Holset Turbos, PART 4

[Slippi84]

Nope not scared. Don't have the funds to rev to 9k yet like I thought I would have had. I would like to have at least a 3k power band.

I am still stuck on powerplant and trans setup too but between the billet wheel divided t4 my manifold which I know is proven and a little juice I"m not worried and you have all that same stuff except the intake manifold which is a one off but you shouldn't either. CHeck biglady's thread he spooled pretty good with his hx52. You hooked me up with mine I gotta try and talk you into keeping yours

 

[b00stedtalon2]

Ive seen 42r cars with stock intake manifolds that do fine. Not too worried about that. My setup is stock 2g trans, 1g big rods, 2g pistons .020 over with arps. And bone stock head.

But #### it, i will keep it and buy a better valve train.

 

[Slippi84]

Ive seen 42r cars with stock intake manifolds that do fine. Not too worried about that. My setup is stock 2g trans, 1g big rods, 2g pistons .020 over with arps. And bone stock head.

But #### it, i will keep it and buy a better valve train.

 

[1gDSM4g63]

Ive seen 42r cars with stock intake manifolds that do fine. Not too worried about that. My setup is stock 2g trans, 1g big rods, 2g pistons .020 over with arps. And bone stock head.

But #### it, i will keep it and buy a better valve train.

How is that possible. Last I heard of no manufacturer makes a gt42r on a Mitsubishi housing. And if there was some manufacturer that is making gt42rs on Mitsubishi housing there is no way possible that it would cram in with the stock manifold. It would be pointless in having such a big turbo with massive air flow restriction.

 

[b00stedtalon2]

How is that possible. Last I heard of no manufacturer makes a gt42r on a Mitsubishi housing. And if there was some manufacturer that is making gt42rs on Mitsubishi housing there is no way possible that it would cram in with the stock manifold. It would be pointless in having such a big turbo with massive air flow restriction.

Re-read my post, I said intake manifold, not exhaust

 

[1gDSM4g63]

my mistake.

 

[JWoodley]

Does anyone have a spare FP exhaust housing for a 30 series laying around?

 

[Slippi84]

Does anyone have a spare FP exhaust housing for a 30 series laying around?

Sure I have three in my closet right now Those are some bad ass and expensive housings. There would really be no reason for someone to upgrade one. Best bet to just call FP. Mind if I ask what your looking to stuff into a fp 30 series housing?

 

[JWoodley]

Sure I have three in my closet right now Those are some bad ass and expensive housings. There would really be no reason for someone to upgrade one. Best bet to just call FP. Mind if I ask what your looking to stuff into a fp 30 series housing?

They are $399 from FP. I'd prefer a used one.

Don't worry about it, I'll post pictures when it all comes together.

 

[Slippi84]

They are $399 from FP. I'd prefer a used one.

Don't worry about it, I'll post pictures when it all comes together.

Yeah 399 for a hotside I'll pass. Good luck with whatever your rigging.

 

[dsm-onster]

A dodge cummins diesel turbo on a 4-cylinder mitsubishi is "rigging" no matter how you look at it . . .

 

[Slippi84]

A dodge cummins diesel turbo on a 4-cylinder mitsubishi is "rigging" no matter how you look at it . . .

no one asked you

I keep flip floppin like kerry on what motor to put in this thing. What do you guys think 2.3 stroker or 2.0l rev monster for a hx52?

 

[JWoodley]

no one asked you

I keep flip floppin like kerry on what motor to put in this thing. What do you guys think 2.3 stroker or 2.0l rev monster for a hx52?

Well, I didn't want to spill the beans this early....but:

2.2L (2.17L to be exact) .030 gets it closer to the 2.2 mark
Ross coated stroker pistons
156mm Manley I-beams
stock crank

For a standard 2.0L, it is 150mm rods and 88mm stroke. That is a 1.705 rod ratio

For this 2.2L, you are keeping the 88mm crank, but going to 156mm rods; making a 1.773 rod ratio.

Now i know it looks like a small gain, but actually in the big scheme of things, gaining ~ .060 is HUGE - this motor should be able to rev well past 10,000 rpms. (per Jeff B.)

That is why a 2.1L motor revs so high - 1.841 rod ratio.

Soo, the 2.2 is going to be the shiznit.





AND....








HX40 crammed into the FP housing. Matt and I have been bouncing it off of each other. But we've been beaten to the punch. Another Link member has snatched one up with the same intentions.

No guarantee it will fit but we have the fp30 housing and the 88hta housing. Either machine the 30 series to tuck the 76mm turbine in the 68mm housing or sleeve the 88HTA housing and machine it to the proper size.

 

[andy4g63]

no one asked you

I keep flip floppin like kerry on what motor to put in this thing. What do you guys think 2.3 stroker or 2.0l rev monster for a hx52?

My favorite would be destroked 2.1.
Because I am not that technically familiar with, is it possible to do 2.1 destroked, but bore the block extra to 2.2 liters??? Kind of how AMS does it, they bore the 2.0 liter, like 0.060 and get final 2.1 liter displacement.

