hey guys,
heard a fedw diff oppinions. what is the better chioce to put into my lh, a modyfied 186 or a modded 202 and why??? thanks
engine choice
Started by
_[NORUST]_
, Jun 06 2006 10:31 PM
23 replies to this topic
#2
_Keithy's_UC_
_Keithy's_UC_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2006 - 08:11 AM
Been here before, but ill jump the gun and go first!
If you like to rev without throwing conrods, then go the 186. If you want to supercharge it, go the 202!
Due to a better bore vs stroke ratio, you can more safely rev the tits off a 186 than a 202, but thats not to say you cant do it in a 202, you just have to make sure you build the bottom end up nicely!
Stock versus stock, i'd go 186.
For towing, i'd go 202.
For highway, i'd go 186.
For city, i'd go 186.
For racing/revving, i'd go 186.
Oh.... HANG ON.... I've got a 179HP bored to...... 186!!
Cheerio
Keith
If you like to rev without throwing conrods, then go the 186. If you want to supercharge it, go the 202!
Due to a better bore vs stroke ratio, you can more safely rev the tits off a 186 than a 202, but thats not to say you cant do it in a 202, you just have to make sure you build the bottom end up nicely!
Stock versus stock, i'd go 186.
For towing, i'd go 202.
For highway, i'd go 186.
For city, i'd go 186.
For racing/revving, i'd go 186.
Oh.... HANG ON.... I've got a 179HP bored to...... 186!!
Cheerio
Keith
Edited by Keithy's_UC, 07 June 2006 - 08:12 AM.
#3
orangeLJ
-
- Members
-
- 10,259 posts
Yes, yes I do post alot!
- Joined: 02-May 06
Posted 07 June 2006 - 12:05 PM
Ive got a slightly hot..hehe 
202 in my LJ, had it bored to 208, stage 3 cam, new everything right throughout, yella terra head with port work and some other bits and peices. Had some trouble with revs in the begining but my old man... wihtout telling me.. swapped some gears... saids he put straight cut, adjustable camshaft gears or something, was too excited at how it was running. Built the engine ourselves.. revs hard now. But as keith said, they are known to throw some rods.... so adress that and it'd be sweet, im over the moon with mine, been regoed for like 9 months and still loving it... hows the saying go.. theres no replacement for displacement...??
CHEERS Chris
P.S. another point is that i am planning to supercharge, should be done in the next 12 months! sweet as mate.
202 in my LJ, had it bored to 208, stage 3 cam, new everything right throughout, yella terra head with port work and some other bits and peices. Had some trouble with revs in the begining but my old man... wihtout telling me.. swapped some gears... saids he put straight cut, adjustable camshaft gears or something, was too excited at how it was running. Built the engine ourselves.. revs hard now. But as keith said, they are known to throw some rods.... so adress that and it'd be sweet, im over the moon with mine, been regoed for like 9 months and still loving it... hows the saying go.. theres no replacement for displacement...??CHEERS Chris
P.S. another point is that i am planning to supercharge, should be done in the next 12 months! sweet as mate.
Edited by orangeLJ, 07 June 2006 - 12:12 PM.
#4
Dr Terry
-
- Moderators
-
- 3,279 posts
Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator
- Location:Eastwood (Sydney) NSW
- Joined: 13-November 05
Posted 07 June 2006 - 12:28 PM
Hi Guys.
Keith, you seem to like the 186 a lot.
I agree that the 186 does have some advantages over the 202, especially when you're going to give it a boot full, but I'm having trouble seeing how a 186 would be better than a 202 for city & highway driving. The 202 has a clear advantage in mid range torque, so for city & highway usage in the 2,000 to 3,000 RPM range, the 202 would perform better & return better economy that the 186.
Dr Terry.
Keith, you seem to like the 186 a lot.
