Building a IE 2.9 for my iX

[Chrisbike]

So I floated a valve (bent) and broke a rocker;
The head is currently at a machine shop and it's not warped and will be pressure tested. Getting a valve job, and the head is getting surfaced and cleaned.
What I've Ordered:

-Schrick 284/272 cam
-Vac performance valve springs
-Supertech ss valves
-HD rockers
-Nuke adjustable cam gear
-Schmeidmann ss longtubes

Also got:
Vac Valve guides
New eccentrics
New valve collets
New rocker arm Hardware
New Valve valve seals

Basically I have to learn about the timing with the cam (any words appreciated)
Car has a sssquid stage 1 chip for 19lb injectors, 91oct (I can get a reflash)

Question is should I be ok with a chip or do I need to jump straight on the megasquirt wagon and get ms2? (I know ms2 is noob friendly)

Should I do anything else to the head?

P.s. if any of this doesn't make sense this is the first head I'm building so cut me some slack :o

[redlightpete]

To time the cam, you'll need to install it in the head and check the valve openings vs. what Schrick recommends. I'm my case, the Schrick 284/272 was advanced about 4.5 degrees (at the cam) when installed with a stock, fixed cam sprocket. See this thread:

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=395166&highlight=284%2F272

Keep your old head gasket, bolts, and timing belt to use to check the piston to valve clearance with the new cam. It might be tight, so try to remove as little material as possible from the head. You could always use the factory +0.3 mm head gasket to get a little more room, but you probably don't want to lower the compression any further than you have to.

I reported here earlier that a stock motor and full thickness head would only provide 0.5 mm of intake valve to piston clearance with this cam, but that was with the cam advanced. Putting the cam in the position recommended by Schrick would provide more clearance.

[Chrisbike]

To time the cam, you'll need to install it in the head and check the valve openings vs. what Schrick recommends. I'm my case, the Schrick 284/272 was advanced about 4.5 degrees (at the cam) when installed with a stock, fixed cam sprocket. See this thread:

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=395166&highlight=284%2F272

Keep your old head gasket, bolts, and timing belt to use to check the piston to valve clearance with the new cam. It might be tight, so try to remove as little material as possible from the head. You could always use the factory +0.3 mm head gasket to get a little more room, but you probably don't want to lower the compression any further than you have to.

I reported here earlier that a stock motor and full thickness head would only provide 0.5 mm of intake valve to piston clearance with this cam, but that was with the cam advanced. Putting the cam in the position recommended by Schrick would provide more clearance.

Thanks for the solid info Pete;

The head is warped ever so slightly between 3 & 4 so a very small amount of surfacing would be done, I'm going to clean the surface the block tomorrow and check it. It had a VR head gasket and I think the only VR Gasket is a 1.75 not the 2.05 or +0.3mm but I will ask for the measurements of the head this Tuesday. I ordered the cam gear because I figured I would have to retard the timing to correct it but may be wrong. When you say 4.5 degrees I know what your talking about but what do you use to get that measurement? I could have the shop assemble the entire head as well but I may have to wait more because they are slammed.. I will go ahead and read through that thread and furthermore post anymore questions that come up.

I want to build another iX block eventually consisting of..

84mm stroke (m52 crank)
85mm bore
10:1 comp. pistons (IE/Mahle pistons)
135mm rods (either s52 or h-beams)

Will order soon:
rhd 40mm itb's with MS2

Waiting on:
RHD lightened flywheel which I'm installing soon
Schmeidmann SS long tubes (If they fit the iX)



Nando is the reason I didn't buy a regrind...
After reading the thread It sounds like I will want to retard it a little.

What measurements should I focus on to keep some of the low end? I know its just a stock m20...

[stonea]

84mm stroke (m52 crank)
85mm bore
10:1 comp. pistons (IE/Mahle pistons)
135mm rods (either s52 or h-beams)

At this point I'd just buy a S52 crank and do a 3.1 stroker. Honestly its not going to cost you that much more money. $100 for a M52 crank and $200 for a S52 crank? Then you'd have some of that low end power too.

[Chrisbike]

At this point I'd just buy a S52 crank and do a 3.1 stroker. Honestly its not going to cost you that much more money. $100 for a M52 crank and $200 for a S52 crank? Then you'd have some of that low end power too.

Yeah, Not to ignore your suggestion because I can't speak from experience. I understand where you are coming from but I want a balance between engine longevity, and power potential, all while being 91-octane friendly. You're intention on the overbore is nice but I definitely want reliability over power and the 3.1 comes with some consequences. I have a ton of time and research to do before I build it..

[stonea]

In the end its your build so you what you want to do man. I just hate the 2.9 stroker option because you are spending 3.1 money for 2.8 power. Personally I'd go with a 2.8 stroker using OEM parts if you don't want to use the S52 crank.

