Anyone on this board experienced with these???

I was just reading about these which were available in minvans and other chrysler cars. Anywhere between 150-224 hp in a 4-banger motor. The 150hp and 174 hp motors were supposedly common and the torque of the 174 hp motor comes in at 200 ft-lbs. The engine block weight on the turbo motors was a whopping 90 lbs :eek:

Here's some more info

********************************
Turbo I

The most common, and generated a respectable 142 hp (better than the 3.0 V6, or, for that matter, the late-80s 318). It was relatively reliable and had good fuel economy. The turbo was quite well suited for the 2.2, which had good low end torque but did not breathe well at higher rpms; the turbo evened it out nicely. (142-150 hp depending on application)

Turbo II

The next most common; it was similar but had an intercooler, forged crank, and other performance touches, including a heavy duty transmission. An astounding 174 hp came from this reliable engine - not bad considering the original was only 93 hp. This wasn't a Honda 174 hp, either - it came with 200 lb-ft of torque! (Whereas the current top Civic engine is 160 hp and only 100 lb-ft). You can approximate a Turbo II by adding an intercooler to a Turbo I.

***********************************


link to full info (http://www.allpar.com/mopar/22t.html)

Besides the motor itself we're wondering if the Turbo I or II can be adapted to the Jeep 2.5L for a lightweight power plant in a buggy or light Jeep.

Any Mopar freaks out there with some tech????

a turbo motor has low torqe off idle.it takes rpm to turn the turbo
will it hook up i do not know .wine cooler big dude how about cherry ha ha ha:flipoff2:

While I don't have experience with these motors in particular, I can offer some insight into turboing a jeep 2.5. It's possible to just slap a turbo on any motor, but will it run is the major question. Or more appropriately, will it run for long?

There are several major factors when dealing with turbos.

1. What is factory compression ratio?

To get max power, a CR in the 8-9:1 ratio is best. If you want max boost, tougher parts are required, such as headwork, better valvesprings, etc.

2. How many pounds of boost do you want to run?

Typically, you'll find that you can only safely run about 7-8 PSI before you start getting into detonation, and possibly grenading your engine. If you intercool it, you can maybe get a few more PSI out of it... And that depends on your CR also... The higher the CR, the less boost you can safely run.

Those are the main two things. Another thing you need to consider is the turbo size. If you run too big a turbo, you'll suffer from horrible turbo lag. Too small a turbo and you won't really have much of a top end. The proper size of turbo makes all the difference.

that's about all i can think of right now... If i think of any more later, I'll post again...

JParuBob

You coulod taqke the complete Chrysler and put in a jeep a whole lot easier than putting the turbo and electronics on a Jeep engine.. The trouble I ran into is finding a Good tranny.. The tranny needed is an np/nvg 2500 which was used in late 80's /early 90's Dodge W150's/Dakotas.. The D300 will bolt right to the tranny but the later 4 cylinder Jeep engines use a 21 spline input in the T-case which would need to be swapped with the input gear from a 6 cylinder which still used a 23 spline input.. By the way I still need a tranny if anybody has one..

frankie- You know low gearing will let an engine wind up to high rpms quickly. That's the scenario. Also not many competition obstacles where hp is needed involve crawling. All involve wheelspeed that needs high rpms. I drink Coors Light just like you so don't forget my 6 pack in Sept.

JParuBob- The waste gate on the turbo I is at 7 psi and the waste gate on the turbo II is at 9 psi. The turbo II uses an intercooler. These turbos were designed by Chrysler for the 4-banger so I don't think we'll have to worry about over doing it :) Especially if we decide to swap the whole motor.

hy_desert- Nice to know someone else has looked at these. If that tranny you mentioned will take a D300 then it will also take the NP231. We intened to use a 231 because it's light, fairly strong, and cheap to replace. YJ 4-banger automatics used a 23 spline input on the 231 just like the I6 models. What is the bell housing pattern needed on the 2.2L and or 2.5L??? I don't have access to a NP/NVG 2500 you speak of to check. Any links to reference material you can provide. The YJ 4-banger uses a different pattern also, of course different from the I6, and we're wondering if they are similar. Figuring Jeep 2.5L and Chrysler 2.5L from the same era could be similar in the bell housing.