I agree that the 186 does have some advantages over the 202, especially when you're going to give it a boot full, but I'm having trouble seeing how a 186 would be better than a 202 for city & highway driving. The 202 has a clear advantage in mid range torque, so for city & highway usage in the 2,000 to 3,000 RPM range, the 202 would perform better & return better economy that the 186.
Dr Terry.
#5
makka
-
- Members
-
- 3,559 posts
A m��se once bit my sister
- Name:Cohen
- Location:ya daughters place
- Joined: 08-November 05
Posted 07 June 2006 - 03:00 PM
Keith, the problem with the 202's wasnt so much the bore to stroke ratio, It was more the stroke to conrod length that caused trouble.
if you have the money I would do a 202, simply because of the extra cubes.
saying that though, I am building a 186 for dads LC. But with a heavier car like a LH the extra cubes and torque would come in handy
if you have the money I would do a 202, simply because of the extra cubes.
saying that though, I am building a 186 for dads LC. But with a heavier car like a LH the extra cubes and torque would come in handy
Edited by makka, 07 June 2006 - 03:01 PM.
#6
_Sammy_
_Sammy_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2006 - 03:04 PM
i have to agree, for low down and mid range torque the 202 is the go, and thats towing and city driving (coming out of corners) etc ....
i've had a 192ci motor which went very well, 6000rpm was about the end of the cams power range, i rebuilt a 202 with a good bottom end and put the same head and cam in it that was in the 192 and it didn't seem to be any different as far as revs were concerned, revved to 6500rpm more than once (not that it was making alot of power there) but the thing i did notice is it was alot better off the line, and low down in the revs just seemed to go better .... maybe the blue 202 crank being counter weighted had something to do with it, but for my money i'd go the blue 202 any day for a street motor ....
as for racing ... well i dunno, probably 202 because more cubes
i've had a 192ci motor which went very well, 6000rpm was about the end of the cams power range, i rebuilt a 202 with a good bottom end and put the same head and cam in it that was in the 192 and it didn't seem to be any different as far as revs were concerned, revved to 6500rpm more than once (not that it was making alot of power there) but the thing i did notice is it was alot better off the line, and low down in the revs just seemed to go better .... maybe the blue 202 crank being counter weighted had something to do with it, but for my money i'd go the blue 202 any day for a street motor ....
as for racing ... well i dunno, probably 202 because more cubes
#7
_Keithy's_UC_
_Keithy's_UC_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:10 PM
Dr Terry,
After having both engines in my UC (202 and now the 179), i have experienced both sides of the fence so to speak! While the 186 has its disadvantages, i believe that the head and rocker setup on the 186 is also more reliable. Before anyone says that you can swap them, i know and understand its possible, but when it comes down to longevity of your motor and the ability to use the upper rev range, the 202 ran out of puff where the 186 is loving it! Torque is the difference, so towing yep, but in the city i'd go the smaller cubes with the ability to pick up and go.
Maybe im now biassed (probably the truest thing ill ever say!!), but the 202 always seemed to feel sluggish even after a dyno tune whereas the little revver just keeps going. And i cant feel the difference in torque between the two. As it happens, i cant launch my 179 powered UC with anymore than 1500rpm unless i like spinning the tyres. Even with a car full of people. The 202 was a struggler and never wanted to haul.
BUT...
My 202 was stock and my 179 is worked, and when built correctly im sure a 202 would sound no different, go just as hard if not harder, and return virtually the same fuel consumption too!
Personal choice, but im sticking with a bottom end thats not gonna fall apart!
Does anyone know the stock for stock power and torque of both a 186 and a 202??
Keith
P.S. I have a 202 sitting on my engine stand which ANYONE can have for free if they want! No dizzy or exhaust manifold or carby!
After having both engines in my UC (202 and now the 179), i have experienced both sides of the fence so to speak! While the 186 has its disadvantages, i believe that the head and rocker setup on the 186 is also more reliable. Before anyone says that you can swap them, i know and understand its possible, but when it comes down to longevity of your motor and the ability to use the upper rev range, the 202 ran out of puff where the 186 is loving it! Torque is the difference, so towing yep, but in the city i'd go the smaller cubes with the ability to pick up and go.