Is there enough material on 4g64 blocks ????

 

[Slippi84]

After talking with a fellow tuner I like the idea of the 2.2 but not with the 4g63 block with the 4g64 block. Mated with a 94 stroke crank and 162 rods

 

[JWoodley]

After talking with a fellow tuner I like the idea of the 2.2 but not with the 4g63 block with the 4g64 block. Mated with a 94 stroke crank and 162 rods

Just a few too many kinks thrown into the equation for myself. 162mm = super duper long rod

 

[95tzlgst]

Yeah 399 for a hotside I'll pass. Good luck with whatever your rigging.

yeah i'll stick to my 180 dollar housing.

 

[delta448]

If you bore a 4G64 +0.060" to 88mm (you won't be able to bore the block again IMO, but) with a 92mm crank, 162mm rods and pistons with a higher stroker pin location; you'll have 2.24L of displacement and a rod ratio of 1.76. You'll see stroker-esque torque increases (and only about 30cc less displacement than the 100mm in a 4G63 block) and have good enough geometry in the bottom end to take advantage of the most radical valvetrain components available for a 4G63 DOHC head.

That's the engine I'd build for a turbo the caliber of the HX-52.

edit: Slippi84 posted as I was typing... great minds...

 

[Slippi84]

yeah i'll stick to my 180 dollar housing.

WHich is on the way for the 3rd time

 

[Slippi84]

If you bore a 4G64 +0.060" to 88mm (you won't be able to bore the block again IMO, but) with a 92mm crank, 162mm rods and pistons with a higher stroker pin location; you'll have 2.24L of displacement and a rod ratio of 1.76. You'll see stroker-esque torque increases (and only about 30cc less displacement than the 100mm in a 4G63 block) and have good enough geometry in the bottom end to take advantage of the most radical valvetrain components available for a 4G63 DOHC head.

That's the engine I'd build for a turbo the caliber of the HX-52.

edit: Slippi84 posted as I was typing... great minds...

Yeah after thinking about it and talking with a couple people this would make a sick setup. I still would take extra steps like I would for a stroker to rev high just for piece of mind but I know that it would make for a lot better overall and saver engine. My only question is how is the clearnace with the 4g64 vs the 4g63 cause I want to run aluminum rods and they are a bit beefier than other rods.

 

[delta448]

I would expect that the 4G64 block has plenty of clearance for the aluminum rods IF a "de-stroker" crank like the 92mm is used. Think of it this way, there's 8mm more room for the rod on each side of the block compared to the 100mm stock 4G64 crank. Not saying that you wouldn't have to clearance it, that definitely depends on the rod, but either way you have more room. How much thicker are the big ends of the aluminum rods than a stock 4G63/4G64 rod? More than a centimeter?

BTW, if someone were to actually build this hypothetical beast, Magnus has everything needed on the shelf , but it will surely cost you your inheritance, left testicle and firstborn son.

 

[JWoodley]

Thats why I suggested the Econo 2.2L setup. You can go with Ross pistons and Manley 156mm I beams for about $1150 to the door.

 

[Slippi84]

Thats why I suggested the Econo 2.2L setup. You can go with Ross pistons and Manley 156mm I beams for about $1150 to the door.

Your suggested setup is not a true 2.2 though and it is not true that it will cost you an arm and a leg. Rod length does not determine pice. Not to mention if you builing a motor like this price is not what your worried about. A eagle stroker 94mm crank is like 700 and groden rods are like 600 and pistons like another 600. So you figure 1900 for beast iternals to a great overal performing engine sounds like a good deal to me.

 

[damnslowtsi]

Well, I didn't want to spill the beans this early....but:

2.2L (2.17L to be exact) .030 gets it closer to the 2.2 mark
Ross coated stroker pistons
156mm Manley I-beams
stock crank

For a standard 2.0L, it is 150mm rods and 88mm stroke. That is a 1.705 rod ratio

For this 2.2L, you are keeping the 88mm crank, but going to 156mm rods; making a 1.773 rod ratio.

Can you explain a bit more how it comes up to 2.2l with the stock (88mm) crank? Is it a '64'block with .030" overbore? Thanks.

 

[GST95]

My favorite would be destroked 2.1.
Because I am not that technically familiar with, is it possible to do 2.1 destroked, but bore the block extra to 2.2 liters??? Kind of how AMS does it, they bore the 2.0 liter, like 0.060 and get final 2.1 liter displacement.

Is there enough material on 4g64 blocks ????

On a 64 block there is only .255" between the cylinders to start with. I wouldnt want to try .060 over. It would only leave you with about .195 between the cylinders if you didnt run into a jacket or something first. In case you want to know, 63 starts with .330 between the cylinders and a 61 starts with .430 between the cylinders.

Also, going from a 100mm crank to a 92mm crank will give you 4mm clearance on each side, not 8mm.