And BTT for the day crew. Figuring the block only weighs 90 lbs so this is a serious light weight contender. These motors should also be readily available by salvage.

yes i agree rpms wheel speed .6 pack coors ok .:D

Originally posted by frankie fountain
yes i agree rpms wheel speed .6 pack coors ok .:D

Wow I think we just had a break though:flipoff2:

Originally posted by bigdude


Wow I think we just had a break though:flipoff2: spell check ha ha ha ha :flipoff2:

hey all cool topic,

facts.... (as i see them) the FWD 2.2/2.5 have a off bolt pattern and won't bolt up to any normal rwd patterns..

BUT i found a guy making a plate to bolt it to a chevy transmission - he used it for drag racing pulling 13sec 1/4 mile times or somthing close... hes asking $700 for this gold plated beauty... i have emailed him about it...

this leads me to believe that if someone who is crafty could adapt this easily... there is great aftermarket support for these small engines and they can pump out lots of HP ...... AND even some torque as some sites mention this is real HP not "honda hp" lots of hop up stuff too clutches, heads, valves, cranks pistons, etc...

opinion.... hp and torque needed are all relitive to your set up... I'm looking for a cheep upgrade from my 1.3l zuke motor this would provide excelent gains over stock and keep in line with the light weight stuff already in use...

yes rpm can make up for low(er) power but only to a certain extent... bottom line low gears cost money.... some hp might be cheeper and if a stock engine can do it for cheep ill give it a try...

plus you still need some power to move down the road, low/low/low doenst work at speeds above 2mph... i still like to take a saturday nite cruise...

i didnt realize these were as light as they are, ill be giving this some serious thought as i look for a cheep light reliable power upgrade.. plus the idea of "stock" engine, computer etc.. more than a modified anything.. for simplicity and reliability..

i can see a powered by dodge sticker on the zuke now... :-)

As far as PSI goes, I just meant for if you wanted more power... If you just intend to use the factory settings, then you'll be fine... But it never stays that way for long, does it? Pretty soon you'll be wanting a twin turbo, 30 psi pumping monster.... Which would be pretty damn cool to see as it is...

JParuBob

When's the last time you saw a RUNNING turbo 2.2? I can't remember when - that outta tell you something ;) That, plus the idea of taking an engine from a front-wheel-drive car & trying to adapt it to RWD layout :rolleyes:


TEX

We've already got low enough gearing with an auto, our stuff doesn't see much road time :) Any power increase will be great as the two proposed vehicles are light weight.

Apparently there'e a Dodge Daytona ready to go on the chopping block to investigate the bolt pattern and see what's needed to fit the motor. As far as yanking the turbo and fitting it to a Jeep 2.5 we're optimistic. 9:1 compression is a little high but with 7-9 psi boost it should be OK. The 2.5 is a stroked 2.2 so engine internals are capable of accepting the boost (IMO).

I'm searching for the schematic drawing of the motors bolt pattern (2.2L and 2.5L) and also the turbo assembly drawings to assess the retrofit to a Jeep 2.5L. Having never dealt with turbos this is a true learning experience. Falling into the electrical aspect is what's starting to confuse me. I'm finding conflicting reports of turbo addition. Some say the stock computer will suffice and addition of a new computer or chip will only increase the gains, while others are saying a new computer/chip is mandatory to make a turbo addition work at all. Anybody with turbo experience care to explain the finer details???

I had an '88 Daytona Shelby with a Turbo II that I bought for $1500. I threw a make-shift 3 inch exhaust on it, iced the intercooler and intake in staging, bled the wastegate to the sum of 16 psi, for a 14.5@94mph here in the hot and sunny AZ... Great little motors. Here's a couple of VERY interesting websites regarding the subject... And don't forget to check out the 10 second, 4 cylinder Turbo II, front wheel drive Plymouth RELIANT... :cool:

The Dodge Garage- You read it right... 10 second K-Car... (www.thedodgegarage.com)

Gus Mahon's Site- Talk about a minivan that moves!!! (http://home.earthlink.net/~turbogus/index.html)

I had an '85 Shelby Charger with the turbo 2.2. Man that thing would scoot.....until it burned to the ground leaving me with no more than one good wheel left in the smoldering remains, that is :flipoff2:

There were some Dodge Spirits and Daytona RT's that made 222 hp (Or something like that)... You like this off the wall shit, don't you Dude?? :D

i had a 2.2 non-turbo in an omni when i was in college. the thing was a tank and the engine just wouldn't die. the only thing that stopped that little beast was a fullsize chevy running a red light.

i've also heard that the boost on the chrysler turbos can be pumped way up with little to no problems.

thing is, isn't the 2.2 a heavy motor?

