cost for forged engine?
08 September 2011, 08:26 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Wales
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cost for forged engine?
Just wondering what is the average cost for a forged engine, sticking with a 2.0l.
What would be changed, pistons, rods, crank?
And what kind of power would it handle?
My car will have very little road use but mainly track action. driven hard, so i'm considering getting it done before something gives in the standard engine running approx 360bhp
What would be changed, pistons, rods, crank?
And what kind of power would it handle?
My car will have very little road use but mainly track action. driven hard, so i'm considering getting it done before something gives in the standard engine running approx 360bhp
08 September 2011, 09:06 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Comparisons on cost alone are pointless.... you need to be detailing exactly what's done as one "build" could be totally different to another "build".
08 September 2011, 09:40 PM
#6
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
It's all about the details! There is a bare minimum, but most owners want a little more than that. Power output is determined primarily by turbo choice, so we tend to start with that then spec the engine accordingly.
I'll happily take calls on 01752 345880 business hours to discuss individual requirements.
I'll happily take calls on 01752 345880 business hours to discuss individual requirements.
08 September 2011, 09:44 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Taunton
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spec here https://www.scoobynet.com/subaru-444...r-stroker.html
08 September 2011, 09:51 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: cornwall
Posts: 1,151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as already said there is no price tag you can put on it untill its finished as al said theres a minimum price but why would you go through the hassle and come out knowing that if you had only spent that little bit more you would of had so much more it will come down to what you want or what you think you want now will probably be different to when you,v actually got it,get the engine as strong as you can afford! turbo,s injectors ect can be changed easily when you get bored but you,l know your engine can take it
08 September 2011, 09:58 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Wales
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah im not looking for figures if im being honest, more maybe 450 max and that will be further down the line, if ever, i just want a solid engine that can track abuse year after year
08 September 2011, 10:14 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ipswich
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody got any ideas as to how many miles a engine needs a rebuild, on a full service history 2.0l, or is it just a case of waiting till you HAVE to have a rebuild because it went badly wrong?
09 September 2011, 10:53 AM
#16
Just wondering what is the average cost for a forged engine, sticking with a 2.0l.
What would be changed, pistons, rods, crank?
And what kind of power would it handle?
My car will have very little road use but mainly track action. driven hard, so i'm considering getting it done before something gives in the standard engine running approx 360bhp
What would be changed, pistons, rods, crank?
And what kind of power would it handle?
My car will have very little road use but mainly track action. driven hard, so i'm considering getting it done before something gives in the standard engine running approx 360bhp
In the mean time rag the **** off the engine thats in the car until it's fooked then have your new engine fitted
Above all DO IT ONCE AND DO IT RIGHT.
Its cheaper than 2 rebuilds, ask me i know.
09 September 2011, 11:00 AM
#18
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very much depends on the spec you have now. If it's a standard STi, you're looking at a 5 figure sum to get to 450 that you wouldn't have to worry about on a drive in drive out basis. At this level the turbo that you want will set you back 1.5k alone! If you already have things like a decent exhaust system etc.. the price starts to fall.
Always remember: there is a BIG difference between a short engine that is CAPABLE of supporting 450 and one with all the required ancilliaries that will PRODUCE 450. If that's the figure you want, go with a 2.5 for a road car, everytime (BIG torgue, spools from low down and guts everywhere). If you want 500+ then a 2.1 stroker might be your better option.
You could do much worse than speak to David at APi for the low down.
He did mine and it's awesome!
Always remember: there is a BIG difference between a short engine that is CAPABLE of supporting 450 and one with all the required ancilliaries that will PRODUCE 450. If that's the figure you want, go with a 2.5 for a road car, everytime (BIG torgue, spools from low down and guts everywhere). If you want 500+ then a 2.1 stroker might be your better option.
You could do much worse than speak to David at APi for the low down.
He did mine and it's awesome!
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 09 September 2011 at 11:03 AM.
09 September 2011, 12:21 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Personally I wouldn't touch a 2.5 again, as there are too many "potential" pitfalls with that design of block. To have the level of reliability (in a 2.5) that can be achieved with a 2ltr for instance, costs a lot of money and some of the newer methods are yet to be proven longterm in my view.
I would rather have proper long term reliability over extra torque.
2, 2.1 or 2.33 imo (2ltr or 2.1ltr at this level would be my preferred approach).
09 September 2011, 12:43 PM
#20
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't agree with that myself.
Personally I wouldn't touch a 2.5 again, as there are too many "potential" pitfalls with that design of block. To have the level of reliability (in a 2.5) that can be achieved with a 2ltr for instance, costs a lot of money and some of the newer methods are yet to be proven longterm in my view.
I would rather have proper long term reliability over extra torque.
2, 2.1 or 2.33 imo (2ltr or 2.1ltr at this level would be my preferred approach).
Personally I wouldn't touch a 2.5 again, as there are too many "potential" pitfalls with that design of block. To have the level of reliability (in a 2.5) that can be achieved with a 2ltr for instance, costs a lot of money and some of the newer methods are yet to be proven longterm in my view.
I would rather have proper long term reliability over extra torque.
2, 2.1 or 2.33 imo (2ltr or 2.1ltr at this level would be my preferred approach).