Maybe im now biassed (probably the truest thing ill ever say!!), but the 202 always seemed to feel sluggish even after a dyno tune whereas the little revver just keeps going. And i cant feel the difference in torque between the two. As it happens, i cant launch my 179 powered UC with anymore than 1500rpm unless i like spinning the tyres. Even with a car full of people. The 202 was a struggler and never wanted to haul.
BUT...
My 202 was stock and my 179 is worked, and when built correctly im sure a 202 would sound no different, go just as hard if not harder, and return virtually the same fuel consumption too!
Personal choice, but im sticking with a bottom end thats not gonna fall apart!
Does anyone know the stock for stock power and torque of both a 186 and a 202??
Keith
P.S. I have a 202 sitting on my engine stand which ANYONE can have for free if they want! No dizzy or exhaust manifold or carby!
Edited by Keithy's_UC, 07 June 2006 - 04:13 PM.
#8
_Loki_
_Loki_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:25 PM
Gee wow, I'm sure I'd prefer a jet engined F22 over a Prop'd Spitfire tooMy 202 was stock and my 179 is worked, and when built correctly im sure a 202 would sound no different, go just as hard if not harder, and return virtually the same fuel consumption too!
Comparing a worked 186 to a stock 202, apples and oranges.
Dr T. is right about the torque for fuel economy (if such a word exists in these engines)
Edited by Loki, 07 June 2006 - 05:27 PM.
#9
Litre8
-
- Administrators
-
- 2,399 posts
Thrillseeker
- Name:Howard
- Location:Melbourne, Victoria
- Car:1976 LX SLR8000
- Joined: 05-February 07
Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:25 PM
Go for the Big Block 202....realistically your unlikely to see more than 7000rpm with any regularity for any streeter ..
#10
_UCV80_
_UCV80_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2006 - 07:27 PM
202 either blue or black 
ya really cant compare a stock 202 to a worked up 186
big or small with the right work they will both be rockets.
ya really cant compare a stock 202 to a worked up 186
big or small with the right work they will both be rockets.
Edited by ToranaZ, 07 June 2006 - 07:30 PM.
#11
_73LJWhiteSL_
_73LJWhiteSL_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2006 - 09:25 PM
I've only ever had a 173, but i think the 202 would give you better driveability than the 186 and better low down torque. I think getting the whole thing balenced crank and motor will help a lot with revs.
I don't think you can compare a stock Holden 6 anything to a worked Holden 6 anything...
Steve
I don't think you can compare a stock Holden 6 anything to a worked Holden 6 anything...
Steve
#12
makka
-
- Members
-
- 3,559 posts
A m��se once bit my sister
- Name:Cohen
- Location:ya daughters place
- Joined: 08-November 05
Posted 07 June 2006 - 09:31 PM
I dont know of any NC guys who run a 186, If thats anything to go by.......
Edited by makka, 07 June 2006 - 09:32 PM.
#13
_Pedrobully_
_Pedrobully_
-
- Guests
Posted 09 June 2006 - 10:10 PM
Has anyone looked at putting a 202 blue crank in a 202 red ??
#14
_Bigmac123_99_
_Bigmac123_99_
-
- Guests
Posted 09 June 2006 - 10:29 PM
hey guys,
well there has been some update on my engine situation. i am no longer getting a 202 blue.
I have purchased a T/D Race engine which is brand new and only done bout 20mins on the dyno for tunning. Know a guy who used to have a racing team (which he no longer has) and this was his spare motor he built. i got it off him. got high pressure fuel & oil pump. getting electronic ignition, 350 holley but i do not know what mnifold to go with. the dude suggested i get a kane?? manifold but i am having trouble getting any info on these. any alternative choices would be appreciated..
chris.
well there has been some update on my engine situation. i am no longer getting a 202 blue.
