There's an old saying that goes " there's no substitute for cubic inches " when you are looking for more horsepower . However my experience with a 235 stroker engine the last couple of months has left me doubting this saying and it's been dissapointing to say the least . The last couple of years l've been buying parts to build myself a hopefully high horsepower 202 engine , l have :
new jzed head and 1.7 rockers ,
roller cam and lifters ,
triple 48mm webers
custom longer rods ,
lightened and wedged 202 fully counterweighted crank .....weighs 23kgs instead of the usual 28 kgs .
Custom pistons will be needed for the longer rods whichever engine l use
l also have a brand new , never been used 186 block still fitted with a new steel crank from the factory which l've been looking at and wondering about using instead of a 202 . . My question is , how much ( if any ) potential horsepower would l be giving away if l were to use the 186 as the basis for the new engine instead of a 202 . The 186 perhaps has more rev potential than the 202 .
Thanks for any ideas here .
186 versus 202 power potential difference .
Started by
nzxu1
, Apr 15 2009 06:01 PM
52 replies to this topic
#2
_gmlj6_
_gmlj6_
-
- Guests
Posted 15 April 2009 - 06:06 PM
theres not a huge rev difference. at the end of the day 202 has more cubes meaning more power and torque.
#3
Dr Terry
-
- Moderators
-
- 3,296 posts
Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator
- Location:Eastwood (Sydney) NSW
- Joined: 13-November 05
Posted 15 April 2009 - 06:45 PM
The 179 got one 2nd place at Bathurst (1963).
The 186 engine got a 3rd place one year & a 4th place the next (1970 & 71).
The 202 got a 1st place in front an XY GT-HO Phase III & almost did same, the next year (1972 & 73).
Nuff said !!
Dr Terry
The 186 engine got a 3rd place one year & a 4th place the next (1970 & 71).
The 202 got a 1st place in front an XY GT-HO Phase III & almost did same, the next year (1972 & 73).
Nuff said !!
Dr Terry
#4
_NZ Toranaman_
_NZ Toranaman_
-
- Guests
Posted 15 April 2009 - 07:28 PM
The 186 actually won bathurst didn't it... although it was 3rd outright?
In my 202 the car is noticably slower with a passenger, the 186 is good in a light car but add hills and/or additional people and it slows more than the 202. V8's hardly notice a 2nd person so I hope this gives a good reason to use a 202 over the 186.
Cheers
Graham
In my 202 the car is noticably slower with a passenger, the 186 is good in a light car but add hills and/or additional people and it slows more than the 202. V8's hardly notice a 2nd person so I hope this gives a good reason to use a 202 over the 186.
Cheers
Graham
#5
nzxu1
-
- Members
-
- 273 posts
Forum Fan
- Joined: 27-April 08
Posted 15 April 2009 - 08:07 PM
The 179 got one 2nd place at Bathurst (1963).
The 186 engine got a 3rd place one year & a 4th place the next (1970 & 71).
The 202 got a 1st place in front an XY GT-HO Phase III & almost did same, the next year (1972 & 73).
Nuff said !!
Dr Terry
The Xu1's in 72 had that great equaliser called * rain * helping them out that year . Big ugly heavy HO's just couldn't get all that 400 hp down to the ground because it was so slippery . Was indeed a shame that they didn't pull it off in 73 , they certainly deserved to win . The lc 186 finished on the same lap as the HO's in 71 didn't they ?
#6
_gtrtorana_
_gtrtorana_
-
- Guests
Posted 15 April 2009 - 08:57 PM
Don't bother with the 186, go the 202.
Deep down you know what is the right engine. All I can say is it is great you are keeping it a 6, not going the boring V8 option for more power.In my 202 the car is noticably slower with a passenger, the 186 is good in a light car but add hills and/or additional people and it slows more than the 202. V8's hardly notice a 2nd person so I hope this gives a good reason to use a 202 over the 186.
#7
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 15 April 2009 - 09:26 PM
Bit of a story for the younger members:
When the 202 first came out, they were notorious for breaking pistons.
They would break the crown off.
The "old schoolers" were quick to can the 202 and it was common to hear "the 186 is a far better engine" and, of course, tell all their mates.
It didn't take long for Holden to sort out the problem but the damage was done and the stigma hung around for years.
No contest IMHO.
When the 202 first came out, they were notorious for breaking pistons.
They would break the crown off.
The "old schoolers" were quick to can the 202 and it was common to hear "the 186 is a far better engine" and, of course, tell all their mates.
It didn't take long for Holden to sort out the problem but the damage was done and the stigma hung around for years.
No contest IMHO.
#8
_Pro_
_Pro_
-
- Guests
Posted 16 April 2009 - 12:14 AM
who cares what happened 35 years ago?
a blue 202 will pump out more power than a red 186 because revs x torque = horsepower.
revs = same-ish stock, same modified.
torque = more
therefore
power = more.
a blue 202 will pump out more power than a red 186 because revs x torque = horsepower.
revs = same-ish stock, same modified.
torque = more
therefore
power = more.
#9
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 16 April 2009 - 12:46 AM
who cares what happened 35 years ago?
Obviously not you but others might?
#11
_NZ Toranaman_
_NZ Toranaman_
-
- Guests
Posted 16 April 2009 - 05:07 AM
why are you using a longer rod?
Longer rods reduce the angle and therefore allow more revs and power throughout the entire rev range.