Originally posted by TEX
When's the last time you saw a RUNNING turbo 2.2? I can't remember when - that outta tell you something ;) That, plus the idea of taking an engine from a front-wheel-drive car & trying to adapt it to RWD layout :rolleyes:


TEX

guess you havn't seen the volkwaggon turbo diesel conversion for the zuke....

it uses a nice FWD engine with an adapter and stuff.

so :rolleyes: back at ya :-)

-yag

Originally posted by bigdude

Apparently there'e a Dodge Daytona ready to go on the chopping block to investigate the bolt pattern and see what's needed to fit the motor. As far as yanking the turbo and fitting it to a Jeep 2.5 we're optimistic. 9:1 compression is a little high but with 7-9 psi boost it should be OK. The 2.5 is a stroked 2.2 so engine internals are capable of accepting the boost (IMO).

I'm searching for the schematic drawing of the motors bolt pattern (2.2L and 2.5L) and also the turbo assembly drawings to assess the retrofit to a Jeep 2.5L. Having never dealt with turbos this is a true learning experience. Falling into the electrical aspect is what's starting to confuse me. I'm finding conflicting reports of turbo addition. Some say the stock computer will suffice and addition of a new computer or chip will only increase the gains, while others are saying a new computer/chip is mandatory to make a turbo addition work at all. Anybody with turbo experience care to explain the finer details???


I'll give this a go. A turbo increases the airflow into the engine, simple, right? Well, sort of. The problem is, on a stock EFI system, you will screw the air/fuel mixture up. On a stock engine with no mods to the fuel system or computer you will run lean and detonate on pump gas. With race gas, you would probably be fine for low boost applications.

The "quick and dirty" approach is to just slap the turbo on and add a rising rate fuel pressure regulator. What this does for you, is that it increases fuel pressure in the system as the boost goes up. This is a limited approach, but it's cheap and easy and will probably work for up to ~10 PSI. It depends on your fuel system, if your pump can flow enough fuel at that pressure and if your injectors are large enough to flow the required fuel. With stock internals and low boost, you're probably fine with this method. You may need bigger injectors and/or a more powerfull fuel pump.

The other methods are a piggyback fuel controler, and a custom ECU. Both have benefits and drawbacks. I would probably go the piggyback route, less to configure. These are more flexable and able to handle more boost as they can deliver more fuel reliably. Not really an issue if you don't rebuild with lower compression to run high boost though.

Go hang out with the ricers a little bit, they know all about this stuff. :flipoff2:

I've been planning to do this to my car, so I'm studied the topic quite a bit. I have not implimented anything though, so I accept no blame if you blow up your engine. :flipoff2: Let us know how it works when you try it though. Oh, this all applies to superchargers as well as they do the same thing as far as the engine is concerned.

Originally posted by zukipuke


guess you havn't seen the volkwaggon turbo diesel conversion for the zuke....

it uses a nice FWD engine with an adapter and stuff.

so rolleyesback at ya :-)

-yag

It's also one very specific application that HAS a purchasable adapter. Can you say the same about the 2.2 turbo? Nope. So :rolleyes: and :flipoff2:

BTW, pretty sure the 2.5 in a Jeep is an AMC engine that they used PRIOR to Chrysler buying Jeep. IIf so, it's NOT the same as a 2.5 from a K-car, so have fun adapting that turbo.


TEX

Originally posted by TEX


It's also one very specific application that HAS a purchasable adapter. Can you say the same about the 2.2 turbo? Nope. So :rolleyes: and :flipoff2:

BTW, pretty sure the 2.5 in a Jeep is an AMC engine that they used PRIOR to Chrysler buying Jeep. IIf so, it's NOT the same as a 2.5 from a K-car, so have fun adapting that turbo.


TEX

They're completely different motors, which just happen to have the same displacement...

Oh and Tex; Who dares wins, so why not try it? This was going in a tube buggy as far as I know, so anything goes, IMO. Not like he's just looking for something to throw into a Jeep engine bay. :beer:

Originally posted by Welby
Oh and Tex; Who dares wins, so why not try it? This was going in a tube buggy as far as I know, so anything goes, IMO. Not like he's just looking for something to throw into a Jeep engine bay. :beer:

Well, I still can't find the tube frame reference (musta missed it), so I did assume some sort of Jeep type swap. Buggy would be different. Still, while I agree in theory with the "why not try it", I'm not overly fond of this particular engine as they don't seem to live long lives.

