build options with EJ22 block
10 February 2013, 12:34 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
build options with EJ22 block
Im after some imput on what sort of short motor to build for my classic. I did have a 2.35 closed deck setup but it has failed after 5 hard years and i now need a crank, 1 rod and a full set of pistons. The block is ok but i would need to go 0.5mm over on new pistons. Im just after some ideas for a fast road / odd track day build. I can see ways to build 2.2L, 2.35L, 2.5 sleeved CDB and 2.5L super stroke 83mm crank with 98mm pistons. any thought??
Craig
Craig
Last edited by redace; 10 February 2013 at 06:32 PM.
10 February 2013, 02:39 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: west midlands
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All depends what power output ure aiming for, i have a road car running 515hp and 540ftlb on a ej257and its JUST about managable on the road any more power in myn would mean im driving around sideways everywhere i go. Lol 
i also ran a gruppe S 2.7 a few years ago and the torque was mindblowing imo abit to much for the road. Im going down the route of building a track only car and for that i will be sticking to a CDB stricktly 2.1 or 2.35 if im feeling rich 
i also ran a gruppe S 2.7 a few years ago and the torque was mindblowing imo abit to much for the road. Im going down the route of building a track only car and for that i will be sticking to a CDB stricktly 2.1 or 2.35 if im feeling rich
Last edited by BILLETBEANZ; 10 February 2013 at 02:46 PM.
10 February 2013, 04:57 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did like my 2.35 and it made good power 582bhp 538ftlb IIRC but im at the point where i can build anything from here so have been thinking of trying something else. I wonder what a ej22 super stroke would be like..... i cant find any examples of one being built. The would be no point in building anything other than a 2.2L, 2.35 or ej22 supper stroke with the block i have or i could sell it and start with a ej20 CDB
Last edited by redace; 10 February 2013 at 06:33 PM.
10 February 2013, 06:38 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
12 February 2013, 07:26 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
You'll not go far wrong with Mahle pistons and we have plenty of rod options available, just give us a call for pricing.
01752 345880
01752 345880
12 February 2013, 10:02 AM
#15
Why?
Is 2.35 stroke/bore combination inherently stronger?
Why not 2.5 or 2.7 on an ej22t? Wouldn't that extra capacity increase torque?
Are there machining issues, at the larger capacities, that introduce potential weaknesses?
What about if you were prepared to accept lower rev limits, in exchange for the increased torque?
Just thinking ahead!
Is 2.35 stroke/bore combination inherently stronger?
Why not 2.5 or 2.7 on an ej22t? Wouldn't that extra capacity increase torque?
Are there machining issues, at the larger capacities, that introduce potential weaknesses?
What about if you were prepared to accept lower rev limits, in exchange for the increased torque?
Just thinking ahead!
13 February 2013, 06:57 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good question there 2pot and i have wondered the same myself. The seems to be a way to build a 2.5l using a EJ22 CDB at stock bore size but with a 83mm crank. it would need custom piston because the stroker kit is for an ej25 but no one seems to have tried it, I am however 99% sure it will be a 2.35 build but it would be nice to look at all options and ask what down side the could be to a ej22 long stroke.
13 February 2013, 08:37 PM
#18
Some good question there 2pot and i have wondered the same myself. The seems to be a way to build a 2.5l using a EJ22 CDB at stock bore size but with a 83mm crank. it would need custom piston because the stroker kit is for an ej25 but no one seems to have tried it, I am however 99% sure it will be a 2.35 build but it would be nice to look at all options and ask what down side the could be to a ej22 long stroke.
My reading has thrown up the following:
The rod to stroke ratio is not ideal, on the long throw cranks. Giving greater friction on the bores? Would that be negated by a self imposed rev limit?
The 83mm crank can set up unwelcome harmonics within the ej engines. Would that be negated by a self imposed rev limit?
If the turbo/valvetrain chosen can't reach the revs whereby these issues, become issues, it doesn't matter?
At what revs do rod/stroke ratios really start to matter?
Is it worth $1500 dollars on a 'cheap' stroker crank, that may be less reliable than the std throw crank.
And taking Jura's point: long throw rods - could you fit 4mm? longer rods in an ej22t block, and keep the block integrity you wanted, when you chose that block?
Last edited by 2pot; 13 February 2013 at 09:00 PM.
14 February 2013, 11:09 AM
#19
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Holywell
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive built a few engines using the 83mm crank, including a 2.0 (2.25) it worked very well. Ive also got a 2.6 (83mm stroked 2.5) waiting to go in my JDM Bug STI, it should make a great road car when I can finally get time to do it!
Rod ratios, hmmmmmm, a very interesting one and I think alot of info is based on opinion rather than science/fact. My thoughts are that using an 83mm crank with short rods (128.5mm) gives a ratio of around 1.5 which is generally classed as the low side of std ratio, under 1.5 is said to be short. However there are alot of big V8 engines running 9k rpm and over that happily run well under 1.5 ratio.
