 Engine displacement options |
|
|
|
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.
This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way. Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. |
|
|
| Harpo |
 Oct 19 2011, 05:12 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member  Group: Members Posts: 1,304 Joined: 21-August 11 From: Motor City aka Detroit Member No.: 13,469 Region Association: None  |
Good evening everyone,
With an engine rebuild in the near furure I want to explore my options about larger displacement. If stock 2.0 rods + 94mm pistons = 2.0L . Then what size pistons would I need for a 2.2L or a 2.4L. Thanks David |
   |
 
|
  |
Replies(1 - 13)
| SLITS |
Oct 19 2011, 05:23 PM
Post
#2
|
|
"This Utah shit is HARSH!" Group: Benefactors Posts: 13,602 Joined: 22-February 04 From: SoCal Mountains ... Member No.: 1,696 Region Association: None  |
96 mm pistons & barrels = 2041 cc
100 mm pistons & barrels = 2218 cc 103 mm pistons & barrels = 2356 cc 105 mm pistons & barrels = 2450 cc |
|
|
|
| Valy |
Oct 19 2011, 07:16 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 6-April 10 From: Sunnyvale, CA Member No.: 11,573 Region Association: Northern California |
"Engine
Size [cc]" "Stroke [mm]" 66 71 74 76 78 "Bore [mm]" 90 1679 1807 1883 1934 1985 91 1717 1847 1925 1977 2029 92 1755 1888 1968 2021 2074 93 1793 1929 2011 2065 2119 94 1832 1971 2054 2110 2165 96 1911 2056 2143 2200 2258 103 2200 2366 2466 2533 2600 104 2243 2413 2514 2582 2650 105 2286 2459 2563 2632 2702 Here are the stock options 66x90 - 1.7L 66x93 - 1.8L 71x94 - 2.0L And here are some popular options 71x96 - 2.1L 78x96 - 2.3L 103x71 - 2.4L 103x78 - 2.6L |
|
|
|
| Dave_Darling |
Oct 19 2011, 10:04 PM
Post
#4
|
|
914 Idiot Group: Members Posts: 14,991 Joined: 9-January 03 From: Silicon Valley / Kailua-Kona Member No.: 121 Region Association: Northern California 
|
QUOTE(SLITS @ Oct 19 2011, 04:23 PM)  96 mm pistons & barrels = 2041 cc That can't be right. The 71 stroke (stock 2.0 stroke) and 96mm cylinders make for 2056cc displacement. In general, after you get to 96mm bore you start adding stroke. Over about 75-ish stroke, that gets rather complicated. After you get to 78mm stroke, you go back to larger bores but that also gets complicated and expensive. Formula (for four-cylinder engines): bore X bore X 3.1415926 X stroke / 1000 = displacement in cc. So 96 * 96 * 3.1415926 * 76 / 1000 = 2200.422 --DD |
|
|
|
| Jake Raby |
Oct 19 2011, 11:24 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Engine Surgeon Group: Members Posts: 9,394 Joined: 31-August 03 From: Lost Member No.: 1,095 Region Association: South East States |
 |
|
|
|
| Cevan |
Oct 20 2011, 11:11 AM
Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1,079 Joined: 11-December 06 From: Western Massachusetts Member No.: 7,351 |
Ok, so has anyone ever built a 3592??? A 3.6 liter type IV? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)
|
|
|
|
| johannes |
Oct 20 2011, 01:34 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Club Porsche 914 France President Group: Members Posts: 3,084 Joined: 13-January 06 From: France Member No.: 5,409 Region Association: France |
|
|
|
|
| 914rat |
Oct 20 2011, 01:47 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 279 Joined: 3-July 06 From: Maryland Member No.: 6,362 |
So who has a 98.6 MM P&C set? Nickies?
|
|
|
|
| Dave_Darling |
Oct 20 2011, 04:38 PM
Post
#9
|
|
914 Idiot Group: Members Posts: 14,991 Joined: 9-January 03 From: Silicon Valley / Kailua-Kona Member No.: 121 Region Association: Northern California
|
LN Engineering will make Nickies in just about any size you can think of. Some of them will require "minor machining" to other parts of your motor.
I think that FAT built up a Type IV over 3.0 liters at one point? Not sure, though. --DD |
|
|
|
| Jake Raby |
Oct 20 2011, 06:16 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Engine Surgeon Group: Members Posts: 9,394 Joined: 31-August 03 From: Lost Member No.: 1,095 Region Association: South East States |
3 liter is no problem as long as the wallet can open wide enough.. 3.2 liters is where I am with a Turbo engine I am playing with..
Here is my old 3 liter from 2003 as a daily driver on pump gas... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFFZVjptUv8 |
|
|
|
| HAM Inc |
Oct 20 2011, 06:26 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 846 Joined: 24-July 06 From: Watkinsville,GA Member No.: 6,499 Region Association: None |
IMO after 2.5l the O.E. T4 head is incapable of supporting the engine efficiently if it will be asked to make power over 5,000. Aside from the structural integrity issues that arise with large exhaust valves, it is not possible to get a large enough ex. pipe through the pushrod tubes.
Switching to a T1 style head opens up a lot of options for large displacement T4's. IMO the 2270 is the perfect size for a large displacement T4. |
|
|
|
| Jake Raby |
Oct 20 2011, 06:29 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Engine Surgeon Group: Members Posts: 9,394 Joined: 31-August 03 From: Lost Member No.: 1,095 Region Association: South East States |
I could not agree more... Bigger is not better. 2270 is impossible to beat as an all around engine.
|
|
|
|
| HAM Inc |
Oct 20 2011, 06:38 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 846 Joined: 24-July 06 From: Watkinsville,GA Member No.: 6,499 Region Association: None |
QUOTE Bigger is not better. 2270 is impossible to beat as an all around engine. Yep. Great bore/stroke ratio, the bore lends itself to a strong head without a big ex. valve, the case spigots don't have to be opened up-which means a stronger case. Tons of torque. Good reliability. Definitely a good solid combo. |
|
|
|
| shuie |
Oct 20 2011, 06:51 PM
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 352 Joined: 17-May 04 From: baton rouge, la Member No.: 2,075 |
Other than the .4mm of stroke, is there anything fundamentally different between a 2258 and a 2270. How did we wind up with 78mm cranks and 78.4mm cranks?
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 11th June 2024 - 03:32 AM |
Invision Power Board
v9.1.4 © 2024 IPS, Inc.