who needs 2.5L Engine?
 

Just read JTuner this month and was unaware that Roger Clarke managed to squeeze an amazing 709 bhp @ 7,500rpm and 890 bhp with a touch of the laughing gas from the 2ltr EJ20, as I DRIVE an sti ppp 2002, I myself was looking at the 2.2 or 2.5 bottom, dont think I will bother with results like that from the 2.0L block, getting 400bhp should be a doddle. http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/images/icons/icon10.gif

Seen this car run 1/4 mile a few times, awesome bit of kit with a great sound.

Like any engine, 400bhp is possible.

The question is how long it will do that for?

That 890bhp monster probably doesn't see 5000miles before a rebuild ;)

Or even 500 mls....

C

Is that the one from Iceland that was at TOTB? Fecking quick that was :eek::eek:

Certainly very impressive figures, but at 'sensible' levels don't knock a 2.5 until you've driven one; so much more driveable

Hi

I think you are missing the point, for quite sometime, and I doubt anyone will disagree, all the tuners were pointing persons like myself down the 2.5L conversion, what I am saying this company running 700bhp from a 2.0L Block, proves that you do not have to got down this route, its the worlds quickest, and if the 2.5L was a better bet why does it not hold the world record?

Its certainly made me stick with the 2.0L on my sti ppp as the way forward, I am not knocking the 2.5L just saying that you obviously dont need one for big power and the case has already been proven by RCM

I have been informed that 400bhp from a 2002 STI with standard internals with no major problems, I am not after big power just 400bhp will be a nice touch, so if any tuners can advise a way forward please send me a PM, currently running a 2002 sti ppp

I believe the 2.2 motor is no longer produced (used to go to 2.3 etc), so unless someone starts to cast these blocks people will now be limited in a way.

400bhp on my JDM MY03 engine is fairly straight forward.

Regards,
Shaun.

can you send some info across please? as I have the ppp and been told the ecu is locked down!

I don't know loads about each engine - but it has taken me years to establish that quoted bhp is only at one particular point of a rev range, usually peak power. There is so much more information that has to be looked at before you dismiss the larger engine.

The on road power delivery is what counts. A 2.5 has more power and more torque lower down so i would imagine [in theory] a 350hp 2.0 will not be as spicy as the same car with 350hp 2.5 ?

I would'nt say it was the world's quickest, I think Andy F holds this in his 2.3.

simb

I think you'll find the world quickest Impreza is owned by an Australian called Tony Rigoli his WRX wagon IIRC ran a 8.8@mid150's but i think its larger than 2.0ltr.

The RCM team Iceland car hold the record for the quickest manual 2.0ltr car.

Not sure Andy F holds the top speed record as he did a 199.6mph recently I've not heard of another Impreza going any faster.

Sorry mate, I should of said I was on about a top speed run:D

simb

I'm weighing up 2.0 vs 2.5 myself at the moment. But I don't think anyone (who knows basic turbo/engine theory) doubts that 700 or even 800 bhp is possible out of only 2 litres. They used to make 1.5 litre F1 engines that made 1500bhp when they turned up the wick for qualifying laps (using crazy boost levels). It's just a question of building the engine strong enough to take the boost and revs and Bob's your uncle. Problem is in the real world this kind of engineering takes a hell of a lot of money and time.

The real problem is not making the power, but making it useable in an everyday car. In general the more power you want, the more revs you need to be able to use. But the higher the peak power you extract from an engine, the more 'peaky' it gets leaving you with a sluggish motor when you're in the low or mid range. 'There's no replacement for displacement' as the saying goes, and a all other things being equal a 2.5 litre lump will always outperform a 2.0 at the same level of tune. Of course things aren't always equal but I'd imagine in almost every road driving situation, 2.5 litres is handier performance-wise than 2.0. If you've ever driven a big 3.5 V6 or something similar, and then driven a 1.4 turbo, the two might have similar power outputs but the delivery is totally different. For everyday use the big lump is preferable because it has a much wider spread of power and torque.

Andy f has run 211 mph recently,it was plastered over his car at santapod raceway.Fastest impreza in the world. :)

Not sure Andy F holds the top speed record as he did a 199.6mph recently I've not heard of another Impreza going any faster.[/QUOTE]

If I could start over and was looking to get more performance, if I had a standard car that was working I would aim for around the 350bhp to 380bhp on standard internals using a twin scroll turbo if possible.

On the road, there are few cars that would stay with an impreza so equipped/

If I were replacing a broken engine in my car and wanted the cheapest best start, I would fit an EJ257 with uprated pistons.