You "hear" of a lot of problems with the 2.5 in net chatter (crap pistons, oval bores, HG problems etc), but I've yet to meet a tuner that says that a properly upgraded 2.5 (which includes upgraded pistons, HGs, head studs etc) Can't support a perfectly reliable 450/450. If you want to go higher than that, the yes, it's a better bet to get a 2.0 or 2.1, which are more robust at that level and offer more economical routes to getting the desired power. But if you're going to stop at an SC46 or equivalent, then the 2.5 WILL be the better drive. The 2.1 and 2.0 just won't spool as well on the same turbo and won't produce the same torque and for a road car those are critical factors IMHO. Ain't no replacement for displacement as they yanks say!
All IMHO - I'm anything but an expert!
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 09 September 2011 at 12:45 PM.
09 September 2011, 04:07 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
I'm not disputing it wouldn't be a better drive. 
Remember.... I had over 600/600 out of a 2.5ltr before, so I know first hand how they deliver the goods. 
Torque is the killer for bore movement / stress, ultimately leading to HG failure and other issues.
I know... I've been there and so have many others. In fact I pushed my engine further than most would of dared.
The 2.5 issue seems to be "when" rather than "if" you get at least HG problems.
Like I said these are my opinions and I wouldn't go down the route of a 2.5ltr.
You pays your money and takes your risks.
IMO there is no such thing as "perfectly reliable" at this level!
Remember.... I had over 600/600 out of a 2.5ltr before, so I know first hand how they deliver the goods. Torque is the killer for bore movement / stress, ultimately leading to HG failure and other issues.
I know... I've been there and so have many others. In fact I pushed my engine further than most would of dared.
The 2.5 issue seems to be "when" rather than "if" you get at least HG problems.
Like I said these are my opinions and I wouldn't go down the route of a 2.5ltr.
You pays your money and takes your risks.
IMO there is no such thing as "perfectly reliable" at this level!
09 September 2011, 04:29 PM
#22
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: @Junc 12, M40 Warwicksh; 01926 614522 CV33 9PL -Use 9GX for Satnav. South Mids Alcatek ECu dealer
Posts: 6,377
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I don't agree with that myself.
Personally I wouldn't touch a 2.5 again, as there are too many "potential" pitfalls with that design of block. To have the level of reliability (in a 2.5) that can be achieved with a 2ltr for instance, costs a lot of money and some of the newer methods are yet to be proven longterm in my view.
I would rather have proper long term reliability over extra torque.
2, 2.1 or 2.33 imo (2ltr or 2.1ltr at this level would be my preferred approach).
Personally I wouldn't touch a 2.5 again, as there are too many "potential" pitfalls with that design of block. To have the level of reliability (in a 2.5) that can be achieved with a 2ltr for instance, costs a lot of money and some of the newer methods are yet to be proven longterm in my view.
I would rather have proper long term reliability over extra torque.
2, 2.1 or 2.33 imo (2ltr or 2.1ltr at this level would be my preferred approach).
Shaunee, Shaunee, Shaunee, The 2.5 works well for people that want lazy power with big torque and will stick at 450 / 460 hp they are quite often the best option ---- BUILT PROPERLY ---- in certain models of car.
The moment you start to push them to 500 and over they can be very troublesome. Most people that claim " l have mine as a daily driver - 5xx hp never a problem " have more than one map and don't use it at 5xx hp all the time.
Horses for courses and that is down to the advisor; Me, Clinic, ET, RCM, etc. to get the customer to explain what he wants, expects and then advise accordingly.
Yours was an expensive build and did what it had to do. But also proved that even Cosworth had no magic answer to keep a 2.5 together above 500 hp.
In my opinion....................
David APi
09 September 2011, 05:04 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
I don't disagree with anything you say David.
However that wasn't the point of my initial post. Lol
Opinions are opinions and until I can walk in to a tuner for a 2.5 build at this sort of level, and they can give me a warranty that will back-up four yrs or 60,000 miles of head gasket issues... I'll stick with my own personal opinion.
If we all agreed on everything, life would be a boring place. Even if it was obvious I was speaking from my ****. but it is my **** to do with what I wish.
We can debate in length on Monday and you can reprogram my brain... Cell.
However that wasn't the point of my initial post. Lol
Opinions are opinions and until I can walk in to a tuner for a 2.5 build at this sort of level, and they can give me a warranty that will back-up four yrs or 60,000 miles of head gasket issues... I'll stick with my own personal opinion.
If we all agreed on everything, life would be a boring place. Even if it was obvious I was speaking from my ****.
but it is my **** to do with what I wish.We can debate in length on Monday and you can reprogram my brain... Cell.
09 September 2011, 05:55 PM
#25
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2.5 needs "only" 1.7 bar peak boost to make 483lbs ft on an SC46
The 2 litre cars I've seen on the SC thread (and it's very difficult to get a like for like comparision) tend to be in the high 3s low 4s in terms of torque and the fireworks happen a good few hundred rpm further up the rev range.
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 09 September 2011 at 06:00 PM.
09 September 2011, 05:58 PM
#26
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I said 2.5 to 450 is better cause of torque and spool, but not a wise choice much beyond that or you're in 2.0 or 2.1 territory.
Bloody ex-webby's are sooooo argumentative!
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 09 September 2011 at 06:00 PM.
you must be minted!