| From | Message |
Slomaro
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/26/2003
13:35:51
|
 Subject: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
Hello all. I am trying to carefully plan out the rebuild of my dad's 360 in his '99 RT (175k miles and he hasn't driven it since September.) Anyhow, I have a friend (qualified machinist from S.A.M.) who has offered to do all of the engine work if I want him to. I purchased a used (10k) shortblock for a song to save money and time, and so that I can use the current worn out shortblock to build a 408 OVER TIME--i.e., I don't have the cash to go full tilt boogie just yet. Anyhow, would it be more cost effective to port and polish (and possibly install larger valves into--if applicable) the stock heads OR just get over it and purchase the 2.02s? I would really like to do a budget build, but I also like the Lightning killer package from KRC. I'm just trying to decide the cheapest bucks down way to get about another 75-100 hp from the truck. Any and all suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Oh, and I believe I will at least purchase all of the peripheral items from the KRC kit. Not opposed to a little spray, either, but I would like the hp increase to be NA first, then top it off with the gas later.
Many thanks,
B.J. Shrader
|
rtdkota
R/T
3/26/2003
14:03:28
|  RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
An extra 75-100 HP can be had on a 360--- even the 10k motor you already have--
1.92 RT heads, cam, 1.7s (or 1.6s with the cam-- I did the 1.7s first-- hehe), M1-2bbl (I have 4bbl),PPH headers, 52mm TB, 3" exhaust-- stock cat (opened to 3" in/out)-- Custom PCM flash, 290 rwhp, 325 tq-- figuring a 18% driveline loss- 353 hp at the flywheel, 396 torque-- (would be better with the 2bbl M1)--- 103 hp increase over stock rating, 61 ft. lbs. of torque.
NA---
Daily driver-- Runs good on N20 too :)
If it were a 408, I would go 1.97 valve-- keep the revs down as that's were the 408 will make the major power (My peak HP is at 5450 now)
Sam
www.socaldakota.com
|
Slomaro
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/26/2003
14:44:37
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
By 1.92 RT heads, do you mean ported stockers, (I'm not sure if the heads on it are the RTs or not--it is an RT, but how the H-E-double-hockey-sticks do I know?) PLEASE CLARIFY--I'm a little slow *GRIN*--oh--and thanks for the response.
B.J.
|
frog
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/26/2003
15:17:21
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
I have 2.02 heads and a bunch of head work done on them, and the shop that did my heads just done the same work on stocks, and said the design of the R/T heads and stock heads from our trucks was a huge difference. I want to say from .510 lift on stock heads flowed just over 265 and with R/T 2.02 heads it was just around 310. I have a 318 and I put 292 HP to the ground and 297 TQ.
FROG
|
janesy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/26/2003
22:16:09
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
it is possible to machine your stock heads to fit 1.97 valves. Mine are being done right now. I'll have 1.97 valves high lift springs/retainers, and 3angle valve job. I will let you know how it turns out. Thats about $350 can. in parts
|
Slomaro
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/03/2003
12:33:51
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
So, for the bucks-down-most-bang-for-your-buck method, would you suggest ported stockers or ponyin' up for a set of 2.02s? I ask because I have the opportunity to buy a set of 2.02s but, if I can get close to their performance with the stockers (and a liberal port/polish/valve job by my friend) then I would rather save that money and put it into some of the peripheral bolt-on items. Also, I'm REALLY unsure about the cam. Any thoughts on something streetable?
|
MikeD
*R/T*
4/03/2003
13:34:19
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
You'll get more flow velocity out of the 2.02 because when I first had ordered my 2.02 R/T heads I was shipped 1.92 R/T heads by mistake...so when I was shipped the right heads (2.02's) I compared the 2 side by side.
The combustion chambers are different...the 1.92's looked exactly like my stock heads and had a circular chamber but the 2.02's had kinda like a heart shaped combustion chamber and was a bit smaller than the 1.92's chamber, which means you'll get a higher compression ratio and that equals more horsepower.
You can try and port your stockers but I have a buddy that has the same cam same setup as me but he has what he thought was a kickass port job on his 1.97 heads...well on the dyno I pulled 309rwhp and 354rwtq....he pulled something like 280rwhp and 330rwtq.
Numbers don't lie ;)
~Mike~
Get In...Sit Down...Shutup...& Hangon
|
Slomaro
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/03/2003
13:59:32
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
Wow. Those are pretty impressive numbers. If you don't mind my asking, which cam did you go with? Are you happy with it?
