243 replies to this topic

[smiley]

Catch up on some reading here:

 

Vocky's B207 modding topic with plenty of detailed pixies: http://z22se.co.uk/t...ine-build.24759 Cams for the B207: http://www.vx220.org...saab-conversion B207 Saab Conversions: http://www.vx220.org...aab-conversions

 

As for B207 itself, when Saab went bust, the complete B207 stock went to 2 parties:

UK: http://www.neobrothers.co.uk Netherlands: http://www.saabpartners.com

We got most of the engines there, as they are brand new.

 

As for which route to take, it depends on how much horse power you need, and with which quircks you can live.

 

Food for thought: - Stock Z22SE, good for up to 250/260, then it needs pistons and rods. Then it's good for 400.    Downside of aftermarket pistons is alu grade, that makes them leak oil when cold.

 

- B207R needs trigger wheel that obdtuner understands. Either inside the engine (replace triggerwheel), or outside of engine.   Saab tuners push this one to 310hp, and 400nm max. oem Piston ring quality are the questionable target right now.   Only 1 engine known to push up to 350hp, and that started to have oil consumption. All the rest stays at 330 so far.

  Wanna play safe, it's the same pistons and rods story from the 2.2.

 

Keep in mind that getting horsies from a 2.2 is easier then from a 2.0. Even better from a 2.4

The eaton M62 can get you to a whopping 317isch. You need the harrop to go beyond that.

 

Do the math beforehand, as this can get very, very expensive.

 

Edited by smiley, 01 March 2016 - 11:09 AM.

[CHILL Gone DUTCH]

ive driven a 2.0 and own a 2.2 but cant comment on the bigger cc 2.4 and beyond 

 

so between the 2.0 and 2.2 

 

the 2.2 does not suffer from lack of revving not sure where this has come from maybe there is some technical explanation somewhere but i rev the 2.2 to 7500 rpms with out any issue

the 2.0 has considerably less torque, it was very noticeable when i drove the 2.0 

 

down sides

 

the 2.0 need a external trigger wheel and all the other bits to go with it. in standard form its debatable how good it is, and how its coping in SC conversions 

 

the 2.2 needs a z22se crank and forged internals and valve springs  so can be quite costly to do this. 

 

 

Just to add a bit more on to this,

 

both the cars ive driven were harrop cars but the 2,0 car deffo gave us some issues with oil and was possibly blow by on the pistons and this owner now has decided to go 2.2 before any significant mileage on the engine, 

The 2.0 was also on a smaller pulley (2.9) than my own 2.2 (3.1) 

we decided to stop the mapping processes on the 2.0 as we were getting close to 340 hp but must say the issues we had came a lot before this.

 

the standard b207 route also has a higher compression than my 2.2 

 

all of the options do seen to be in there infancy but the 2.2 seems to be giving less signs of failure

 

both on zzp stage 2 cams 

 

Edited by CHILL Gone DUTCH, 01 March 2016 - 11:47 AM.

[Jocke_D]

Thanks for your input chaps (lads? guys? mates? I'm always chosing between expressions from forums/older movies/newer movies/TG and Monty Python ). I'll catch up on the threads Smiely, thanks.

 

So it sounds like possibly the easiset way forward, with a minimum of difficulty, would be to get a second Z22SE and swap pistons/rods/valve springs and "simply" swap them in the off season?

And this could also possibly be the less costly approach as well, depending on what the new engine cost?

 

How about a Saab head? Would it also need new springs for better coping with higher revs? Is it a true bolt on job (separate coils and all)?

[Rosssco]

Bear in mind the 2.4 runs a higher CR (10.4:1) so you can't go daft on the boost level. Plus, the standard post-07 bottom end doesn't have standard forged rods like the 2.0 Saabs, so is only safe for ~300bhp (depending who you believe..

 

Its rev's as well as a 2.2 anyway, so no worries in that respect.

[CHILL Gone DUTCH]

That's good to hear So the 2.2 2.4 and 2.0 litres seem to rev as well as each other 👍

[Jocke_D]

Bear in mind the 2.4 runs a higher CR (10.4:1) so you can't go daft on the boost level. Plus, the standard post-07 bottom end doesn't have standard forged rods like the 2.0 Saabs, so is only safe for ~300bhp (depending who you believe..

 

Its rev's as well as a 2.2 anyway, so no worries in that respect.

 

After my previous post about different engines I read up on the Wikipedia article about the ecotec family once more and found exactly that. Thanks for pointing it out

My Idea using a pretty complete 2.4 didn't look as good after that. Higher C/R and some fancy variable valve timing stuff made me rethink. No 2.4 if no one tells me it would be a REALLY good idea for some reason I haven't thought about yet.

 

So we're back to a Z22SE in 2.2 liters with rods and pistons.

