My performance goals and various questions associated therein

Good afternoon, good evening, good morning. I am a newbie to the forums in account, but I am a longtime lurker with a desire for power and many questions I can't find the answer to. I am aiming for between 160-170 HP at the crank.

I am the owner of a 1986 and 1993 Volvo 244 and 245, respectively. The 245 was bought to be a parts car for the 244, after a minor front end collision which required replacing everything after the quarter panels, short of the bumper, radiator and AC condensor. The 245 was cheap, and the body was crunchy, the 244 only had minor rust. The 1986 engine ran fine, getting the 33 year old Volvol to over 100mph on flat ground, while the 1993 engine was barely running.

So, here's where it comes to performance. I want to keep the car as a good daily driver with low-end performance (mostly because of the tall 5th gear in my T5 transmission), and to keep things looking stock for the most part (philosophy of this build is Stock+, the car/engine in this trim package that Volvo could've, but didn't, build). This means I'm not installing a turbo, no ITB's, not even a "cold air" intake. Exhaust and EZK is as far as I'm willing to go, in terms of out-of-engine modifications.

The power modifications I have in mind, so far are:

1. 531 head off an AQ151 with a V cam.
2. Adjustable cam gear.
3. 46/38 valves, with port smoothing to accommodate the new valves (including removing the lip in the exhaust port). 1mm shave of the head would be at the same time, to recover lost compression.
4. EZK ignition
5. Tubular exhaust, with IPD 2.5 inch sport exhaust (with an added resonator for a bit of noise reduction, and 2.5" catalytic converter, in case it ever needs to pass smog again)
6. Front end under-engine aero cladding (nothing to do with power, but probably good for speed).
7. Maybe a windage tray/crank scraper, if I decide to rebuild the engine.

Getting a sandwich oil cooling kit is also somewhere in the timeline.

Napkin math has told me that I should get 140hp from the shaved head and cam alone. The penta AQ145 is a 2.3L with that head/cam getting 138hp with a carburetor. Based on more napkin math, Volvo engines with single carbs tend to get about 8% less power than the equivalent FI engine, but the AQ145 was a boat engine with twin carbs so it's probably not such a big difference.

The valves will get me to 146 (140*46/44, to adjust for improved airflow through valves, and more from the porting), and based on the 5hp gain metric from IPD sport exhaust and extending it to the tubular exhaust I'll be getting about 156. Maybe 160 from porting gains, or more if LH2.2 grants that much more of an advantage over the twin carbs off the Volvo Penta equivalent

Here are my questions:
1. How accurate is my napkin math?

2. How much HP does EZK give? I also noticed that it has no way to compensate for airflow, only RPM, so I'm concerned about partial throttle performance vs Chrysler ignition for daily driving (does it just advance until knock, then pull back?).

3. What kind of power gain could I expect from having less valve lash than recommended?

4. Should I build up the 93 engine in the background, getting the block honed, decked, maybe B230A/E pistons?

5. How would other cams that maintain low end torque for daily driving compare? The engines with the same cam are: AQ145 which shows 138hp, and the B230E shows 131hp at 5400 with 140lbft at 3600. Difference is the head casting (531 vs 530), compression (9.7 [wouldn't it be 9.3 based on the B230FX CR?] vs 10.3), and fuel system (twin carb vs K-Jet).

Thank you for your guys' help, and please don't scream at me for not doing a +T.

531 is a waste of money. If you absolutely need to port a head, you can use a 530 head. Many people like the V cam(I have never used it so have no experience there). I'm sure bigger valves/porting will add increased performance(you're not going to get the full benefit on stock ecu). Ezk ignition is cheap and doesn't hurt anything. Tubular exhaust, another waste of money(unless you have a big cam and willing to shave a lot more of the head to actually see some benefit, if you're doing it for looks, that is fine I guess). I wouldn't go bigger than 2.25 for exhaust. 2.5 is not needed unless you're doing carb or a 16v n/a setup. Aero cladding, sure why not(its your money afterall). Windage tray(again, your money, do it if you want). I'm not going to be one of those guys that tells you to go turbo since it seems you know the immediate benefits of doing so. If you decide to go through with your plan, you'll find that it wasn't money well spent(unless money is no issue, then go for it).

white855T said:

531 is a waste of money. If you absolutely need to port a head, you can use a 530 head.

Click to expand...