TEX

Originally posted by TEX
When's the last time you saw a RUNNING turbo 2.2? I can't remember when - that outta tell you something ;)
TEX

Hmm.. I was cruising around in one just Saturday. :D

Finally got it running after sitting for 3 years or so.. w/ a "no charge" problem that turned out to be a fusible link.. $60 shop fee, $1 part.. compared to the two used computers I'd bought, the multiple checks on the alternator, blah blah..

Really gets up n' scoots for a little 4cyl Laser.. gotta run it to 1500-2000rpm before it'll really start pulling.

I've already researched the various waste-gate tricks.. but since it's pinging at about 5 pounds of boost at the moment, I'll just hold off. :) Hopin' with a few tanks of fresh premium through it it'll clean up.

Couldn't pull the pass at 75mph in 5th, but 4th had NO problems.. and with 3 adults in the car @ 85mph still got 30mpg.

Anyhow.. they're still out there.

I've been pondering grabbing a pair of used Turbos from the junkyard, or for sale on-line, and start scratching my head on a twin-turbo IH V8.. but I already have all the parts to build my N/A 392, including the headers.. and I don't think it'd be fun to route the exhaust from the long-tube headers back up towards the intake n' such.

OTOH, some stock exhaust manifolds mounted upside down...

Originally posted by TEX


Well, I still can't find the tube frame reference (musta missed it), so I did assume some sort of Jeep type swap. Buggy would be different. Still, while I agree in theory with the "why not try it", I'm not overly fond of this particular engine as they don't seem to live long lives.

TEX

Well here's your reference, Mr. :rolleyes:. $1300 in tube laying on the floor and a full buggy being built this winter. Have previously thought of the 3.7L KJ motor but there just happens to be a '94 Daytona with the turbo II sitting out at Durhams that's available for the chopping block. Assessing the difficulty in putting it to a RWD application is one thing and assessing the application of salvaged turbo parts to an ready motor is another. A turbo can be fit to any motor with the right exhaust, electrical, and bracket work so :rolleyes: to you.

I also don't know if you read the whole post but I guess not. Two people have already mentioned using this motor in RWD applications, one with a RWD tranny that's a bolt up (from a Dakota).

I guess you just give the big rolleyes when it's not a blown mud monster huh:flipoff2: Or maybe because the block is so heavy at 90 lbs. It's not like we'll want a 100,000 mile warranty on this thing. Our vehicles are for competition and trail riding.

Originally posted by bigdude


Well here's your reference, Mr. rolleyes. $1300 in tube laying on the floor and a full buggy being built this winter.


All the more reason. $1,300 invested just in tube & you're picking an oddball engine. Sure, the 2.2's & 2.5's are all over the place, but not turbo engines.

Have previously thought of the 3.7L KJ motor but there just happens to be a '94 Daytona with the turbo II sitting out at Durhams that's available for the chopping block.

Price is right, but is it worth the effort?

Assessing the difficulty in putting it to a RWD application is one thing and assessing the application of salvaged turbo parts to an ready motor is another. A turbo can be fit to any motor with the right exhaust, electrical, and bracket work so rolleyes to you.

Yup, which is essentially what Dodge did with this engine. That's why most of the turbo versions died an early death. We have a Chrysler plant in this area. And greensheet pricing plus 80's gas prices made those turbo 2.2's REALLY friggin' popular. I know LOTS of people who had 'em, and when new I was REALLY impressed. Those cars are all in the junkyard now, mostly with spun bearings, holes in the blocks, etc, etc, etc. Kinda like the 2.3 Pinto engine. Tough little sucker, but the turbo version? Can't remember last time I saw one that runs.

I also don't know if you read the whole post but I guess not. Two people have already mentioned using this motor in RWD applications, one with a RWD tranny that's a bolt up (from a Dakota).

Waded through most of it. Bolting up a tranny isn't even the beginning of your concerns in a RWD application though.



I guess you just give the big rolleyes when it's not a blown mud monster huh flipoff2 Or maybe because the block is so heavy at 90 lbs.

Nope, although that would be infinitely cooler ;) Lightweight is good, but just because something is light & produced a good power/weight doesn't automatically make it a good candidate for a rig you're building from the ground up.

It's not like we'll want a 100,000 mile warranty on this thing. Our vehicles are for competition and trail riding.

