 Engine Question, 2.0 Rod Side Clearance |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
  |
| Type 4 Unleashed |
 Oct 20 2005, 11:32 AM
Post
#1
|
|
CREATIVE TYPE lV ENGINEERING  Group: Retired Members Posts: 787 Joined: 20-June 04 From: Aliso Viejo, ca Member No.: 2,231 Region Association: None  |
Anyone, knows of the top of there heads, the min side clearance of a 2.0 rod?
Thanks |
   |
 
|
| Dr. Roger |
Oct 20 2005, 11:43 AM
Post
#2
|
|
A bat out of hell. Group: Members Posts: 3,944 Joined: 31-January 05 From: Hercules, California Member No.: 3,533 Region Association: Northern California |
Very small.
|
|
|
|
| ArtechnikA |
Oct 20 2005, 11:48 AM
Post
#3
|
|
rich herzog Group: Members Posts: 7,390 Joined: 4-April 03 From: Salted Roads, PA Member No.: 513 Region Association: None |
minimum clearance ? interesting; both the rod big end and the crankshaft wear to create larger clearances...
The Spec Book (FWIW) says this about connecting rods: axial play (mm) 0,10 - 0,40 nominal new; 0,70 wear limit. |
|
|
|
| Jake Raby |
Oct 20 2005, 12:09 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Engine Surgeon Group: Members Posts: 9,394 Joined: 31-August 03 From: Lost Member No.: 1,095 Region Association: South East States |
My spec is a min of .015.. Max of .021
Your cam and lifters will love you for it... |
|
|
|
| ArtechnikA |
Oct 20 2005, 12:16 PM
Post
#5
|
||
|
rich herzog Group: Members Posts: 7,390 Joined: 4-April 03 From: Salted Roads, PA Member No.: 513 Region Association: None |
that's inches, yes? 0.015" ~= 0,4 mm 0.021" ~= 0,5 mm so that's not *too* far off the Spec Book numbers... |
||
|
|
|
||
| Type 4 Unleashed |
Oct 20 2005, 01:11 PM
Post
#6
|
|
CREATIVE TYPE lV ENGINEERING Group: Retired Members Posts: 787 Joined: 20-June 04 From: Aliso Viejo, ca Member No.: 2,231 Region Association: None |
Thanks for the info guys.
The reason I ask, I just found a set of rods for my 82mm 2.0 jrl crank, there Toyota Supra Turbo rods, this is the 2nd set I've picked up, the first set were from 86 -92 Supra Turbo, the problem with these, there alot of trouble cause there way long, 5.980 and after resized there still 5.935. This 2nd set is from 93-98 Supra Turbo, there 5.590 long, and after resizing 5.545, and what makes these rods so cool, not only is the rod length, well with in a trouble free install, but the width of the big end is (2.020") .010" wider than a stock 2.0 rod (2.010"), and should drop right in with out any further expense. And the Bonus feature, an expense I would of had to pay on any other rod that I had decided to use, the the cap and rod already have alignment pins, not the alignment sleaves like Scat or Carrillo use. I'll post pics tonight. |
|
|
|
| Dr. Roger |
Oct 20 2005, 01:20 PM
Post
#7
|
|
A bat out of hell. Group: Members Posts: 3,944 Joined: 31-January 05 From: Hercules, California Member No.: 3,533 Region Association: Northern California |
As I understand it, excessive side clearances will allow too much oil to get by and decrease oil pressure to critical components.
Too little clearance and you won't be able to turn over your engine (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/huh.gif) and if you can barely turn it over it will create excessive heat. Right on the money is where I try to get this clearance. My engine rods and crank came from different sources also and required machining to get it just right. Jake knows best. Best of luck to you. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/wink.gif) Roger |
|
|
|
| Jake Raby |
Oct 20 2005, 02:39 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Engine Surgeon Group: Members Posts: 9,394 Joined: 31-August 03 From: Lost Member No.: 1,095 Region Association: South East States |
Too little of clearance also leads to excess oil temps and premature rod bearing wear, especially if your end play is a tad loose- the crank moves fore and aft as you push on the clutch and as the engine accelerates and decelerates and really works on things.
>018 is my sweet spot, |
|
|
|
| type47 |
Oct 20 2005, 03:12 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Viermeister Group: Members Posts: 4,254 Joined: 7-August 03 From: Vienna, VA Member No.: 994 Region Association: MidAtlantic Region |
hmmmm, education needed. jake, how could rod clearance affect camshaft and lifter performance? seems to me, they are not connected. respectfully asking for an explanation/description.
|
|
|
|
| Jake Raby |
Oct 20 2005, 05:34 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 |
Easy.. Look at the position of the cam lobes in comparison to the crankshaft rod journals.... Each cam lobe has a rod journal directly over it and as centrifugal force sheds oil past the rod bearings a huge portion of it is tosssed right on top of the lobes/lifters.... I have tested this theory in my spin device I built just for cam/lifter trial and error testing.. It absolutely makes an impact. Here is my tool used for proving the fact.
(IMG:http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/Lifters/spintron/mid_size/DSCN1292.JPG) Here's some more reading..... Its all in the combo! |
|
|
|
| Type 4 Unleashed |
Oct 20 2005, 11:25 PM
Post
#11
|
|
CREATIVE TYPE lV ENGINEERING Group: Retired Members Posts: 787 Joined: 20-June 04 From: Aliso Viejo, ca Member No.: 2,231 Region Association: None |
Here's a pic of the 93 - 98 Turbo rod.
Attached image(s) 
|
|
|
|
| Type 4 Unleashed |
Oct 21 2005, 01:04 AM
Post
#12
|
||
|
CREATIVE TYPE lV ENGINEERING Group: Retired Members Posts: 787 Joined: 20-June 04 From: Aliso Viejo, ca Member No.: 2,231 Region Association: None |
Another I'll, post pic's of the finished product , when finished (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/happy11.gif) Attached image(s) 
|
||
|
|
|
||
| DNHunt |
Oct 21 2005, 06:51 AM
Post
#13
|
|
914 Wizard? No way. I got too much to learn. Group: Members Posts: 4,099 Joined: 21-April 03 From: Gig Harbor, WA Member No.: 598 |
You did mention an 82 mm crank, right? Are those rod bolts gonna clear? I know the rods for my 78 mm crank have metal removed there. I would sure like to be at your place when you mock it up. Don't get me wrong i hope it goes but I have concerns with them collideing with the cam and the webbing on the top of the case.
Dave |
|
|
|
| ArtechnikA |
Oct 21 2005, 07:05 AM
Post
#14
|
||
|
rich herzog Group: Members Posts: 7,390 Joined: 4-April 03 From: Salted Roads, PA Member No.: 513 Region Association: None |
and by placing them on the bottom, you have an engine that must have the case split to replace rod bearings. for an engine that's designed to come apart frequently (race engine) that may be an okay tradeoff. i like the idea of being able to pull a rod with the case together to inspect or replace the rod bearings whenever the cylinders are off. just another tradeoff an engine builder must face... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 16th May 2024 - 05:06 AM |
Invision Power Board
v9.1.4 © 2024 IPS, Inc.