Using at a handbrake or an air compressor. The 179 is a better motor.What about 173's?
RIM
Cheers
202 or 186. Which is better?
Started by
_GTR071_
, Nov 27 2006 06:12 PM
27 replies to this topic
#26
_Oldn64_
_Oldn64_
-
- Guests
Posted 29 November 2006 - 08:45 PM
Cheers
#27
_Aquarius - LC_
_Aquarius - LC_
-
- Guests
Posted 29 November 2006 - 09:14 PM
Hi there!
I can add to this debate with a direct comparison. When i first built my car it was running a standard 186, i then spent alot of $ on the cyl head, fitted 38/78 cam,roller rockers,elect-dizzy,34adm webber & tuned length extractors-21/2 system. this combo went very well.
I then decided to go to a black 202 bottom end, because of the better crank/rods etc: All the good gear went in,lots more $ Then the38/78 cam,186 cyl head & everything else was bolted back on&in, exactly the way it was before. The comparison?
Even i was surprised with the additional torque of the 202,also noticebly quicker down the road, the 202 was smoother[due to counterballanced crank,full engine ballance] and the rev range was basically the same idle-6500rpm.[due to same cam specs]max power 6100rpm
I've since gone further with the mods,tripple SU's,upped compression slightly,match porting etc. My vote? If built well they are both great engines! however when most of the performance work/parts remained the same,the extra stroke/torque of the 202 made for a much better street combination.
I can add to this debate with a direct comparison. When i first built my car it was running a standard 186, i then spent alot of $ on the cyl head, fitted 38/78 cam,roller rockers,elect-dizzy,34adm webber & tuned length extractors-21/2 system. this combo went very well.
I then decided to go to a black 202 bottom end, because of the better crank/rods etc: All the good gear went in,lots more $ Then the38/78 cam,186 cyl head & everything else was bolted back on&in, exactly the way it was before. The comparison?
Even i was surprised with the additional torque of the 202,also noticebly quicker down the road, the 202 was smoother[due to counterballanced crank,full engine ballance] and the rev range was basically the same idle-6500rpm.[due to same cam specs]max power 6100rpm
I've since gone further with the mods,tripple SU's,upped compression slightly,match porting etc. My vote? If built well they are both great engines! however when most of the performance work/parts remained the same,the extra stroke/torque of the 202 made for a much better street combination.
#28
rodomo
-
- Members
-
- 18,017 posts
To advertise here, call 13TORANA
- Name:R - O - B Dammit!
- Location:Way out west of Melbourne Awstraylya
- Joined: 10-December 05
Posted 30 November 2006 - 12:26 AM
Even i was surprised with the additional torque of the 202,also noticebly quicker down the road, the 202 was smoother
This was the difference at Bathurst as the 202's could get up the mountain quicker than the 186's due to the extra torque and were more able to "keep in touch" and watch the Fords fall.
Edited by rodomo, 30 November 2006 - 12:30 AM.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users
