first time reading this thread. sounds very tempting..

 

I believe scc touched up on the subject :

To improve torque output, Honda engineers have stroked the all-aluminum four-cylinder 6.7mm to deliver another 160cc of displacement and a slightly undersquare configuration. By Honda's measurement, there's still 240 hp at your command, only it arrives at 7800 rpm, some 500 rpm lower than previously delivered. This is because the increase in piston speed from the long-stroke layout would stress the internals to the breaking point at a higher rpm. It's one of those physics things. The engine's redline has also been lowered 700 rpm to 8000 rpm.

So i assume there was some logic behind dropping the redline?


http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/roadtest...2000/index.html

 

As the article said, the longer stroke means higher piston speeds. That adds stress to the con-rods. Also, Honda may have lengthened the stroke but they didn't change the block, so the con-rods have to be shorter by a factor equal to the increase in stroke so as not to shove the pistons up through the cylinder head. That means that the maximum angle achieved by the con-rods during the crankshaft rotation is greater than on the 2.0 engine. Some have speculated that this will increase the side loading on the pistons which, coupled with the greater piston speeds, could possibly significantly reduce engine life. I can't prove that one way or the other but I think it makes enough sense to be a possibility.

FWIW!

Drive Safe,
Steve R.

 

My car is running fine with the 01 ecu, but it has only gone 9k rpms a few times after the swap. I usually shift at 8k, but if i need to i see big benefits in first gear if I shift past 8k.

What octane are you guys running? I am basically stuck with 91 octane, and 100 if i I want to pay more.

billman250, S2KEvolution, and you other guys, what octane are you guys running over there?

billman250, has the car been shifted at 9k repeatedly on a daily basis? All this talk makes me nervous about bringing my engines rpms over 8000 (even though there is good power past 8k).

 

The car uses 93 octane. It is not a daily driver, but it does see 9k when driven. Coupled with 4.77 final drive, I can honestly say he pulls on me just like a superchared car does. I will get a mileage figure for you guys since the swap.

Keep in mind his is untuned for addl. hp, and will stay that way.

 

thanks billman250. When I get some high octane, I'll bring the rpms higher and higher.

 

Just finished up with the 2.2 motor and trans and light weight flywheel...

The motor is brand new... so I have the break in period 1k or so.

It should go quick though, and also it was not as simple as plop and go..

the fuel rail that is on the 2.2 was a little different and so was the connection between the transmission and the shaft that goes back to the differential.
the wiring harness (sp) was the same for both...

At first I noticed that it started up with more of a motor-cycle sound. The light weight flywheel lets the engine spin faster.. (which is a given) The new transmission was worth every penny.. or maybe the extra torque earlier makes the transmission preform better????? only going up to 4k right now.. but the car feels alive....

much more later..

 

any updates?

Billman, would it be possible for you to do a compression test on the engine thats been revving to 9k?

 

There's nothing to update, there's nothing left to cover. The enigine is in the car and done.

If anything should go south, I'll come back to post.

 

93 here... i got a horrible valve tick though... just joking... "knock on wood"
running great!!!