I already have a 531 head with the V cam. I'm not looking for extensive porting, only the basics, because too much will ruin low end performance. The 531 head gets that improved airflow through improved design, not by making the intake larger. The better combustion chamber helps as well.

I haven't read everything yet, but just wanted to say read this if you haven't already. http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=349780

I'll come back later with more. A stock(stock valves and unported!) 531 head shaved .080" with a thinner headgasket and a K cam(or larger aftermarket), a larger downpipe(even using the OE manifold) into a 2.5" exhaust and custom engine tuning could get you to 135-140whp(or more with aftermarket cam). Add a better intake manifold and you could gain another 5-15whp, most likely.

In the link above, we used a stock valved, un-ported 405 head(unshrouded to lower compression) that was shaved .123"(3mm) with an ENEM K13 cam(at that point), with a B21F K-jet intake manifold using an elbow adapter to a larger throttle body and a 2.5" exhaust(stock manifold, 1.75" diameter and 650mm long downpipes) with custom LH2.4 mapping for over 155whp(175+hp). Next up we have a much larger camshaft and 2" downpipes coming. The head does have stiffer valve springs to accommodate the cams.

The issue with the K-cam is that it loses too much low-end driveability for me. It's good for power, but from what I can see it loses on everything else. My goal for performance can be boiled down to a combination of:
1. An turbo engine built for max power, without the turbo,
2. With the camshaft of an excellent daily driver.

I'm looking for guidance of how accurate my napkin math is for my current plans, camshafts that might suit this better than the V cam, and anything else that might help with my pursuit of a high-hp naturally aspirated daily driver redblock.

530 head milled 1mm, 0.030" head gasket, D cam, conical air filter, and 2.25" exhaust with no cat and a glasspack got us 120whp, on the button. That's probably approaching 150 crank hp. We were able to take a couple liberties with our setup you may not want to, it's strictly a track car. Duration on the D is longer than the V, which will help upper rpm VE, which will help the peak power number.

If you've got the scratch you should look at an aftermarket cam and forget these factory grinds. The V is pretty decent, I run one in my daily and I like it. 530 head milled 1mm on LH2.4 and I can still run 87 octane. I wouldn't switch it out for any other factory stick. For a V15 though, now you've got my attention...

Did you do any kind of port or valve work?

What's the torque curve like for the IPD turbo cam? (V15 replacement). I can't find figures on NA power and torque. I'm looking for a smooth power curve with decent low end, not a peak-y curve that is dead below 3k.

What could I do to the engine to achieve my goals, while not sacrificing driveability?

Smorgesborg said:

Did you do any kind of port or valve work?

What's the torque curve like for the IPD turbo cam? (V15 replacement). I can't find figures on NA power and torque. I'm looking for a smooth power curve with decent low end, not a peak-y curve that is dead below 3k.

What could I do to the engine to achieve my goals, while not sacrificing driveability?

Click to expand...

Enem advertises the V15 NA as a cam for between 2000 and 6000 rpm. It seems like a pretty simple matter to just tweak the cam timing a bit to get it where you want.

I am currently waiting on one from Enem.

Smorgesborg said:

The issue with the K-cam is that it loses too much low-end driveability for me. It's good for power, but from what I can see it loses on everything else. My goal for performance can be boiled down to a combination of:
1. An turbo engine built for max power, without the turbo,
2. With the camshaft of an excellent daily driver.

I'm looking for guidance of how accurate my napkin math is for my current plans, camshafts that might suit this better than the V cam, and anything else that might help with my pursuit of a high-hp naturally aspirated daily driver redblock.

Click to expand...

If you look at the dyno sheet from my link above where we’re making more power than your stated goals, you’ll see that at 2500rpm we are making more torque AT THE WHEELS than the factory engine at the CRANK at 2500rpm with a camshaft that is MORE AGGRESSIVE than the K cam. If you increase the static compression to offset the increase in duration as talked about greatly in Spock’s other current thread you should be reading, you will have plenty of torque with a K cam.

Ideally you would be running something other than LH2.2 and have some more accurate control over ignition timing, but with some slightly larger than 1986 injectors(like the later ones from the 1993 or some 16V ones), you could maybe be ok on the fueling side. I’m not certain, I haven’t played with LH2.2 much.

