T22SED Steel Rods - Options

tuf20l · Post by **tuf20l** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:31 am

Hey guys

Im thinking of building up a 2.2 motor
however im a bit bewildered as a few members have said that you cannot use the conrods made for the vauxhall 2.2 engine?
how is this as you can use the same bearings for either motor?

both the daewoo's and vauxhall/holden use the same main and big ends bearing codes for both the 2.0 and the 2.2's

so wouldnt you think you could use the same conrods

so if u have a t20sed u can use the c20xe steel rods which are readily available
and if u have a t22sed u can use the rods made forthe 2.2 like on IPP etc..

or am i missing something?

cheers

gse_turbo · Post by **gse_turbo** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:41 pm

I'm amost 100% sure that the 2.2 rods found on IPP are for the aluminum 2.2 which is why you can't use them.

there rod issue isn't too big of one, you are just as well off having a set made here to the exact specs from the original. they would run about $800 but well worth it.

let me know before you decide to build the motor, I might be interested in selling all my 2.2 parts. everything's been machined and the crank's been knife-edged.

Garrett

tuf20l · Post by **tuf20l** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:12 pm

I'm just trying to figure it out thats all

from a bearing catalog here is what is listed so looking at this you would think that the parts would be interchangeable..

THIS IS UNDER THE DAEWOO SECTION OF MAKES/MODELS

LEGANZA HAS MOTOR A & C USED THROUHOUT PRODUCTION
NUBRIA HAS MOTOR B USED

A - Holden C20SEL,D-TEK 1998cc Inline4 A DOHC 4v 02/94 - 12/98 4 - 86.00 x 86.00mm
B - Holden C20XE 1998cc Inline4 DOHC 4v 10/91 - On 4 - 86.00 x 86.00mm
C Holden C22SEL 2198cc Inline4 DOHC 4v 01/96 - On 4 - 86.00 x 94.60mm

Conrod Bearings - 4B2320

Standard Shaft Sizes - 1.9280/1.9286
48.971/48.987

Standard Tunnel Sizes - 2.0472/2.0477
52.000/52.012

Main Bearings - 5M2327/5M2325 (diff part numbers, same shells just one has 2 oil holes and the other has only 1 but only one is used anyway)

Standard Shaft Sizes - 2.2828/2.2833
57.982/57.995

Standard Tunnel Sizes - 2.4409/2.4415
62.000/62.013

Then going to the holden section everything is exactly the same

Iinfact

the same bearings are used through the 1.6/1.8 8V along with all the 2.0 and 2.2 8V and 16V motors...

So from what I'm looking at here, everything seems interchangeable

i know you can use a c20xe head on a 2.2 ecotec or alloy block
you can use 2.0 alloy internals in a non 2.0 alloy block and vice versa
i know that u cant use 2.2 internals in a 2.0 block because of the taller deck height on a 2.2 block

It has been spoken of that u cant use the IPP rods to suit the holden 2.2 in the daewoo 2.2 but everything above is suggesting that this is false?

gse_turbo · Post by **gse_turbo** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:30 pm

tuf20l wrote: i know you can use a c20xe head on a 2.2 ecotec or alloy block
you can use 2.0 alloy internals in a non 2.0 alloy block and vice versa
i know that u cant use 2.2 internals in a 2.0 block

It has been spoken of that u cant use the IPP rods to suit the holden 2.2 in the daewoo 2.2 but everything above is suggesting that this is false?

this actually is not correct, in no way at all are any of the alloy ecotec parts useable on the iron ecotec blocks. the iron ecotec like ours is belt driven and the alloy is chain driven.

even though the bore and stoke may be the same and the bearings spec out the same they will not work. the aluminum ecotec was designed after the iron motor so a lot of specs will be the same.

even though the stroke is the same that does not mean the rod lengths are the same. the piston pis is actually higher up on the alloy block and I'm pretty sure the beck height is different also.

another ththing to consider with the bearings is width and oil feed hole location.

bottom line is if you want the right part and you want to spend the money one time and everything be correct... just buy custom rods.