I have purchased a T/D Race engine which is brand new and only done bout 20mins on the dyno for tunning. Know a guy who used to have a racing team (which he no longer has) and this was his spare motor he built. i got it off him. got high pressure fuel & oil pump. getting electronic ignition, 350 holley but i do not know what mnifold to go with. the dude suggested i get a kane?? manifold but i am having trouble getting any info on these. any alternative choices would be appreciated..
chris.
#15
makka
-
- Members
-
- 3,559 posts
A m��se once bit my sister
- Name:Cohen
- Location:ya daughters place
- Joined: 08-November 05
Posted 10 June 2006 - 03:22 PM
A Cain or Redline manifold should do fine.
what race class is T/D?
is it a 202?
what race class is T/D?
is it a 202?
#16
_Bigmac123_99_
_Bigmac123_99_
-
- Guests
Posted 11 June 2006 - 12:11 AM
it is a thunder dome 202. buiolt as a spare engine which he (thankfully) never needed to use. it was all the race stuff and has been tuned aswell.
#17
_Sammy_
_Sammy_
-
- Guests
Posted 15 June 2006 - 01:31 PM
yeah i have a blue 202 crank and rods in a red 202 block ... reason for this was the blue block was worn, already had the virgin bore red 202 so i got it bored to fit my blue bits!Has anyone looked at putting a 202 blue crank in a 202 red ??
#18
_73LJWhiteSL_
_73LJWhiteSL_
-
- Guests
Posted 15 June 2006 - 03:23 PM
What modifications do you need to do to fit a Blue crank and rods into a Red block? I have a complete red 202 stock, that i am going to rebuild and i got a blue 202 crank of a mate for nothing. I've also brought some blue (starfire) rods for $50.
Steve
Steve
#19
_Sammy_
_Sammy_
-
- Guests
Posted 16 June 2006 - 01:49 PM
only thing i had to do to the red block was change the water gallieries to suit the blue head, otherwise nothing ....
also it depends which block you have, if its got the rope seal then that should work with the blue motor ... otherwise i don't think it will.
also it depends which block you have, if its got the rope seal then that should work with the blue motor ... otherwise i don't think it will.
#20
_Oldn64_
_Oldn64_
-
- Guests
Posted 16 June 2006 - 02:50 PM
Otherway around Sammy. The crank has to have come from a rope seal blue motor to fit the red motor. And as you stated the head/block needs a few things to be done to have them bolt up, nothing major though.
Cheers
Cheers
#21
_Sammy_
_Sammy_
-
- Guests
Posted 30 June 2006 - 03:41 PM
so all red motors are the same but some blue motors have the different seal ?
#22
Litre8
-
- Administrators
-
- 2,399 posts
Thrillseeker
- Name:Howard
- Location:Melbourne, Victoria
- Car:1976 LX SLR8000
- Joined: 05-February 07
Posted 30 June 2006 - 03:53 PM
No, red motors came with both flavours (neoprene and rope) for rear main seals. I ran a blue crank in a 'rope' red block in my turbo 6.
#23
_Sammy_
_Sammy_
-
- Guests
Posted 04 July 2006 - 08:57 PM
thats what i thought but i got the feeling from the post above that the blue ones had both.
#24
_wasted_youth_
_wasted_youth_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 July 2006 - 08:41 PM
if u got a 186 u say 186 if u got a 202 u say 202,, its one of those ford or holden type questions.... i used to be 186 man when i had one now im 202 mAN or 350 chevy,, or 2 litre astron in a sigma,,hhahahahaha if u could see my tears as i laugh,, i drive a sigma,,even if i get one of them stickers saying my other cars are a Torrie and a HG munro no one will believe me and ill be classed as a bloody sigma drive,,,, hell they are worse than toyota crowns,,,hahaha remember the late show on channel 2 with tony martin and mick molloy and the gang of old people terrorising the suburbs in toyota crowns,,, bguck i laugh everytime i see one,,, and who could forget bargeass
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