#12
FastEHHolden
-
- Members
-
- 5,114 posts
Steptoe
- Location:Central Coast NSW
- Joined: 16-November 05
Posted 16 April 2009 - 10:19 AM
I would have said the piston spends longer near TDC therefore more force is exerted on the crank increasing torque.
#13
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,462 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 16 April 2009 - 10:40 AM
Everybody knows that for a street engine stroking it is the way to go. Hence 304/308 gets stroked to 350 cubes. 327 and 350 Chevs get stroked using a 3.75" stroke (377 cubes). 302C gets stroked to 351. And 186 gets stroked to 202 or bigger. It's just slightly different in that you don't bother with a 186 block when stroking to 202 because it's cheaper and easier to just use a 202 block.
#14
_markbeath_
_markbeath_
-
- Guests
Posted 16 April 2009 - 11:12 AM
Bit of a story for the younger members:
When the 202 first came out, they were notorious for breaking pistons.
They would break the crown off.
The "old schoolers" were quick to can the 202 and it was common to hear "the 186 is a far better engine" and, of course, tell all their mates.
It didn't take long for Holden to sort out the problem but the damage was done and the stigma hung around for years.
No contest IMHO.
My dad who is a mechanic and has been for most of his 60yrs always said "the 186 was the greatest motor made". I say its because he had a 186 in a HD Holden which was his first and most loved car but he says was because easiest motor to work on, hardly broke and when it did, did not take long to fix.
#15
_tyre fryer_
_tyre fryer_
-
- Guests
Posted 16 April 2009 - 01:34 PM
My dad who is a mechanic and has been for most of his 60yrs always said "the 186 was the greatest motor made". I say its because he had a 186 in a HD Holden which was his first and most loved car but he says was because easiest motor to work on, hardly broke and when it did, did not take long to fix.
The same can be said for 202s...
#16
orangeLJ
-
- Members
-
- 10,261 posts
Yes, yes I do post alot!
- Joined: 02-May 06
Posted 16 April 2009 - 01:52 PM
4inch bore and stroke maybe? 
#17
nzxu1
-
- Members
-
- 273 posts
Forum Fan
- Joined: 27-April 08
Posted 16 April 2009 - 02:36 PM
Everybody knows that for a street engine stroking it is the way to go. Hence 304/308 gets stroked to 350 cubes. 327 and 350 Chevs get stroked using a 3.75" stroke (377 cubes). 302C gets stroked to 351. And 186 gets stroked to 202 or bigger. It's just slightly different in that you don't bother with a 186 block when stroking to 202 because it's cheaper and easier to just use a 202 block.
l wasn't considering using the 186 block and making it a 202 . Because it's new /unused and with a new steel crank as well l was thinking that it was a good basis for a strong engine with having a virgin bore so it would have maximum block stiffness .
#19
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,462 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 16 April 2009 - 04:15 PM
I agree - use it. Whatever top end and accessories you use on it can later be used on a 202 if you build another engine. The only point against that is a 202 block and crank costs SFA, like scrap value. That will change in years to come but wreckers still throw them away. There was a complete EFI 3.3 in the scrap bin at a wreckers I was at the other day.
#20
_NZ Toranaman_
_NZ Toranaman_
-
- Guests
Posted 16 April 2009 - 04:17 PM
Hey John I wish you lived closer, I think the 202 for what you want is the go even though years ago I had a 186 street car that was putting out more hp on my tuners dyno than his stroked 202 race motor.
#21
_threeblindmice_
_threeblindmice_
-
- Guests
Posted 16 April 2009 - 04:20 PM
Pro , that's what we said 35 years ago .
#22
_bon_scott_
_bon_scott_
-
- Guests
Posted 16 April 2009 - 08:29 PM
I've got a 202, my dad and a mate have 186s. I know which I'd rather have and it doesn't start with a 1. Another mate had a 202 in an lx torana (MadMaxLx on here) and while it didn't have the revs of the 186s it had a lot more torque.
#23
FastEHHolden
-
- Members
-
- 5,114 posts
Steptoe
- Location:Central Coast NSW
- Joined: 16-November 05
Posted 16 April 2009 - 08:59 PM
Go the big block!
Back in the day 202's had a bad rep for fuel consumption too....Holden only advertised HP figures and as far as the public knew there was 7 HP difference between a 186 (130 HP) and a 202 (137 HP)....also alot of the the cars 186's came in were lighter...I know that a 186S HT Monaro goes against what I am saying...but i'll back a 186 powered HR or LC versus a HQ 202 anyday.
Back in the day 202's had a bad rep for fuel consumption too....Holden only advertised HP figures and as far as the public knew there was 7 HP difference between a 186 (130 HP) and a 202 (137 HP)....also alot of the the cars 186's came in were lighter...I know that a 186S HT Monaro goes against what I am saying...but i'll back a 186 powered HR or LC versus a HQ 202 anyday.
#24
_Bomber Watson_
_Bomber Watson_
-
- Guests
Posted 16 April 2009 - 09:12 PM
Cummon man a P plater mate of mine has a 202 powered HQ and its the fastest car in aus
Up the mighty Two O's.
Cheers.
Up the mighty Two O's.
Cheers.
#25
_gtr161s_
_gtr161s_
-
- Guests
Posted 16 April 2009 - 09:22 PM
lightened and wedged 202 fully counterweighted crank .....weighs 23kgs instead of the usual 28 kgs .
I would have thought a lightened flywheel would more suit racing at constant high revs thus retaining power but in a street situation you can't drive it a max revs all the time so you would loose the torque advantage of the heavier flywheel
Why not try a turbo...they go like a scorched cat
4 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users
