![]() |
The question here is will it use the same CPS (crank position sensor). That's another critical sensor you'll need to determine engine position. If it is different, it may be possible to swap the gen 1 sensor in.
|
Quote:
Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk |
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk |
|
Quote:
|
Redline is 6000k. Normally turbocharged. Designed for torque. Lower compression. It's interesting, but is it really going to have more power if not turboed?
|
Quote:
This is the 22’ BRZ short block he bought. Not the turbo Acent/Crosstrek engine. |
The fa20 heads seemed to flow more than needed so maybe they'll be dead nuts for the larger displacement?
|
Excited to see how this build goes!
Is the plan to machine the heads to match the larger bore, or...? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That would mean a substantial amount of extra material sitting around the top of the bore, which at the very least would be sub-optimal for combustion, if not downright problematic. This is closer in concept to an EJ20 / EJ25 combo - I haven't really looked into what they do with those, but I'd be surprised if the heads are untouched with a 7.5mm increase in bore. EDIT: I looked into the EJ20 / EJ25 combo, and to do it properly, it seems they either machine the heads to enlarge the combustion chambers or use custom pistons to bring the compression ratio back down. Otherwise C/R is too high. That said, some folks DO run it without either... EDIT 2: Running some quick rough numbers, the combustion chamber volume for an FA24 is 19.47% larger than the FA20's, so with the FA20's combustion chamber volume unmodified that would make the hybrid's C/R about 13.74:1. That is a BIG jump that would be hard to tune for. The stepped shape at the top of the bore would also make for some funky swirl of the mixture as it compresses, and could create some major heat risers that would trigger detonation. With all that considered, I don't think it would be a great idea to run it without machining the heads to match... |
Machining the head seems necessary. The pistons could cause interference with the lip of the head, and if the lip of the heads are sharp then they could be a location for preignition, or at best, they could cause weird tumbling of air coming into the cylinder. Personally, I feel like getting the heads machined was already a given.
|
Quote:
|
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
https://dsportmag.com/wp-content/upl...j257-06-up.jpg The FA20/24D has domed pistons to create the high compression. Here are some pictures of my blown engine. The piston height is visible from the side, and the piston in the background shows a piston close to TDC with a dome shape and impedance reliefs in the crown for valves. I’m sure if someone wants to throw some low compression pistons in there then there is no risk of any issues. If Toyobaru changed the valve angle or valve opening height to make it open higher or enlarged the valves then that could cause interference, depending on the tolerances. Regardless, the edge of the cylinder-head combustion-chamber probably will interfere with the crown of the piston without machining. |
More pics
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
In general, they definitely don’t flow more than needed. There could always be more flow.
The intake manifold is said to flow well enough that it isn’t the bottleneck for NA power, nor is the throttle body, but the heads could definitely use improvement in flow by a port and polish, and they could use larger valves for sure. Doesn’t the FA24 head have larger valves? I know the intake ports and intake manifold is larger. Will it fit? https://motor--fan-jp.translate.goog...&_x_tr_pto=nui |
Then why doesn't port work show any gains on a fa20 (na)?
|
Quote:
From their site (https://elementtuning.com/competitio...r-wrx-fa20dit/): The factory heads are pretty good from Subaru but the valve size holds it back. When too much power is not enough look no further than adding our competition “Big Valve” head modification to your engine. Through years of testing on the track and on the dyno the key to maximum power is unlocking the potential within the Subaru heads. Element Tuning has discovered that the majority of the gains from the Subaru head are attributed to the valve size itself and not the intake and exhaust ports. Often “Big Valve” heads can be $4000 plus dollars due to the labor required to port the heads. The first step is to fit +1mm Ferrea stainless steel intake valves. The modifications to your supplied head (complete heads are available also at a higher price) start with a 3 angle intake valve job and it finished off with a bowl blend to maximize the flow through the intake port to the larger valve. On the exhaust side we also install a +1mm inconel valve and hone the guide but a 2 angle with radius valve job is performed. The exhaust port is again blended to maximize the potential of the larger exhaust valve. Also: Many may ask why don’t you port the intake ports fully? We don’t do this because almost 100% of the gain is realized by just fitting the larger intake valve and performing a bowl blend. (HP/value/compared to porting) On top of this the head retains 100% of it’s reliability due to how thin the cast walls are. It’s all too common to see highly stressed, high HP, road race engines blow through over ported head walls. The FA motors have nice and very large ports from the factory but extremely thin castings! With the big valve heads fitted to the motor we dynoed more than 60 whp gain at the same boost level with a 60 trim Garrett turbocharger. That said, HP gains boosted do not necessarily mean similar gains NA since flow velocity can be much more important when you don't have a turbo / supercharger cramming in tons of air! You may gain peak power at the expense of the low-mid range with "too much" flow. The pics posted of the FA20 vs. FA24 pistons definitely suggest larger valves on the latter judging by the size of the valve reliefs cut into the tops of the pistons... |
The cylinder head / piston matching, clearance is definitely a concern that will be addressed once all parts are in hand. There are several options, each with pros & cons;
Use FA20 head "as-is": Pros - cheap, Cons - compression ratio, flow, combustion issues, etc. Use "machine matched" FA20 head: Pros - better compression ratio, flow, combustion, Cons cost, proper design. Use FA24 heads: Pros: will be a perfect match, Cons: Much increased cost, compatibility with Gen 1 intake manifold & components questions. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
There clearly are gains in cfm to be seen by doing a port job. Assuming that doing so hasn't messed with some optimization in the system, then there should be gains. Maybe there would be other bottlenecks in the system like valve size or lift/duration from cams or raising the rpms where porting would be seen on the dyno. Maybe a header would be needed to take advantage or something else, but my point was that the heads aren't perfect, and they will be a bottleneck before some other components. https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show....php?p=1630770 |
Quote:
Presumably, using the smaller-valve head on the 2.4L block would give more low-mid range punch at the expense of a little less top end. Would the difference be worth the $2K+ US it would cost to have the big valve heads done vs. the gains from other stuff (headers, etc.) for the money? Probably not. If you're going to be in there anyway to clearance the heads, etc. for the bigger bore, though, maybe it would be worth paying the difference. It's a shame you can't just use the FA24 heads, but according to the OP's information, it's not possible without at least using the FA24's intake manifold plus a LOT of other small changes (due to the various bits and pieces that connect to things on the heads) that would be a major pain and quite costly. Kudos to the OP for taking on this project! A pioneering effort that will no doubt teach the community some valuable info. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As crappy (and costly) as it may be, there may be little option other than either using the FA24 heads (and all the added complexity that brings), or having custom pistons made with the FA20's shape in the middle 86mm plus an extra 4mm radius around the edge (if you can find someone to do that). I guess another option might be spacers between the heads and block for clearance valve to piston clearance, but then you'll lose some compression. EDIT: One other thought: what about some kind of machined adapter plates to use the FA20 intake manifold on the FA24 heads, like the Crawford Billet Power Blocks or a phenolic thermal spacer, but adapting the one shape to the other? Of course, there's still all the other stuff connected to the heads to deal with, but that piece at least could be not too crazy difficult. It's awesome that you're taking this challenge on, man - best of luck! |
Probably would need to do a static interference test, and then do a valve interference test, and then maybe limit timing if there is no static interference and just some valve interference or grind down the piston surface at the expense of compression. Depending on the interference, a thicker or doubling up on head gaskets might create clearance, but again, this is at the expense of compression, and it isn't ideal.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Short block did not arrive as expected yesterday...still waiting |
Opie, thanks for doing the needful. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Based on the interest in this thread, I'm sure there'd be at least a few takers... ;) |
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.