[Chrisbike]

In the end its your build so you what you want to do man. I just hate the 2.9 stroker option because you are spending 3.1 money for 2.8 power. Personally I'd go with a 2.8 stroker using OEM parts if you don't want to use the S52 crank.

At the end of the day it's a m20. If I wanted real power I'd swap it right? Some people think it's hilarious to dump money into a m20 to began with but I have a iX and my intent is just to have something that has a little more go especially at 6000 ft. But at the same time I want reliability, that said I know that the less rotational mass in the engine the less stress and wear will be put on those components over time.

I have thought about boosting it quite a lot and while it can be done reliably and the cost to power is there and I can keep a/c etc. I just really like the idea of a nice n/a stroker with itbs. You know?

Also not to mention. I'm pretty certain that there isn't a good way to increase compression without a custom pistion. I don't have to go crazy on the rods although I'd get something lighter like a s50 rod, cranks are pretty inexpensive. I do wonder about the machining and how much extra time and effort would go into a 3.1..

Thanks for the input though. For now I'm just stuck with the stock 2.5 block at 130k. :yawn:

[stonea]

The 3.1 doesn't take any more work than a 2.9 (might actually be less machine work depending on what 2.8 crank you get). Thats why I always suggest it to people doing the 2.9 stroker. The thing that sucks about the 3.* stroker is that you have to buy custom pistons and rods for it, if you are already doing that then its only like $100 more.

But like I said its your car so if the 2.9 fits your build then go for it. I mean I'm doing a 2.7 for my ix just because it fits my build. For the same amount of money I could do a 2.8 stroker, but the 2.7 fits what I'm doing with the car.

[zaq123]

I did a lot of research and 2.9L is what I'm currently building. 3+L sound cool but there is much more to it than just higher stroke and bore (custom HG, major head work etc etc).
Also B/R ratio is close to want I want: 84 stroke and 85 bore = 1.01, close to oem 1.12 b/r and works well with 2 valve per cylinder and oem reddline

[stonea]

You don't have to use a custom head gasket. The 3.1 uses a 85 mm bore and also it doesn't require that much head work. Now if you are trying to get the most out of your motor then yes it will require extensive head work but thats true wether its a 2.5 or a 3.1

[digger]

You don't have to use a custom head gasket. The 3.1 uses a 85 mm bore and also it doesn't require that much head work. Now if you are trying to get the most out of your motor then yes it will require extensive head work but thats true wether its a 2.5 or a 3.1

this, you dont necessarily/inherently need to do anything different TBH compared to the 2.9L, except maybe clearance the IM shaft/ bottom of bores a mm or so depending on the rod.

you will want to make sure you tick the correct piston options though

[zaq123]

sound reasonable although "off the shelf" top quality piston availability with IE/Mahle looks less complicated option. I think it would be interesting to see someone taking m20 in max bore/short stroke direction to chaise the rpm monster. would 2V per cylinder be a major show stopper for this?

[digger]

if anyone wants a big 3L+ two of the better manufacturers other than Mahle MS (who i should mention can do custom to for $$$) that do import engines seem to be JE and CP, both can do the same basic alloy as Mahle MS (4032 with high silicon better suited to street motor) albeit JE and CP will do it in the full skirt design because they dont have the right forgings (not a big issue).

JE have done heaps of OE dome shapes for "topend/racetep", CP or anyone else will do it if you supply a sample piston or CAD probably cost more. both can do skirt coating etc for extra. so you can get much the same thing in shorter compression height for the longer stroke. certainly they will do a good job if installed correctly.

The cylinder head is the big limiter and to some extend then cam lift. look at all the big power pushrod 2V engines. very big inlet valves, big port CSA and big lift (high L/D) among other things.

there is only so much cross section area you can get from the m20 head before you break through the walls. this is why regardless of engine size 2.9L or 3.1L the peak hp attainable on max effort is going to be very similar the ports eventually "choke" the engine. The difference is the smaller engine will need more revs to move the same amount of air and make less peak torque doing so.

[digger]

sound reasonable although "off the shelf" top quality piston availability with IE/Mahle looks less complicated option. I think it would be interesting to see someone taking m20 in max bore/short stroke direction to chaise the rpm monster. would 2V per cylinder be a major show stopper for this?

im not sure what the smallest forged crank is maybe something from a more modern 2.5L from M54 or even m50b20, m54b22, perhaps something newer if you adapt the nose. it would be fun to build a small 2.6L (86x75) or even smaller (86 x 66) m20 revving to 9000+ and slaughter basic bolt on S14b25 engines all day long with over 300bhp...

[redlightpete]

To answer the OP's question about cam timing, the information I found from Schrick was that the intake valve should be open 2.2 mm at TDC, and the exhaust should be open 1.7 mm. This corresponds with what digger posted previously. The best way to measure this would be with dial indicators on the valves, but I just did it with calipers.
With a stock bottom end, you may have to tweak the cam timing to get adequate piston to valve clearance.