incur further expense to go along with all the otherchanges req'd.
Don't get me wrong. If your pockets are deep enough. A proper beast could be unleashed.
If it's just for a straight change.On a Type R.
It most definately isn't just a bolt on swap and a remap.
More has to be considered As I think JohnF. has pointed out.
Steve.
Now I feel I am in a better position to raise comment.
Having sampled JBs car (Still under tuning to his requirements) and my own STI 5 Type R Ltd.
Both cars running @400BHP,350ishft/lbs.Johns car has undoubtably more low down torque and obtains similar power levels at lower boost,using same Turbo TD05/06/20g.
Gearing certainly played a part. IMO gains found at the lower end eventually got made up as thr revs rise STI revving to over 8000.
with peak power 500 revs higher and freer revving.
After said Non scientific test.( consisting of blasting around trying acceleration tests in various gears. I would have to say that for lazier feeling power delivery the 2.5 certainly delivers.
But I don't feel it has sufficient enough gains over the standard Type R to justify the change.
Remembering the reasons we buy the Type Rs in the first place
The frantic short gear changing and handling.
IMO Sticking a 2.5 in a Type R without changing gearing/Clutch could incur further expense to go along with all the otherchanges req'd.
Don't get me wrong. If your pockets are deep enough. A proper beast could be unleashed.
If it's just for a straight change.On a Type R.
It most definately isn't just a bolt on swap and a remap.
More has to be considered As I think JohnF. has pointed out.
Steve.