The engines I have built and dyno'd/driven have worked very well. I will put a project thread up once I get the 2.6 sorted
Rod ratios, hmmmmmm, a very interesting one and I think alot of info is based on opinion rather than science/fact. My thoughts are that using an 83mm crank with short rods (128.5mm) gives a ratio of around 1.5 which is generally classed as the low side of std ratio, under 1.5 is said to be short. However there are alot of big V8 engines running 9k rpm and over that happily run well under 1.5 ratio.
The engines I have built and dyno'd/driven have worked very well. I will put a project thread up once I get the 2.6 sorted
14 February 2013, 12:13 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Enginetuner.co.uk Plymouth Dyno Dynamics RR Engine machining and building EcuTek SimTek mapping
Posts: 3,662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why?
Is 2.35 stroke/bore combination inherently stronger?
Why not 2.5 or 2.7 on an ej22t? Wouldn't that extra capacity increase torque?
Are there machining issues, at the larger capacities, that introduce potential weaknesses?
What about if you were prepared to accept lower rev limits, in exchange for the increased torque?
Just thinking ahead!
Is 2.35 stroke/bore combination inherently stronger?
Why not 2.5 or 2.7 on an ej22t? Wouldn't that extra capacity increase torque?
Are there machining issues, at the larger capacities, that introduce potential weaknesses?
What about if you were prepared to accept lower rev limits, in exchange for the increased torque?
Just thinking ahead!
The EJ22 stroker is well proven and there are plenty of tuning options available, certainly beyond the point where most people would want to go.
If you're happy with lots of torque and a reduced top end, just fit a smaller turbo!
In fact, let me re -phrase that!
If you'd like lots of torque and don't mind losing some top end poke, fit a smaller turbo!
The point is that the engine isn't really the issue, but the turbo is.
Last edited by Alan Jeffery; 14 February 2013 at 05:46 PM. Reason: Read it again..
15 February 2013, 12:35 PM
#21
The increased torque would be nice on a road car, no doubt about it, but then you could always buy a turbo diesel!
The EJ22 stroker is well proven and there are plenty of tuning options available, certainly beyond the point where most people would want to go.
If you're happy with lots of torque and a reduced top end, just fit a smaller turbo!
In fact, let me re -phrase that!
If you'd like lots of torque and don't mind losing some top end poke, fit a smaller turbo!
The point is that the engine isn't really the issue, but the turbo is.
The EJ22 stroker is well proven and there are plenty of tuning options available, certainly beyond the point where most people would want to go.
If you're happy with lots of torque and a reduced top end, just fit a smaller turbo!
In fact, let me re -phrase that!
If you'd like lots of torque and don't mind losing some top end poke, fit a smaller turbo!
The point is that the engine isn't really the issue, but the turbo is.
If you're revs are restricted by your preferred/existing valvetrain and/or turbo, or intentionally restricted to reduce wear on your daily driver, why not increase stroke - increase torque.
And to top it off, long rods to reduce friction and lower peak piston speed.
Last edited by 2pot; 15 February 2013 at 12:48 PM.
15 February 2013, 12:42 PM
#22
Christ, how many times do you need telling from an expert.
Build a 2.35 from your EJ22T it is by far the best combination for a Subaru engine.
I had a 600bhp 565 ftlbs pinned 2.5 and I'd have given anything for a proper 2.35 at the time. Infact that's still the case.
If you don't want the EJ22T let me build you a forged 2.0L 2.1 ,2.5 and I'll take the EJ22T CDB as payment.
That's how fecking good they are!!
They are more than proven in competition too.
Build a 2.35 from your EJ22T it is by far the best combination for a Subaru engine.
I had a 600bhp 565 ftlbs pinned 2.5 and I'd have given anything for a proper 2.35 at the time. Infact that's still the case.
If you don't want the EJ22T let me build you a forged 2.0L 2.1 ,2.5 and I'll take the EJ22T CDB as payment.
That's how fecking good they are!!
They are more than proven in competition too.
15 February 2013, 01:39 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Enginetuner.co.uk Plymouth Dyno Dynamics RR Engine machining and building EcuTek SimTek mapping
Posts: 3,662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't increased bhp come from increased revs, increased torque or reduced friction?
If you're revs are restricted by your preferred/existing valvetrain and/or turbo, or intentionally restricted to reduce wear on your daily driver, why not increase stroke - increase torque.
And to top it off, long rods to reduce friction and lower peak piston speed.
If you're revs are restricted by your preferred/existing valvetrain and/or turbo, or intentionally restricted to reduce wear on your daily driver, why not increase stroke - increase torque.
And to top it off, long rods to reduce friction and lower peak piston speed.
If there's a budgetary constraint for most people it starts with the heads, which can be pricey to get good flow out of.
The 2.5 suffers from "pinch" flow wise by the time you're starting to push the revs up. I can only assume that the 2.6 plus isn't going to improve that tendency. It's one reason why we've been able on occasion to actually make more power from a 2.1 than a 2.5 on stock heads.
If you REALLY want revs, then DE-stroke it.