Garrett

tuf20l · Post by **tuf20l** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:29 am

Ok so what i may be after is a 2.2 non alloy ecotec then? i thought all family 2 variants were belt driven
i wasn't aware any of them were chain driven

Are you able to please provide pics of the 2.2 crank?

also do you have a set of vernier digital callipers?

Can you provide the conrod length?
hole center to center
and ID of the tunnels

regards

gse_turbo · Post by **gse_turbo** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:46 pm

tuf20l wrote:Ok so what i may be after is a 2.2 non alloy ecotec then? i thought all family 2 variants were belt driven
i wasn't aware any of them were chain driven

Are you able to please provide pics of the 2.2 crank?

also do you have a set of vernier digital callipers?

Can you provide the conrod length?
hole center to center
and ID of the tunnels

regards

I can't find the post with the good pics but you ca see a couple HERE

the 2.2 rod center to center length is 147mm, everything else is to the specs as the 2.0

I'm not sure I know what the tunnel is that your refering to.

Garrett

tuf20l · Post by **tuf20l** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:39 pm

oh ok great thanks for that

you don't know the big end width of your rods do you? (2.2's?)

steel rods that are avail for the 2.2 that i can find have a BE width of 1.039" (26.4mm to be close enough)

if the daewoo's journals are smaller than this is there anyreason why you cannot just the big end width surface ground to the size you need?

Post by **PrecisionBoost** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:18 pm

I have some Iron Block 2.2L rods in my garage, they are definitly different than the 2.0L connecting rods.

The block for the 2.2L is about 1cm taller than the 2.0L.

I also have a set of 2.2L Aluminum rods/pistons and I had some data on compatible parts.

If I remember correctly I belive there was a combination of Aluminum/Iron 2.0L/2.2L parts that would work well.

Don't quote me but I think it was the 2.2L Aluminum connecting rods and the 2.0L Iron pistons.

The end result was a decrease in compression because the piston/rod combo was just a tiny bit smaller

I think it dropped compression by 1.5, but that could be accomidated when ordering aftermarket pistons

The length of the Aluminum Ecotec 2.2L connecting rod is 5.765" ( 146.43mm )

I can't remember off hand if the 2.0L Iron and 2.2L Iron pistons are identical, but for some reason I was thinking they were.

So if the 2.2L Iron C-C is 147mm and the 2.2L Aluminum C-C is 146.3mm the difference should be 0.7mm in total length

I'm pretty sure the small end diameters are different ( aluminum is smaller ) but it's possible that you may simply be able to ream the 2.2L Aluminum Con-Rods to fit the larger piston pin.

Or you simply have your pistons custom ordered to fit the smaller diameter pin.

I don't actually have my research info in front of me where I took all the measurements..... so please don't go out and buy stuff based upon this information as I remember there being a few snags along the way.

If I get time I will post all the dimensional information on the 2.0 Iron, 2.2 Iron, 2.2L Aluminum connecting rods and pistons.

tuf20l · Post by **tuf20l** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:28 am

that is fanastic information! greatly appreciated

that difference in rod length is neglible really my only real concern was the big end width, but i guess you can have them surface ground to spec

the small ends of the rods arent an issue either as you can ream/machine and fit new sized bushings to suit whatever size pins come with the pistons and whether they are fixed or floating or not have clearances machined accordingly

thatd be great if you could post up some comparitive measurements between those combinations

tuf20l · Post by **tuf20l** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:50 am

anything further with this?

also

would it be actually worth it to go from a 2.0 to a 2.2 as a baseline? atm i have a 2.0 and im just wondering what to do next
to either go 2.0 n/a (quads cams etc..)
or goto the 2.2 n/a (quads cams etc..)

Post by **PrecisionBoost** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:44 am

I'm gone most weekends... and my manufacturing business keeps me busy so you will have to be patient as I'm not on the computer as much as I use to be.