If I were going for an all out power build, I would use a normal stroke ej20 relinered to 97mm or an ej22, both of which would give a 2.2 that could rev very cleanly to produce lots of power but would also be a fully closed edck block and therefore stronger when running at the high power levels.

i would be really keen to know how often the icelandic car has been rebuilt. I don't think Andy would be so arrogant as to assume his engine would hold together indefinitely.

Basically, the higher the power the more often you rebuild. Hence my choice of a standard internals ej20 with a twin scroll at 350+bhp.

What's harvey's car? 2.0?

I thought one of the main plus points of a 2.5 was stronger internals due to less stress and bottom end torque? Irrespective of massive power gain??

Harveys is / was a 2litre last time I spoke to him.

Dont forget the rcms / team ice car used nitrous to get the top figure.

If your building a high performance road engine and drive it like it should be driven then dont bother with more than 400bhp. IMHO.

David

The last engine was 2 litre (585 bhp) with open deck block. It did around 33k miles before I removed it from the car. During that time I had to replace a cylinder head twice. Once when an HKS plug dropped its insulator and the second time, probably because of an issue with my own mapping while running race fuel. Other than that, it was totally reliable.
The current engine is also 2 litre but a CDB sleeved down from 2.2 litre and the target is to exceed 600bhp.
The car was every day transport with the first engine and is intended to be used daily with this new engine.

I have been periferally involved with a 2 litre with a twin scroll turbo and a number of other mods. Earlier this week it did 350 bhp and 380 ft/lbs which makes it a very pleasant and fast cross country vehicle. I am interested to see how the next twin scroll performs because IF it is very torquey, then, despite the low bhp figure, this is possibly the way to get a quick road car for not a lot of work/dosh.

how is the sleeved down engine coming along harvey?

should be very interesting.

Must say, while I am not a fan of the 2.0 in terms of it not being as large a capacity as it could be, I am a big fan of its 75mm stroke.

EJ22 for me, all the way.

I think the 2.3 is the way to do it if your going for serious power, but dont underestimate the 2ltr, the 2.5 is flawed but as said, makes for easy power (to a point), still not as good as a JDM twin scroll setup ;)
Nice to see your still about Harvey :D you still have the 2 cars?

Tony:D

PS which turbo's are you experimenting with the twin scroll? ;)

so why do you bother david :p ;) only kidding :D




we shall see if it is the way to go as im getting mine back from deadbolt with a compressor housing upgrade and i can compare mine to a a td05/06 at 1.5bar from experience

Erm it doesnt work like that....

The more power you make, the more "stresses" there are on the engine.



Alex

My 95 STI RA up until yesterday was a 2.0 TD05-16g with bolt on mods running approx 330hp / 300 Lbft at 1.4 bar boost. - 1.0 bar at 3100 in 5th

Now its a 2.5 litre, yet to be mapped, but with all the same mods it should be a 330/330 motor at 1.1 bar boost. Less stresses regarding heat and turbo, not only will 1.0 bar come earlier (with more power than 1bar on a 2.0), but the spread of power and torque will be huge compared with the 2.0.

The 257 block I have has the OE pistons, which I believe are fine for my goal of 400/400 - once I can afford the gearbox upgrade and the 20g conversion.

400hp is relatively easy to achieve on 2.0 with good advice, but if the bottom end needs replacing for any reason then for the money an OE257 is a no brainer IMO

890bhp but heard it cost £140,000
And i have heard of a place in america i think that as got a 2.5 to over 1000bhp

2.2 engine
 

Hi, i have been looking at the 2.2 and 2.5l engines and recon the best is the 2.2l and a company in the usa called COBB sell a 2.2l short engine with forged internals for less than £1900. and a forged 2.5L for £1750.

From what i have come across the 2.2l seems to be better as it will rev much higher than the 2.5l.

If anyone is interested try looking at this site:

http://www.cobbtuning.com/wrx/engine...-tuner.html#22

Why exactly is the 2.5ltr flawed?

Agreed that it may not be the way forward for applications subject to high cylinder pressures but flawed?? With the right piston design I'm sure it works well with 2.0ltr heads.

Adam : The STi 6 Wagon has a basic map at present and will have a proper mapping session to allow running in prior to Christmas.
Tony : I have 5 Subaru Wagons at present. A GL, 2 STi 3 Wagons, a 400 bhp WRX Wagon (Silver) and STi 6 Silver Wagon.
I am about to put the WRX Wagon up for sale. It is a very special car and wants for nothing with many unique features.
The blue STi 3 Wagon will be for sale after an engine rebuild, some gas flowing of the heads, ported headers etc..
I am working on 2 Ion turbos at present and have put together an odd TD05-06 20G one of which is on the WRX but mounted in a novel way.