15 February 2013, 04:31 PM
#25
Doesn't increased bhp come from increased revs, increased torque or reduced friction?
If you're revs are restricted by your preferred/existing valvetrain and/or turbo, or intentionally restricted to reduce wear on your daily driver, why not increase stroke - increase torque.
And to top it off, long rods to reduce friction and lower peak piston speed.
If you're revs are restricted by your preferred/existing valvetrain and/or turbo, or intentionally restricted to reduce wear on your daily driver, why not increase stroke - increase torque.
And to top it off, long rods to reduce friction and lower peak piston speed.
Jura
15 February 2013, 07:21 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i am sold on the 2.35 build from my ej22. i have had this set up before and loved it. the only reson i have asked what els could be done with it is because i have not tried them all.
I have run a 2.0l CDB, 2.1 stroker ej20 CDB and a 2.35 ej22 CDB. the 2.1 was good and the extra torque from the 79mm crank was noticeable in both turbo spool and power made with the same boost and fueling. The 2.35 was a great combo and the added displacement made off boost around town driving better than stock and always seemed keen to go. The way a 2.35 builds boost on a 35r and pulls all the way to red line makes it by far the best subaru engine i have driven but then i have only 3 builds to go on.
It just seemed to me that adding displacement to a full weight daily driven road car made it better weather it came from stroke or bore so that is why i asked. I think 2pot has asked some good questions and they are the same questions i have always wondered about myself.
My only resavation about the 2.35 is why mine failed. it was built in 2008 and has coverd around 20K @ 500ish bhp. the car was remapped and an extra 80bhp gained and then failed shortly after. this engine has never seen any thing that resembels DET, it is aloud to warm up and cool down properly, never gose more than 3000 miles with out an oil and filter change and has spent its life on V-max / V power. On engine strip down it turns out that all 4 little ends have gone. it dose not look like oil starvation at all because bottom end was perfect and the pump was also good. i will take some pics if any one is interested or might have any ideas.
I have run a 2.0l CDB, 2.1 stroker ej20 CDB and a 2.35 ej22 CDB. the 2.1 was good and the extra torque from the 79mm crank was noticeable in both turbo spool and power made with the same boost and fueling. The 2.35 was a great combo and the added displacement made off boost around town driving better than stock and always seemed keen to go. The way a 2.35 builds boost on a 35r and pulls all the way to red line makes it by far the best subaru engine i have driven but then i have only 3 builds to go on.
It just seemed to me that adding displacement to a full weight daily driven road car made it better weather it came from stroke or bore so that is why i asked. I think 2pot has asked some good questions and they are the same questions i have always wondered about myself.
My only resavation about the 2.35 is why mine failed. it was built in 2008 and has coverd around 20K @ 500ish bhp. the car was remapped and an extra 80bhp gained and then failed shortly after. this engine has never seen any thing that resembels DET, it is aloud to warm up and cool down properly, never gose more than 3000 miles with out an oil and filter change and has spent its life on V-max / V power. On engine strip down it turns out that all 4 little ends have gone. it dose not look like oil starvation at all because bottom end was perfect and the pump was also good. i will take some pics if any one is interested or might have any ideas.
15 February 2013, 07:59 PM
#27
Christ, how many times do you need telling from an expert.
Not as many as you -
Exhaust pressure test pre and post turbo
Build a 2.35 from your EJ22T it is by far the best combination for a Subaru engine.
Depends
I had a 600bhp 565 ftlbs pinned 2.5 and I'd have given anything for a proper 2.35 at the time. Infact that's still the case.
Why not a 83mm stroked ej22t? That would give you 2.5 cdb. Other than, as Alan Jefferey has rightly pointed out, for simplicity and known performance.
If you don't want the EJ22T let me build you a forged 2.0L 2.1 ,2.5 and I'll take the EJ22T CDB as payment.
There's one Subaru engine builder in England i'd use. On current averages, it costs me 1k (inc labour and the obscure parts I turn up with) for every cup of tea he makes me, and I'm happy to pay. Sadly, it's not you.
That's how fecking good they are!!
They are more than proven in competition too.
True, for the UK. Other options in the US.
Not as many as you -
Exhaust pressure test pre and post turbo
Build a 2.35 from your EJ22T it is by far the best combination for a Subaru engine.
Depends
I had a 600bhp 565 ftlbs pinned 2.5 and I'd have given anything for a proper 2.35 at the time. Infact that's still the case.
Why not a 83mm stroked ej22t? That would give you 2.5 cdb. Other than, as Alan Jefferey has rightly pointed out, for simplicity and known performance.
If you don't want the EJ22T let me build you a forged 2.0L 2.1 ,2.5 and I'll take the EJ22T CDB as payment.
There's one Subaru engine builder in England i'd use. On current averages, it costs me 1k (inc labour and the obscure parts I turn up with) for every cup of tea he makes me, and I'm happy to pay. Sadly, it's not you.
That's how fecking good they are!!
They are more than proven in competition too.
True, for the UK. Other options in the US.