For your power goals in particular, you need some more compression, at least a K camshaft(if staying with a factory cam, although an Enem V15 or V16, or AGAP cam would be even better), and accommodating modifications(engine management and exhaust upgrades starting with the downpipe back). You definitely don’t need larger valves and don’t need much of any port work aside from some smart cleaning up. More smart porting will always help no matter the rest of the setup, as long as it’s smart. The only smart porting I can recommend is that of various Swedes that will also match the right camshaft for your goal. You can keep the factory exhaust manifold as mentioned. If you really want a torque monster down low, you don’t want the 531 head because it has such large intake ports already.

Your power goals will be even easier to achieve if you use a different intake manifold. The factory one is a restriction from the get go(but I and others have made 140whp with it anyway, including shoestring here with a K cam).

Current numbers for dynamic compression given different cams and the amount shaved off the head. It assumes a more extreme, but not uncommon, case of the pistons sticking up 0.010" above the deck for the head gasket thickness.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mJbG1bW04PouNe1qFhTMYY-DZj-Ru_FCCeNlue4EeLw/edit#gid=935234908

The thread talking about emissions, NA performance, and dynamic compression. You could probably ignore the emissions part. I live in California so I have to deal with it.
http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=353970

Right now the only thing I have done to the cylinder head is clean up the obvious casting flaws a bit and polish the combustion chambers and exhaust ports. This was done because I can't get to a machine shop to have the head shaved and I got bored. It probably won't get me much in terms of power.

Smorgesborg said:

Did you do any kind of port or valve work?

What could I do to the engine to achieve my goals, while not sacrificing driveability?

Click to expand...

I once took a 530 head and in each of the chambers, did a different level of porting that I was comfortable doing. Mostly, it was cleaning up sharp edges beneath the seat and in the bowl, and smoothing the radii. I had previous experience with small Chevys, so this wasn't my first go. I also had a back cut done on a couple of the valves. The results were that I had wasted a lot of my time. While the intake side did come up to peak flow at a slightly lower lift, it made zero difference to the maximum value. The exhaust side did nothing. I have the flow sheets if anyone's interested, but they're not much to look at.

The best thing you can do is to match your compression to your cam. If you want to stick to 87, like I've explained, I have my 530 milled 1mm with a V and it works. Stock head gasket. If you are ok running 93 or whatever super might be in your neck of the woods, I'd go more, if you don't have emissions testing to worry about. Something like a K would probably like 2mm.

And if it were me, I'd build the '93. I like the rear thrust bearing, it's got bigger rod journals, larger rods, squirters, etc. I'm probably gonna take a little heat here about that list being unnecessary for your application, but hell, you HAVE it. It's a no-brainer from that standpoint.

shoestring said:

I once took a 530 head and in each of the chambers, did a different level of porting that I was comfortable doing. Mostly, it was cleaning up sharp edges beneath the seat and in the bowl, and smoothing the radii. I had previous experience with small Chevys, so this wasn't my first go. I also had a back cut done on a couple of the valves. The results were that I had wasted a lot of my time. While the intake side did come up to peak flow at a slightly lower lift, it made zero difference to the maximum value. The exhaust side did nothing. I have the flow sheets if anyone's interested, but they're not much to look at.

The best thing you can do is to match your compression to your cam. If you want to stick to 87, like I've explained, I have my 530 milled 1mm with a V and it works. Stock head gasket. If you are ok running 93 or whatever super might be in your neck of the woods, I'd go more, if you don't have emissions testing to worry about. Something like a K would probably like 2mm.

And if it were me, I'd build the '93. I like the rear thrust bearing, it's got bigger rod journals, larger rods, squirters, etc. I'm probably gonna take a little heat here about that list being unnecessary for your application, but hell, you HAVE it. It's a no-brainer from that standpoint.

Click to expand...

I would use the squirter block just to avoid piston slap.

So, here's an aggregation of what I get from the responses:
1. Valves are unnecessary to get my desired power. I'm going to do those anyways because it'll definitely help, at least with my goals of avoiding high-overlap cams.

2. Porting is unnecessary. I won't get any done beyond what it takes to match the ports. Thank you, otherwise I'd end up worrying about that.

3. Exhaust work is unnecessary, beyond the 2 1/4 exhaust after the cat. Gotcha. Won't do. Maybe if I ever decide to chase after 200hp or more, haha.

