14-05-2015, 09:44 AM
Most of this has been covered in the dw10 v dv6 v dw12 thread - but for the sake of it:
2.0 16v (RHW/DW10ATED4) and 2.2 16v (4HX/DW12TED4) are near enough identical from the cylinder head up - i.e. they both have swirl flaps, only difference being the RHW has a wastegate vacuum controlled turbo, rather than the VGT unit on the 4HX and the longer block (only stroke that changes) that makes the 4HX a 2.2 - but the 2.2 16v pistons fit inside a 2.0 block so you can use the original mounting points and save you twatting the sump on everything, no modifying the lower engine mount to fit and the hassle of changing the engine capacity on the logbook - not that it's much hassle, but when you include the insurance increase from a increased capacity engine and it's the same cylinder head, so due to the fact it's turbocharged already, you're not going to see a significant increase in VE/Power for the extra 200cc or so - the 2.2 bottom end also has balancer shafts which makes the rotating assembly quite a bit heavier and not want to rev.
My personal opinion is that given the right turbocharger and injection system, you can smash up a 2.0 litre bottom end and clutch without worries from massive torque - so the increased torque you'd get from a 2.2 isn't worth it, I'd rather spin the engine a bit faster... But that's my personal opinion...
2.0 16v (RHW/DW10ATED4) and 2.2 16v (4HX/DW12TED4) are near enough identical from the cylinder head up - i.e. they both have swirl flaps, only difference being the RHW has a wastegate vacuum controlled turbo, rather than the VGT unit on the 4HX and the longer block (only stroke that changes) that makes the 4HX a 2.2 - but the 2.2 16v pistons fit inside a 2.0 block so you can use the original mounting points and save you twatting the sump on everything, no modifying the lower engine mount to fit and the hassle of changing the engine capacity on the logbook - not that it's much hassle, but when you include the insurance increase from a increased capacity engine and it's the same cylinder head, so due to the fact it's turbocharged already, you're not going to see a significant increase in VE/Power for the extra 200cc or so - the 2.2 bottom end also has balancer shafts which makes the rotating assembly quite a bit heavier and not want to rev.
My personal opinion is that given the right turbocharger and injection system, you can smash up a 2.0 litre bottom end and clutch without worries from massive torque - so the increased torque you'd get from a 2.2 isn't worth it, I'd rather spin the engine a bit faster... But that's my personal opinion...
