Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


lamchop77 last won the day on April 5 2018

lamchop77 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

About lamchop77

  • Rank
  • Birthday 30/11/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Mathew, Another alternative to look for is the 2.2 CIH from the Carlton (was it Omega for you guys!!) big improvement in torque and shares a similar head to the 2.4. They were/are rare in the uk but i'm sure they were more plentiful in Europe and fitted to more vehicles. I built one on a budget so it ran a 2.0 head with 46/41 valves, std pistons but pocketed, 244 cam, 48s, std distributor and a lightened and balanced bottom end and was putting out just shy of 180bhp but had loads of low down grunt. HTH Chris
  2. Sounds like it could just be leaning out. Definitely change the injector seals and resell the mounting plates. Have you checked all the induction pipe work after the throttle body? They can split especially at the flex points. It will make it feel flat as a pancake if it is! Hth Chris
  3. lamchop77


    Probably a recon at some time in its life. I have one that was a factory recon and it has 2.0s on the block.
  4. Been a while since I posted on here!!!! The 2.4.head is pretty much the same as the 2.2 head but the exhaust ports are bigger. The combustion chamber as said is bigger than the 2.0 and gives the 10% or so drop in compression. If you want to use it skim the head to raise the compression a bit and invest in Vernier timing gear as you will need to dial the cam back in after skimming, can’t remember exactly but I think 0.1mm skim is a 1 degree change in the position of the cam. The inlets are higher in the head but this gives a big increase in flow. Comes from early tuning of the “Sweden heads” I think. Basically a 2.2/2.4 head starts flow wise where a fully ported 2.0 stops so definitely worth using. You can use the 2.0 injection and manifold it just needs the dowel positions red rolling in the 2.0 plenum and a bit of port matching to fit. Guy I knew ran 2.0 injection on a standard 2.4 and got a 9bhp increase. 2.2/2.4 injection was geared for economy not power. Hth Chris
  5. Look on ca builder solutions, they should have something. HTH Chris
  6. Andy, Rebuilding is exactly the same as the 2.0 differences being the bearings for the big ends on the conrods don't have holes in them for the piston oil squirters (usually anyway, there are some 2.4s with the piston oil squirters!!!! Just check the conrod for a small hole on the top of the big end close to the bolt), but you can use the 2.0 bearings in the 2.4 conrods no problem. Pistons are the floating gudgeon pin type in the 2.4 so its jus a matter of assembling the piston, rod, gudgeon pin and fitting the c clips into the piston. Its a bit fiddly but you can do it carefully with a small screwdriver. Everything else is pretty much the same. HTH Chris
  7. General, If your using super plus it should be roughly what 4 star was, so std timing should be ok. IIRC static timing is 12 deg and then with revs advances up to about 30 ish. I did get a good piece of advice off a guy years ago. He said listen to the starter motor as the engine is cranking over, if it sounds like its kicking back change the timing so that it sounds like itsits cranking freely. Your timing should be spot on then. Mine was 12 1/4 deg when i did it this way. Every engine is different so you have to listen to whether its happy or not. Just as an example i have a highly tuned CIH and i awas going to have a custom cam ground up so i took measurements every 10 deg of where the piston was in the bore so that max lift and timing could be determined. The readings for the piston on the way up were different to on the way down, and by a few mm. The reason.......the crank is offset in the block, only a touch but its probably on max tolerance. So you can time your engine to where the piston should be as designed but it could be 2-3 mm away from that position in reality. Hence listening to the engine is alwaya good indicator. HTH Chris
  8. Nope, all the std 2.0CIH/1.8OHC Manta flywheels i have seen all have the recess on them (approx 2.5mm) . I have a redtop flywheel as well for the larger clutch and that is the same. HTH Chris
  9. Well I used to use ATF as the gearbox guy i used to use recommended it!! Thing is he was wrong!! So thats me posting duff info. The firm i used aren't what they used to be as the old guy who ran it retired. Through other various sources its come to light that ATF doesn't have certain anti wear additives that the older 5 speed boxes need, saying that the boxes i have run on ATF are still fine and dandy. Basically go with he 75-90 GL5 oil as Rutts has said to be safe. I switched to using the Lucas stuff. HTH Chris
  10. Personally I'd go with the mod to the combustion chamber, it really isn't a lot to take off. I have been told that the risse headgaskets aren't really up to scratch and can fail after a few thousand miles. Elrington, paten or an MLS gasket are best. Also if you are increasing the gasket thickness you will be changing the cam timing. If your going to go the thicker gasket route go with MLS or better still copper headgasket.
  11. It might, but 20 mins and a die grinder to smooth the edge of the combustion chambers works a treat!!!
  12. Yeah get em put back on!! Couple of things I'll comment on. If your going the 2.4 route get the aftermarket pistons. The Mahle ones are just not up to the job if your going to push the engine at all, same thing for the 2.2 pistons. My experience with them is that the ring landings crack and also that the ring recesses go over size which causes ring chatter which can crack them. If you do go the Wossner route be aware that the dome for raising the compression is actually the profile of the 2.0 head combustion chamber and not the 2.2/2.4 head. If you use the pistons with a std 2.2/2.4 head the dome will contact the edge of the combustion chamber on the head. It's only about 1mm or so but you will need to mod the head to clear this. Hth Chris
  13. The basic problem for the 2.4 is the crappy rod ratio, 1.58, this coupled with a shorter skirted piston causes the piston to wobble at the top of the bore. On the 2.4s I have its only the top 10mm of the bore that was worn, the rest was perfect. On e thing to note is that there is a 90 thou offset of the gudgeon pin to one side, the thrust side, which i assume was done to try and counter the piston wobble problem and gain higher mileage from the motors. I'm pretty sure that all aftermarket pistons have the gudgeon pin centred as its better for power, etc. The Wossner pistons have an anti wear coating on the skirts which should help matters. Also because the pistons are higher quality forged items the piston to wall clearance is tighter so there is less room for wobble to start.......wel thats my take on it!!!! Basically if your running a 2.4 budget for a future rebuild. I'm building a 2.5 but i've also gone a different route with a "long rod" 2.3 . This gives a rod ratio of 1.73 which is close to the ideal 1.75 figure thats banded about. This longer stroke engine should give more mid range and top end power and be really free revving. There could be a a small loss in low end torque but because i'm upping the capacity it should balance things out, it also will reduce side loadings on the piston and therefore wear on the bores so should last longer.
  14. Paisley Freight as mentioned but the stuff will need packing and copies of yourpaperwork will need to be on as well.
  15. Agree Mantadoc, plus the 2.0 is a much simpler system and you can use a 2.0 modded distributor if you want a decent cam in. Std 2.2 dizzy has no advance/retard inside, it was all done electronically via a little black box!
  • Create New...