I can understand that. I'll never get many miles out of my 408 either. But, when it blows I won't have any trouble finding another one ;)

TEX

Originally posted by TEX
Lightweight is good, but just because something is light & produced a good power/weight doesn't automatically make it a good candidate for a rig you're building from the ground up

True, and the other points you made were equally good. If it would turn into a bear to fit this then I guarantee we would not follow through with the idea. But since we can yank the engine whole the issue comes down to fitting a tranny. If it's not too complicated, then we're not losing anything by giving the motor a try. A couple days to fab the mounts and piece enough wiring together to run it. Now if it's $500 to fab a tranny adapter then I don't think it'll be happening because that money will be best spent elsewhere. Also there is no way all $1300 dollars in tube will be used on this one buggy :D

Originally posted by bigdude

Also there is no way all $1300 dollars in tube will be used on this one buggy :D

Well, you're really fawked if you're gonna try to share that 2.2 between 2 buggies :flipoff2:

BTW, not trying to poo-poo the idea too hard, just making sure the "con" side of the argument is heard :)

TEX

I thought the FWD 2.2Ls were lacking the bosses to put RWD style motor mounts on them. From what i recall, the 2.2 didn't get them until they started putting them in dakotas. Even then, I don't think FWD block had them. I suppose you could get a dakota block and put all the turbo stuf on it. Otherwise I suppose you could hang it from the side like they do on a Daytona, but I would think that would make it handle funny not to mention how it would look.

BTW Tex, the turbo 2.3 Ford is a good motor. I swapped one into a '79 Mustang once, and ran it for 90K miles with no problems save for a freak blown turbo. I'm putting another one in my Jeep. The EFI turbo versions have a good reputation for durability. If your interested, there's a very good website/forum on these motors, turboford.org (http://turboford.org). There are lots of guys getting 250-300+ out of these things with the stock bottem end. Now the early carburated turbo 2.3Ls are a different matter. They weren't very well designed in the first place and tended to ping easily and had no controls to prevent it, but the EFI versions are very good.

Originally posted by Grandpa Jeep
Now the early carburated turbo 2.3Ls are a different matter. They weren't very well designed in the first place and tended to ping easily and had no controls to prevent it, but the EFI versions are very good.

Well, in all fairness, I do have to say that the carbed ones are all I have any experience with. Had several friends who had those. I came away wondering WTF was Ford thinking hosing up that perfectly good 2.3? Glad to hear they worked out the bugs for the later ones.

TEX

Hmm... this is all getting interesting... As far as other things, I've pics from a guy who put a VW turbodiesel in an m38 i believe... He custom made his adapters, and while it looks crude, it works.

As far as just bolting a turbo on, it can be done, but it mostly depends on how high of boost you go... 7-8 PSI, and you should be fine with the stock injectors. They always overkill injectors, and there is a company that custom builds injectors anyways... Called RC engineering. They will build them anyway, with any flow rate, etc. that you want or need.

As far as just slapping a turbo on and routing the hoses, it isn't as much as a pain in the ass as you might think. It just all depends on the turbo you get. There are many different styles and what not of turbos with different inlet/outlet locations... The main thing that you need to consider is whether or not you're going to run an intercooler and where you are going to run it at. If you're going to do the standard front mount, then you're actually going to have to run a few higher PSI than what you actually want the engine to get... If you want 8 to the engine, you're going to need like 10 or more at the outlet. There is pressure loss through the intercooler.

Now as for computers, with low boost, all you would probably want to do is get a good blowoff valve and a good controller, like the GReddy Profec B or something to that effect. You can also get controllers that will tap into the ECM and can alter things like fuel maps etc. I'll have to go back into Sport Compact Car if you want some items in particular, as I can't ever remember which one is which...

JParuBob

I have a rice boy that lives right by me. I'm going to start plugging him for information the next time I see him :D

Originally posted by TEX


It's also one very specific application that HAS a purchasable adapter. Can you say the same about the 2.2 turbo? Nope. So :rolleyes: and :flipoff2:

TEX

No ADAPTER REQUIRED.. You get a bell housing from a Dakota (up to 94(95 started using the AMC 2.5)) with the 2.5 and 5 spd.. 2 or 4wd bellhousings are the same.. the NP/NVG 2500 can be found in W150's and Dakotas from 87 to 93 behind either the 2.5 3.9 and 5.2..