 

What about cylinder heads?

- OEM Z22SE with better springs

- OEM Saab

- Saab with better springs

- Combination I haven't thought of

[Captain Vimes]

I'd still be nervous of revving the 2.2 or 2.4 too hard as they've got a relatively long stroke which in turn means that at a given engine speed, the pistons are moving at high speed, which obviously stresses pistons and rods. Examples of standard engines: K20 -86mm stroke -8k rpm -mps = 22.9 Z22se - 94.6mm stroke -6.2k rpm - mps=19.5 S1000rr - 49.7mm - 13.5k rpm - mps= 22.3 F360 - 79mm - 8700rpm - mps = 22.9 2.4 ecotec - 98mm - 6.2k - mps = 20.2 B207 = 86mm stroke (same as K20) The z22 was built as a long stroke engine with a torquey delivery and wasn't built to handle mps in line with the more performance oriented engines listed above.. If we aim to cap a standard unbalanced ecotec bottom end at 22 m/s. We get: 2.4, 6750 rpm, Mps=22.05 2.2, 7000 rpm, mps=22.07 2.0, 7700 rpm, mps=22.07 Although this still feels high for an engine that wasn't designed to operate at these kind of limits. In comparison a 2.4 at 7500rpm would give a mps of 24.5 which is a lot. Disclaimer - data pulled from Wikipedia so may be wrong..

[Rosssco]

I fitted a rebuilt Saab B207 head to the 2.4 bottom end, so you don't have to use the VVT head at all.

 

Changing the rods only on the 2.4 bottom end for stronger versions, means its generally accepted to be good for near ~400bhp.

 

I use a M62 with a 3.1" pulley, which in reality probably equates to a 2.2 with the standard M62 3.35" pulley, so at a guess will probably give 280-290bhp (there's a few other mods such as porting and larger exhaust etc.)

[smiley]

How much HP would make you happy Jocke?

 

[CHILL Gone DUTCH]

Don't tell vocky, captain He is reving his 2.5 up to 7500 Which makes me feel a bit better about reving the 2.2 up to 7500

[Kieran McC]

What size exhaust are you using ?

[Captain Vimes]

Don't tell vocky, captain He is reving his 2.5 up to 7500 Which makes me feel a bit better about reving the 2.2 up to 7500

But his bottom end has been built for it.. And he only drives it to the MOT station once a year and not round in circles for hours on end with maximum abuse

[CHILL Gone DUTCH]

What size exhaust are you using ?

3" With 2" primary's

[Exmantaa]

I'd still be nervous of revving the 2.2 or 2.4 too hard as they've got a relatively long stroke which in turn means that at a given engine speed, the pistons are moving at high speed, which obviously stresses pistons and rods. Examples of standard engines: K20 -86mm stroke -8k rpm -mps = 22.9 Z22se - 94.6mm stroke -6.2k rpm - mps=19.5 S1000rr - 49.7mm - 13.5k rpm - mps= 22.3 F360 - 79mm - 8700rpm - mps = 22.9 2.4 ecotec - 98mm - 6.2k - mps = 20.2 B207 = 86mm stroke (same as K20) The z22 was built as a long stroke engine with a torquey delivery and wasn't built to handle mps in line with the more performance oriented engines listed above.. If we aim to cap a standard unbalanced ecotec bottom end at 22 m/s. We get: 2.4, 6750 rpm, Mps=22.05 2.2, 7000 rpm, mps=22.07 2.0, 7700 rpm, mps=22.07 Although this still feels high for an engine that wasn't designed to operate at these kind of limits. In comparison a 2.4 at 7500rpm would give a mps of 24.5 which is a lot. Disclaimer - data pulled from Wikipedia so may be wrong..

 

Yeah; the 98mm stroke of a 2.4 bottom end would not be my kind of thing. But the 2.2 engine with 94.6mm crank has proven to stay reasonably reliable on track abuse to around 7500rpm, some even higher... (although an SC with M62 charger is clear out of breath there)

But there is no substitute for cubes, so my next engine will have an 88mm bore with 94.6mm throw to guzzle in al the air my Harrop can feed it.

 

[Jocke_D]

Thanks for all input regarding engines. We'll get back to that but right now I have a small, possible, problem.

 

Thought that I'd read up on everything regarding how to switch the wiring for the 68mm TB so I wouldn't have to ask more stupid questions. But no

 

When I started stripping the loom and loosing the pins I discovered that the colouring of my wires doesn't match any instructions I've seen.

 

Do I have to worry or should I trust the position of each wire and disregard the colours?

 

I have

A = Blue

B = Brown

C = BlackRed

D = Blue

E = BrownWhite

F = BrownRed

G = Brown

H = BlackRed

 

 

[Exmantaa]

 

When I started stripping the loom and loosing the pins I discovered that the colouring of my wires doesn't match any instructions I've seen.

