The values I see for the 2.2 are:
1983, TBI introduced with 99 hp @ 5,600 rpm
1985, fastburn head and increase compresion ration from 9.0:1 to 9.5:1, lowered it to 97 hp @ 5,600 rpm
1987, addition of roller rockers yielding 93 hp @ 5,600 rpm
1993, for unknown reasons power reduced to 92 hp @ 5,600 rpm
I am simply going to use the most current values for the 2.2 liter as published on ALLPAR; which are 92 hp for the TBI 2.2 liter, in accordance with "the history of the Chrysler 2.2" as posted on ALLPAR and 100 hp for the 2.5 liter TBI, again, as listed on same reference.
This changes my figures to an 8% increase in hp and a 9.1% increase in torque, for the 11.8% increase in displacement. I believe this bars me from the High Output and Shelby version.
My plans for the dyno are simply as of now; just 2 runs with tuning made by and disclosed by myself, the first run will be with my current gear and changes listed and the addition of the installed port/polished bench flowed head/intake/exhaust, then the 2nd pull will be after installment of the custom reground roller cam and tuning again by me prior to the dyno.
My intention with the dyno time is to pay respect to Dave Endrigo for his ability to caress the metal. I operate several vehicles that he has done the heads/intake/exhaust work on. They are all superior performing power plants, so much so that I will never understand why, with our level of knowledge and intelligence, the automobile manufacturers don't do this to every engine they build.
I don't know much, but I do know that using the stock parts, balance the bottom end components, peen the connecting rods, debur the interior, polish the crank, in my experience, this has proven to be equal to approximently 15% higher performance...FOREVER (until replacement or rebuild); the top end, isn't going to have any shorter life than without the work, may even work longer due to the increased efficiency, yet another 15%. Not needing to push as hard for the same results. Then of course there is the candle that burns twice as bright, yet half as long; if this were the worse case scenario, then I am in. If I can afford to hire a professional, than the big boys can do it for less and make their profit. Our power plants wear out now, if they wear out yeilding 15-30% higher performance from the showroom, that is a win/win. Sometimes I have to do the math, 15% of 20 is 3, 20% of 25 is 5, 30% of 30 is 9.
The extra cost of the machine work to the heads/intakes/exhaust, balancing the bottom end, polishing the crank...several simple procedures ensuring the highest performance and economy. I would happily pay the extra $1,200-1,500 for associated procedures; heck, I do anyway. This would make thousands of new machinist jobs and pose a significant reduction to world fuel usage.
While I admit there are some vehicles out there that have incorporated some or all of these processes, across the board, the industry seems to want to burn more fuel.
Purchasing a new vehicle would take on a new prestige, instead of just being "bragging rights". I would prefer under those circumstances to own and operate the newest vehicle technology had to offer vs. incorporating long time existing technology into 20-25 year old, manufacturer conceived "throw-away" vehicles!
I am a very fortunate person. I know an engineer/machinist/inventor whom will do exactly what he is asked to; all I know how to do is ask for what I want, then be happy when I get it. Some folks don't know what they want or how to ask, some don't know what to do with it when they get it!
I currently need to fill my tank near 2 1/2 times to cross 1,000 miles under the best performance conditions, I would be happier paying $25-35/gallon for fuel if my vehicle was capable of 200 mpg.