I have a 1996 Pontiac Sunfire with the 2.2 liter. If i buy this new head i can just take off the old head and put this one on with out doing and thing special? Or do i have to do something extra?

Here is the link to it - http://www.jtuners.com/product_info.php?products_id=93{14}56&osCsid=286c2118eee2a505d7433989921a060c

you'll be waiting for QUITE some time to get that head. 5 other people would have to order it in order for it to be made.



JBO Stickers! Get yours today!

Trythis Group Purchase. It's the same head.

You also have to replace your head bolts, and a new headgasket would most likely be necessary, along with the other gaskets up there.



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.

Hey, just dreamt up a wild build-up of an based on older LN2 design block and crank (cir: '82-'97). Can you say "5.7 rods or longer"? Anyway, will this latter head bolt-on or not?

Go beyond the "bolt-on".

just let you know jtuners is out of business.


<a href = 'http://ivpnewmedia.com/10thst/tifts/'>
<img src = 'http://ivpnewmedia.com/10thst/tifts/dpBanner.gif'></a>

Nickelin Dimer wrote:Hey, just dreamt up a wild build-up of an based on older LN2 design block and crank (cir: '82-'97). Can you say "5.7 rods or longer"? Anyway, will this latter head bolt-on or not?

The 5.7" rods were used on the older 2.0L OHV in the IMSA ProFormance Sedan Series motors. I've been contemplating the same with the 2.2L OHV for a slightly better rod-to-stroke ratio, to help balance the top end airflow a little. Problem is a 5.7" rod would leave a very short pin-to-piston top distance and very tight ring packaging.

Whew! You hit that one on the head, Madjack. OE compression height on the stock 2.2 piston is around 1.162" which at the time was shorter than almost any other production piston. Using a 350 rod means moving the pin another .11" closer to the top of the pistonto retain stock compression height. Decking the block and / or running a thinner head gasket could mean moving the pin higher still. For someone who's been around engines for a while durability might be suspect with a piston that short. GM has proven that some of the older engine builders were correct about the feasibility of moving the ring and pin closer to the piston crown by designing the Ecotec 2.2 with a compression height of 1.02" . This is shorter than the 1.05" compression height required in the 2.2 OHV engine with 5.7 rods.

I'm not having much luck finding any type of forged piston for the 2.2 which isn't at least $100 per slug. If I cave in and spend $$ on customs, I am thinking of using 5.7 rods. I imagine I can dig up a partial set of race rods for short money which will offset the cost of the custom pistons. It still bothers me that I can build a 150 hp/liter smallblock for less than a 4 cyl of the same power level.

-->Slow

Another challenge to the use of SBC race rods, is that you will need to find a set of small journal rods, then get the big end machined to fit the rod cheeks of the crank. I feel that the after market forged piston ring lands would be much more durable than the Ecotec's ring lands, so I doubt there would be too much of a problem there. If you still don't feel comfortable there, I have seen pistons with a plug to fit the pin holes, with the ring groove cut into them, to support the rings. You've got to figure those would be some expensive slugs though.

A little side note to this, is the rod-to-stoke ratio only changes from a 1.62:1 to a 1.65:1 ratio. Not a big change, but will help the breathing in the mid to upper rpm bands. Combined with a well ported head with the 1.84" intake and 1.497"(1.5") exhaust valves and the proper cam, 7500 rpm isn't all that unthinkable.

That's a neat idea to use a plug as part of the ring lands. With a forged piston I'm also not terribly worried about the ring lands. I've had great luck with the OE pistons in my engine and I attribute their durability to the use of hypereutectic alloy by GM. A denser aluminum alloy would only add strength.

I expect the longer rod to help with noise and vibration some, although it may not be noticeable from the driver's seat. Small journal rods don't seem to be all that uncommon in this area. Many racers like the reduced friction presented by the smaller bearing, especially the 1/4 mile guys. Lately the rod of choice is a Honda sized part with 1.88" bearing size. I should be able to find an "old" set of 2.00" journal rods hanging around someone's shop. Then again, with my luck I won't locate any until I give up and buy pistons with a stock pin locations.

-->Slow

part no crs5700sw3d from the Eagle catalog is a 5.7 rod, 2.00" BE dia, 1.029" BE width. This is .003" narrower than GM calls for... not sure of the repercussions if using a floating pin.

-->Slow

slowolej wrote:I'm not having much luck finding any type of forged piston for the 2.2 which isn't at least $100 per slug.

I believe Adler only paid $300 for his Venolia pistons. They were for the 2200, but I don't see the 2.2L being any more expensive.



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.

slowolej wrote:part no crs5700sw3d from the Eagle catalog is a 5.7 rod, 2.00" BE dia, 1.029" BE width. This is .003" narrower than GM calls for... not sure of the repercussions if using a floating pin.

The Chevrolet Power Catalog, 6th Edition, calls for .008-.012" Rod side clearance. Haynes calls for .004-.015" (I'd lean more toward the Chevy specs). If you can stay within this range, you'ld be fine. It would depend upon how the crank was machined and the wear (if any) on the crank cheeks.