2.2 head on a 2000 block

gosnell

New Member
I am sure that in the past the question has been asked, but will a 2.2 head fit a 2000 block, Im thinking of valves , but any other issues ?. the reason I ask is that I have a rebuilt 2000 twin carb engine and if needed in the future It would be easy to swap the heads rather than do the mods to make a twin carb engine work with an Auto box ( the original engine is a 2.2 auto )


John
 
Following on from Tom's response:

from Haynes: 2000cc (1978cc) engine bore= 3.375 in, stroke= 3.375 in
2200cc (2205cc) engine bore= 3.563 in, stroke= 3.375 in.

So, Rover made the 2200 engine "over-square" or simply incresed the cylinder bore to increase capacity which could mean that the footprint of the valves is too great for a 2000 block.

There was another forum member on the thread below who (I think?) made reference to converting his 2000 block to a 2200 block by having it bored out to accept 2200 pistons. So, if you want to fit a 2200TC head, you could maybe go down this route?

http://www.classicroverforum.com/vi...=117332&hilit=2200+head+on+2000+block#p117332

If you have the 2200TC head off, can you measure the diameter of the valve footprint to see if it exceeds 3.375 in ??
 
There seems to have been a consensus achieved that a 2200 head is unlikely to go on a standard 2000 block - although it is so marginal that a couple of people have got away with it. By the time the 2000 block is bored to +60 then most people seem to agree that it will fit. But if you are having to bore the block anyway, then my inclination would be to go all the way into 2200 territory. Let the availability of oversize and standard pistons determine exactly what bore size you finish up at - standard size pistons in both 2000 and 2200 are much more expensive (due to rarity) than oversize ones. So perhaps +20 or +40 2200 pistons might be a suitable goal?

Chris
 
I spoke to Clive and a few others about this last year. Apparently the exhausts come to within about 10 thou of the bore! (or something ridiculously tight like that). So you can in theory get away with it with A1 valve guides, but I really wouldn't fancy trying it.
Once you get up to the +0.040 region, it's apparently a reasonably sensible modification. I think it was Alan Ramsbotton I spoke to about that.

I'm interested in going down the +0.040 route (which equates to about 2050cc). I don't see the sense in the "might as well" argument of going up to 2200 simply because Rover built an engine of that capacity. The history files suggest that the 2200 capacity is the leftovers from an aborted DOHC slant-4, which would have been half of a 4.4 V8 and fitted to P10. So it wasn't necessarily a considered engineering decision that led Rover to 2.2-litres for P6 - more a case of make-do-and-mend, and a marketing attempt to stay competitive against the European influx of 2-litre exec saloons in the mid Seventies. Any developments to P6 in these later years of its life would by their nature have been financially prudent quick-fixes, and far from the million-mile relentless test, tweak and retest exercises that were undertaken in 1960/61.
As such, given I would be sourcing NOS or new pistons anyway, I'd want to pick the dimensions I wanted rather than what parts commonality dictates is easiest to source. There are two reasons why I wouldn't want to get into the 2200 region:

The obvious is that I could retain the 2000 piston design and combustion chamber shape. I think a deep-dished piston with the squish area in the centre immediately below the spark is infinitely preferable to a flat-topped piston stopping 6mm shy of the top of the bore. Yes, there is the argument that they are 'bulky', but I don't think that will detract significantly in terms of inertia hammerblow on the journals or additional friction.
The second is that an increase in capacity necessitates an increase in valve sizes to maintain the same flow rate at a given rpm, so you're not necessarily gaining anything at 2.2 litres. If anything you're upsetting the balance. On 2000 head, the inlets are substantially larger than the exhausts. On the 2200, the inlets are unchanged but the exhausts have been increased a bit (though still far from the inlet size). So even if the increase in exhaust size is sufficient to empty the additional capacity on the exhaust stroke at an acceptable rate, there will be greater relative constriction on the inlet owing to its unchanged size.

I really feel that a 2200 TC head on an overbored 2000 block with Heron pistons is the only viable combination in gaining significant value added. Otherwise you're just hovering around single percentage gains over a standard 2200, which is perfectly acceptable but not necessarily a big enough return for the amount of work involved.

Michael
 
As I understand it the brief with the 2200 engine was threefold:-

1) Make the 4 pot engine smoother and more refined.
2) Reduce the compression ratio so the engine could run properly on poorer quality fuel.
3) Achieve 1&2 without major changes to production tooling.

If you compare the 2200TC engine with the 2000TC there is no increase in peak power output but a significant increase in torque. Road tests of the time talk of the "new" engine being transformed into a "notably smooth and refined unit". Given the fact that the P6 was already long in the tooth by '74 and Leyland had no money anyway I think Rover did a good job of improving the engine.
 
Surely if any machining was involved in the 2200 head or the 2000 bore to make it fit, one would be better off modifying the 2000 head to flow more, adding forced induction or both? However, if one wasn't a purist and the thought of an engine transplant to liven it up didn't have you rocking yourself to sleep at night, you'd be far better off slotting a 1JZGTE in place of the rover boat anchor, probably not a bad time to stick in the matching 6sp. :mrgreen:
 
I suspect that there are many things that could be done to extract more power/torque from the engines, with the biggest limitations being finances!
 
The head was off my car when I bought it. With advice from the Rover Car Club of Canada, I decided to have mine overbored to 2200cc to lower the compression and deal with modern fuel.
Several cars in western Canada have had the same procedure done, as well as Steve Dibbers in the Eastern U.S. (viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7346)
The last time I drove in a standard 2000 TC was in the late 1980's so I cant speak to any noticeable difference in torque or top end speed. Hopefully Steve will be along and provide some more informed information.
 
Back
Top