4. Larger fuel injectors might be a good idea. I'm already running 4 hole 196cc injectors. Is that good?

5. Shaving 1.5-2 mm might be a good idea, and would compensate for lost compression if I were to go for another cam, increasing lower end torque with those high-overlap cams enough that it's better
than stock at 2500. That's very useful info, but I'm using this as a daily driver for the most part and cruise on the highway mostly at 70mph at 2k RPM. I also plan on going fast (120mph), but that's secondary to this. Maybe 60%-40% in importance ratio.

6. Might want to get Microsquirt. Is there any way to remove the LH2.2 6200rpm Rev limiter that'd make this unnecessary?

7. Building the 93 is probably a good idea, though it's unecessary and overkill for my application. Especially considering, for my perspective, I'd have to rebuild the entire thing. Does it have any other advantages in knock prevention that make this a something worth going after in general?

There are still the questions about valve lash, windage tray, and EZK vs Chrysler power differences, but this is great so far.

Smorgesborg said:

So, here's an aggregation of what I get from the responses:
1. Valves are unnecessary to get my desired power. I'm going to do those anyways because it'll definitely help, at least with my goals of avoiding high-overlap cams.

2. Porting is unnecessary. I won't get any done beyond what it takes to match the ports. Thank you, otherwise I'd end up worrying about that.

3. Exhaust work is unnecessary, beyond the 2 1/4 exhaust after the cat. Gotcha. Won't do. Maybe if I ever decide to chase after 200hp or more, haha.

4. Larger fuel injectors might be a good idea. I'm already running 4 hole 196cc injectors. Is that good?

5. Shaving 1.5-2 mm might be a good idea, and would compensate for lost compression if I were to go for another cam, increasing lower end torque with those high-overlap cams enough that it's better
than stock at 2500. That's very useful info, but I'm using this as a daily driver for the most part and cruise on the highway mostly at 70mph at 2k RPM. I also plan on going fast (120mph), but that's secondary to this. Maybe 60%-40% in importance ratio.

6. Might want to get Microsquirt. Is there any way to remove the LH2.2 6200rpm Rev limiter that'd make this unnecessary?

7. Building the 93 is probably a good idea, though it's unecessary and overkill for my application. Especially considering, for my perspective, I'd have to rebuild the entire thing. Does it have any other advantages in knock prevention that make this a something worth going after in general?

There are still the questions about valve lash, windage tray, and EZK vs Chrysler power differences, but this is great so far.

Click to expand...

Either go standalone or a conversion to 2.4 and a 116EZK. Both are well documented.

You can set your valve lash within the spec range to make the cam behave slightly differently. A K cam with larger clearances will have effectively slightly lower duration and less overlap, so a bit higher dynamic compression ratio and less of a loss for low RPM torque.

I can't imagine the windage tray getting you much. Although if you have a cheap way of getting one and have the engine apart, why not. The more bang for your buck would be the piston oil squirters for which you will want an '89 or later block (the oil galley on that side is set up for them).

I am not sure of the power difference between Chrysler and EZK ignition. I like the EZK. Although I can't easily tune my timing on the fly. You have to swap chips (sbabbs does good work) or ground pins 18 and/or 19 (the ghetto way) to manipulate the timing. EZK doesn't exactly push timing until it gets a response from the knock sensor. It does have an ignition advance map it follows. So there is an upper limit to how far it can advance on stock programming. It will usually pull it back when it detects knock though.

Aside from preventing piston slap, what other effects do the oil squirters have on the engine?

Hi
A fresh engine with the 531 head and a suitable cam like a V or K cam and your other mods will give you an estimated crank hp of around 130.
The only two paths giving 160-170 crank hp and keeping the stock behaviour, are either a sensible stroker 16v conversion or a turbo engine.
All other suggestions are pure fantasy or ignorance...

YS
JB

I agree to some extent that my power goals are lofty with my desired limitations, but I don't understand how I'd get 130 when the marine version of almost exactly what i'm building would get 138.

I have otherwise seen the light of the various problems with how I've seen things, and I'm changing my approach in several ways (thinner headgasket, different cam choice, etc). In the meantime, where do I get a 0.036" headgasket that doesn't cost a fortune?

Don't port match. There's no restriction there. At all.

shoestring said:

Don't port match. There's no restriction there. At all.

Click to expand...

Any real benefit to general cleanup and polishing stuff while we are stuck at home or does it just make one feel better by doing something?

The benefit is you feel better.