 

Do I have to worry or should I trust the position of each wire and disregard the colours?

 

I have

A = Blue

B = Brown

C = BlackRed

D = Blue

E = BrownWhite

F = BrownRed

G = Brown

H = BlackRed

 

 

 

 

Above is in Dutch, but you have the 1st color scheme which is pretty common. Anyway; just swap the pin positions out according this scheme and all should be fine.

 

Translated the above scheme reads:

A: Blue

B: Brown  or  Brown/black

C: Black/red  or  Black/white

D: Blue

E: Brown/white  or  Brown/red

F: Brown/red  or  Black/red

G: Brown

H: Black/red  or  Black/brown
 

[Jocke_D]

  When I started stripping the loom and loosing the pins I discovered that the colouring of my wires doesn't match any instructions I've seen.   Do I have to worry or should I trust the position of each wire and disregard the colours?   I have A = Blue B = Brown C = BlackRed D = Blue E = BrownWhite F = BrownRed G = Brown H = BlackRed    

    Above is in Dutch, but you have the 1st color scheme which is pretty common. Anyway; just swap the pin positions out according this scheme and all should be fine.   Translated the above scheme reads: A: Blue B: Brown  or  Brown/black C: Black/red  or  Black/white D: Blue E: Brown/white  or  Brown/red F: Brown/red  or  Black/red G: Brown H: Black/red  or  Black/brown  

Excellent!!! First some food for the kids and then I'm back to the garage

[Jocke_D]

  Above is in Dutch, but you have the 1st color scheme which is pretty common. Anyway; just swap the pin positions out according this scheme and all should be fine.   Translated the above scheme reads: A: Blue B: Brown  or  Brown/black C: Black/red  or  Black/white D: Blue E: Brown/white  or  Brown/red F: Brown/red  or  Black/red G: Brown H: Black/red  or  Black/brown  

 

Excellent!!! First some food for the kids and then I'm back to the garage

 

 

 

This was one of those jobs that you keep postponing becuase you're a little worried how it will turn out. In the end it was really simple. Especially with the help of Exmantaa

Only electrical job left now is the trigger signal for the CC pump (I hope).

The plan to do a first test start in march is still alive.

 

A quick note about Dutch in writing...

For me, with Swedish beeing my native language and after some five years of german studies in school it is actually possible to read Dutch. I've tried reading some dutch newspapers and it works fairly well. Lots of words are actually the same, with a slight different spelling.

Understanding what someone is saying though is a COMPLETELY different story

[Exmantaa]

Off topic... We have the same here; Just read out the Swedish words out loud and you can fairly understand what is written. Until they start talking...  

 

To the cc pump trigger signal; I always use the fuel pump trigger signal, so the cc pump runs together with the fuel pump. Look for the white-purple wire going from the ecu to one of the the X2 connectors (think it's pin 8)  and splice the relay wire in near where the IAT sensor wires come out of the loom.

 

 

[Jocke_D]

That one is called EVAP purge valve (or something like that; from evaporation...) Just extend the 2 wires.

If you're fitting an 68mm TB, you will need to swap some connector pins around for that to work, but take care you use the RIGHT scheme. (There is still that faulty swap scheme somewhere in an SC conversion instruction...)

 

And for the IC waterpump you will need to wire-up a 12v relay and use a suitable turn-on signal. Use the ignition-on signal or the white/purple fuel pump switch wire that goes to the X2-connector.

 

 

Long time, no see (write)

 

I've been building my car at a really slow pace the last couple of months. Sickness (one 3 year old and one 6 year old), other engagements, work, etc etc etc takes it's toll. Also I've been riding my motorbikes so it hasn't been all work and no play.

 

But now I'm really close to pressing the button, intake is on, alternator is on, SC is on, belt is on, TB is on, CC system is in place (in my own way, that you guys won't like), ECU is in place etc.

 

There are, I think, actually just two more kind of major things to figure out. One is how to hook up the air filter (saab 9000) to the TB. Got a piece of silicone hose but it will need a little bend, won't be that hard to fix. The other is the turn-on signal for the CC pump that Exmantaa talks about above. I thought the X2-connector was one of the two big ones that goes into the ECU but can't find any white-purple there. The only white-purple I can find goes into one of the boot relays. There are two wires there, one really big and one smaller. Feels a lot like one is for control and one is for feed. Is this smaller one what I'm looking for? Where can I find it a little bit closer to the TB-area?

 

I'm not sure about how everything around the top of the SC goes, vacuum hoses etc bu tI guess I'll figure that out by looking in older threads.

 

Also I found this little one way valve but can't remember where to hook it up?