|
I thought it was understood that I'm not planning to push this thing to the outer limits.
I realize that you can take anything to an illogical extreme and blow a motor up. That's not what the discussion is about though.
longevity, power and efficiency are not some "pick any two" mutually exclusive paradox. it's a balance, and I'm trying to tilt that balance just a little. My truck's motor is in the autumn of it's life, and I'm trying to make a smart decision about the next step based on what I have available to me.
clearly, the chevy 2.2 was a commercial success, and isn't bad by any means. It gets acceptable gas mileage, and has a lot going for it...just not bottom end torque.
The only two ways to tilt that balance are going to be either extract more torque from the 2.2 liters I'm working with, or get some more displacement.
obviously turbocharging a 2.2 creates more wear than not doing it, but the benefit is less weight, fewer parts to swap, and an overall cheaper, easier project. It needs rebuilt anyway, so things can be done to improve wear characteristics in a turbo application. oil squirters, forged pistons, floating wrist pins, improved oiling, and roller valvetrain upgrades come to mind.
The 5.7 swap certainly has durability going for it, as well as world class parts availability...there isn't much you can't get for a small block chevy. Obviously it's a winner on the power front. There will be some additional expense in sourcing a transmission and swap kit. I'm ok with that. there will also be a considerable weight penalty, which should not be overlooked. Based on what I've seen done from the factory by General Motors, especially with regard to the fullsize granny wagons of the 90's, I think maintaining or even improving my efficiency is not out of the question with intelligent tuning and gear ratio selection.
The question I'm trying to answer is how does the idea of a low boost turbo 2.2 build stack up against the 5.7 swap in terms of real numbers?
Is there really any significant mpg benefit to be gained by choosing one approach over another? Please keep in mind the intended use...mixed driving, loaded most of the time.
|