Home  |  Forums  |  914 Info  |  Blogs
 
914World.com - The fastest growing online 914 community!
 
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.
 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
 Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Bore & Stroke discusion
KenH
post Feb 5 2006, 09:59 PM
Post #1


Senior Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 680
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Gilroy, CA
Member No.: 156
Assuming all the "other" parameters will be optimized for the B & S.

What are the Pros & Cons between 103mm x 71mm and
96mm x 78mm. Cost factors, reliability, ease of doing, etc.

Any comments on any other combinations??

Ken
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mueller
post Feb 6 2006, 12:06 AM
Post #2


914 Freak!
***************

Group: Members
Posts: 17,146
Joined: 4-January 03
From: Antioch, CA
Member No.: 87
Region Association: None
Ken,

from what I have observed from Jakes engines on what he has published, second combo seems to be the better choice since it seems that the increased stroke allows for a more ideal rod ratio...also, "I" think the second combo is better since the additional stroke gives the cylinders more time to breath in the a/f and more time to exhale the exhaust....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eeyore
post Feb 6 2006, 12:35 AM
Post #3


Senior Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 889
Joined: 8-January 04
From: meridian, id
Member No.: 1,533
Region Association: None
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/agree.gif)

If I understand correctly, the T4 heads are more amenable to being optimized for 96x78 than for 103x71. Something to do with intake velocity and boring old volumetric efficiency.

Yet, the latter is more easily accomplished.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KenH
post Feb 6 2006, 01:01 AM
Post #4


Senior Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 680
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Gilroy, CA
Member No.: 156
Some where it the past I heard that the longer stroke may be less reliable due to its "mass/velocity" ratio??

Ken
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mueller
post Feb 6 2006, 01:11 AM
Post #5


914 Freak!
***************

Group: Members
Posts: 17,146
Joined: 4-January 03
From: Antioch, CA
Member No.: 87
Region Association: None
QUOTE (KenH @ Feb 6 2006, 12:01 AM)
Some where it the past I heard that the longer stroke may be less reliable due to its "mass/velocity" ratio??

Ken

the longer rods are actually lighter !!!!!

(correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm correct on this)

the smaller bore pistons should be lighter as well....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joe Ricard
post Feb 6 2006, 06:01 AM
Post #6


CUMONIWANNARACEU
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 6,811
Joined: 5-January 03
From: Gautier, MS
Member No.: 92
Stroke = Torque
and
Torque is GUD.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bd1308
post Feb 6 2006, 06:20 AM
Post #7


Sir Post-a-lot
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 8,020
Joined: 24-January 05
From: Louisville,KY
Member No.: 3,501
which two engine combo's are we talking about?

b
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
crash914
post Feb 6 2006, 06:23 AM
Post #8


its a mystery to me
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,826
Joined: 17-March 03
From: Marriottsville, MD
Member No.: 434
Region Association: MidAtlantic Region
don't forget the machine work for the 103 combo...with both cases, you won't need to work on the case...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jake Raby
post Feb 6 2006, 06:45 AM
Post #9


Engine Surgeon
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 9,394
Joined: 31-August 03
From: Lost
Member No.: 1,095
Region Association: South East States
78X96 is BY FAR the best combination, if you use the right combination of compatible components to comprise the engine. If you want to make this job so simple that a 15 year old can do it successfully, grab one of my engine kits! The second best solution is grabbing the parts from me individually as this guarantees that all the parts will be compatible and will only effect ease of assembly a tad bit since you won't get the "Support" that we give to full kit customers.

The 2270 (78.4X96) combo is the best for many reasons but primarily for the cost Vs. HP and the fact that this combo has been my most researched and has the highest build concentration here, because its just so damn perfect!