B.J.
|
MikeD
*R/T*
4/03/2003
14:21:19
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
Its the Kammer racing cam .512/.512 lift .206/.215 duration @.50
Yes, its been a good cam I got mine for about $250 throught Bobby Kammer.
KRC Performance's 220 cam would also be a good choice w/ 2.02's
~Mike~
Get In...Sit Down...Shutup...& Hangon
|
Slomaro
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/03/2003
18:00:11
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
MikeD, how's your torque down low? I know that question has to be asked an inumberable amount of times on this board, but for me it really is important b/c this truck may, on rare occasion, be called upon to tow something. It will be used for truck duty from time to time as well. I know you can't have it all, so I'm trying to be realistic and make an acceptable compromise, if necessary. But heck, if I can go with a big cam and heads and still get the job done, then BONUS. I'd love to carry on about whooping on some lightnings (for which I do have the utmost respect), but again, I realize that that would be more than an arduous task, w/o a little bottle-feedin', that is. Anyhow, so how is that torque?
B.J.
|
MikeD
*R/T*
4/03/2003
19:04:53
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
Well it all can depend on where you degree in your cam. My centerline was @ 113, I installed it at that but then I retarded it to 108 which helps give you more torque but sacrifice a little top end. If you get the big valve heads you will lose torque unless you get a high stall converter, I used to have the 2400 but that wasn't enough (too boggy off the line) so I switched to the 2800.
Keep in mind when you switch to the 2.02's u gotta do alot of other mods to compliment it, they are high revving heads for the upper RPM range. Also I had the B&G flash which advanced timing by 36 degrees & removed the Torque Management for the '01 & up, which helped give me more torque also.
Even if you got the 1.92 R/T heads (keep in mind stock heads off an R/T aren't R/T heads) those are a different casting than the stock heads off an R/T or 5.2 so they will flow more. If you don't have much money to spend I'd get the 1.92 R/T heads ported and polished so you won't have to buy other stuff to compliment it like you would if you had the 2.02's
Sorry for the long post, hope that helped.
~Mike~
Get In...Sit Down...Shutup...& Hangon
|
Slomaro
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/04/2003
17:26:49
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, I have the opportunity to buy a set of 2.02s from a fella', new in the box, and he is being VERY patient with me (having to wait b/c this is TAX month). I really want the 2.02s, but I need to make certain that I'm being realistic as well--which means, I need to make sure that the truck retains all of it's utilitarian characteristics. So, I guess what I'm asking is: would you consider the 2.02s and KRC 220 cam a true, streetable truck combo. And by that, I don't mean barely streetable, but at least moderately so. I really appreciate all of the input.
B.J.
|
Anthony G
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/04/2003
17:44:47
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
KRC220 would cause havoc on a stock PCM, my KRC206 is at the border line for my 2001 PCM. I also have 2.02 R/T heads which do help power around 3500+ but hinders some torque under that.
|
MikeD
*R/T*
4/05/2003
03:54:37
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
The 220 has a really low MAP signal which like Anthony said would make the PCM go nuts...my PCM doesn't like my cam either but it lives w/ it.
Yes it would be streetable, there are alot of guys that have bought the 220 cam and it has been streetable, of course you know its gonna have a hella lope to it if you don't mind that...I love the lope of mine get tons of looks and compliments.
To be honest if I could go back and do it again I'd get the 220 cam instead of the Kammer.
~Mike~
Get In...Sit Down...Shutup...& Hangon
|
Nick
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/05/2003
10:32:45
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
I have the 210X in my truck and it doesn't idle bad at all. It sounds quite mean..I have yet to drive it yet r/t all the dang snow we keep getting.
|
Slomaro
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/07/2003
18:13:32
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
Hmmm. I definately WANT to go the 2.02 route. Another question I have is in regards to the computer. On the KRC website, they recommend a Mopar PCM and the ROE racing controller. Personally, I like to follow the K.I.S.S. method (keep it simple, stupid) and would much prefer to have ONE computer custom programmed for my combo. Granted, this could be a pain if I changed the combo, but then again, that's why I ask all of these questions to those of you with experience BEFORE purchasing anything. I absolutely hate to waste money on things I don't need or that are simply a compromise in lieu of something I do need. What are your thoughts?
|
Slomaro
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/08/2003
13:56:25
| RE: ported stockers or 2.02s???
IP: Logged
Message:
Any thoughts at all on the computer thing??
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