Aluminum ECOTEC Info...

Con Rod length C-C = 146.43mm
BE HOLE = 52mm (2.047" )
SE HOLE = 20mm (0.787" )

Width of BE = 24mm (measured with ruler.... can't find measurements... micrometer is at work... looks bang on 24mm )
Width of SE = 24mm (measured with ruler.... can't find measurements... micrometer is at work... looks bang on 24mm )

Alum ECOTEC pistons have a 26.75 comp height ( distance from center of pin to top surface of piston )

Total distance from center of connecting rod to top of piston on Alum ECOTEC = 173.18mm

2.2L IRON BLOCK INFO...

Con Rod length C-C = 148.2mm ( 5.8345" )
BE HOLE = 52mm ( 2.047" )
SE HOLE = 21mm ( 0.826" )

Width of BE = 22mm (0.866" )
Width of SE = 22mm ( 0.866" )

Piston center hole to top surface (comp height) =29.845mm ( 1.175" )

Total distance from center of connecting rod to top of piston on T22SED = 178.05mm

2.0L IRON BLOCK INFO ( C20GET )...

Con Rod Length C-C =
BE HOLE = 52mm (2.045" )
SE HOLE = 21mm ( 0.826" )

Width of BE = 26.34mm ( 1.037" )
Width of SE = 22mm ( 0.867" )

Post by **PrecisionBoost** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:01 am

Not sure why I found C-C as 148.2mm for the T22SED where as gse_turbo has 147mm as the length.

I will measure them again just to see which number is right. ( they are at work.... so it may take me a bit to get the confirmation )

The good news is that you can increase the SE hole from 20mm to 21mm and machine down the BE/SE width from 24mm to 22mm and the Alum ECOTEC rods should work good with the T22SED.

I'm pretty sure the 2.0L and 2.2L Iron block pistons both have the same compression height ( 1.175" ) so you may end up needing some custom pistons to make it work.

I have to think that it should be fairly easy for JE or Wiesco to modify the current pistons to allow for a slightly larger compression height ( either machine less material off the top surface or drop the pin hole down just a little bit )

Post by **PrecisionBoost** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:05 am

Originally I was working on this as a replacement for the 2.0L Iron block.

The Aluminum ECOTEC connecting rod was longer but the compression height was shorter.

In the end the Aluminum ECOTEC and C20GET weren't that far off each other in total length from BE Center to top of piston.

The big issue was that the C20GET BE width was a massive 26.34mm making it significantly larger than the Alum ECOTEC 24mm width

Since it's impossible to add material that would mean that I would have to get custom made rods..... so I didn't bother and picked up some C20LET rods (then later a set of Pauter Rods )

tuf20l · Post by **tuf20l** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:22 am

oh ok
as it has actually turned out
im able to obtain a vectra 2.2 easier than finding a t22sed
engine code c22sel so i think i may be able to now just use that

im just trying to wotk out the cost/benefit ratio at the moment

so is it going to be worth the effort going to all the trouble of this for the 2.2?

this thead is a great resource however

Post by **PrecisionBoost** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:28 am

I'm not exactly sure why finding a Vectra 2.2L solves anything.... the T22SED would share the exact same rods with the Vectra 2.2L if it's an iron block.

If it's not an iron block 2.2L in the Vectra then it won't fit into a vehicle designed for an iron block 1.6/1.8/2.0/2.2/2.4

What vehicle is this engine for ???????

Where are you located????

The 2.2L will definitly make more power (guessing 10% based upon displacement ) but the components for the 2.0L are easier to find.

If your going all motor or nitrous then a built 2.2L is the way to go.... or you could even get the C24SE crank and turn it into a 2.4L engine.

But.... if your going turbo then the 2.0L is the way to go.... since the extra displacement means virtually nothing.

After all.... 10% more power is just a few extra PSI of boost.... and the 2.0L engines can put out far more than the transmissions that fit them can handle.