The 103mm bore size, IMHO requires Nikies cylinders to remain free of head leaks and associated problems with the HUGE bore size. These issues are not present with the smaller bores up to 96mm and only become apparent after reaching the 100mm threshold. (do searches for more info)

Also the 103mm bore size requires serious and expensive cylinder head modifications to sustain the huge bore size without sacrificing RPM range or power output. If you don't have 2K+ for a set of cylinder heads the 103mm bore will more than likely COST YOU USABLE POWER!

I do not have much time at all to go over this right now, as this week I'm building a 2270 engine while a writer from Hot VWs does a comprehensive story on the build up...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KenH
post Feb 6 2006, 06:37 PM
Post #10


Senior Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 680
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Gilroy, CA
Member No.: 156
Thanks for the comments.

Jake, your comments on problems with the 103 setup was what I was looking for.

This is a motor for the track and while I do not have any problem re-building it from time-to-time I still want as much life from it has possible.

Ken
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jake Raby
post Feb 6 2006, 06:44 PM
Post #11


Engine Surgeon
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 9,394
Joined: 31-August 03
From: Lost
Member No.: 1,095
Region Association: South East States
2316cc absolutely...

I have a combo that literally falls together as a kit and makes 183 HP and about 175 torque... last week this combo with one alteration made 202HP on pump gas!

My kit will yield these types of results for LESS money than you'll spend buying the parts individually to end up with a non balanced, non engineered or proven combination.

I had several versions of this engine in my 914 and it's enough to eat a six for breakfast any day of the week.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Carlitos Way
post Feb 7 2006, 12:19 AM
Post #12


I did it MY WAY
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,337
Joined: 14-September 04
From: Simi Valley, CA
Member No.: 2,757
Region Association: Southern California
And at what cost does one get to eat 911's for breakfast?

I've been thinking about rebuilding my 2.0 (spare) into a larger engine. I know I need to have the heads re-done, perhaps opened up... but I'm about as ignorant as anyone could be.

So... back to the question... how much is one of those kits?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
alpha434
post Feb 7 2006, 02:04 AM
Post #13


My member number is no coincidence.
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3,154
Joined: 16-December 05
From: Denver, CO
Member No.: 5,280
Region Association: Rocky Mountains
QUOTE (Carlitos Way @ Feb 6 2006, 10:19 PM)
And at what cost does one get to eat 911's for breakfast?  

914-6s were faster then taildraggers in the same time period. Thats why they stopped making 914s. Same deal with the new cayman. Porsche deliberately limits perfomance by (a) engine restrictions (b suspension

They don't want anything to be faster then their flagship 911. So, eating a 6 for breakfast is not a laughing matter.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aaron Cox
post Feb 7 2006, 02:07 AM
Post #14


Professional Lawn Dart
***************

Group: Retired Admin
Posts: 24,541
Joined: 1-February 03
From: OC
Member No.: 219
Region Association: Southern California
QUOTE (alpha434 @ Feb 7 2006, 01:04 AM)
QUOTE (Carlitos Way @ Feb 6 2006, 10:19 PM)
And at what cost does one get to eat 911's for breakfast?  

914-6s were faster then taildraggers in the same time period. Thats why they stopped making 914s. Same deal with the new cayman. Porsche deliberately limits perfomance by (a) engine restrictions (b suspension

They don't want anything to be faster then their flagship 911. So, eating a 6 for breakfast is not a laughing matter.

no offense here dude.

some of your fatcs are wrong. not here to bust your balls....

im out for the nite...

'think before ye speak' (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
« Next Oldest · 914World Garage · Next Newest »
 

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline

Track this topic · Email this topic · Print this topic · Subscribe to this forum

- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 8th May 2024 - 08:27 PM
Invision Power Board v9.1.4 © 2024  IPS, Inc.
All rights reserved 914World.com © since 2002
914World.com is the fastest growing online 914 community!
We have it all, classifieds, events, forums, vendors, parts, autocross, racing, technical articles, events calendar, newsletter, restoration, gallery, archives, history and more for your Porsche 914 ...