You can change the style the forum displays by selecting your preferred style at the bottom left of the site.
We have made an enhancement so that old threads should now link from search results to the correct thread. This is not yet in place for single post links
That's a pretty unusual combo, 95.5 stroke and then std deck height. This means either you have very short rods or a very low compression height. Seems to work though. But, I would not recomend it as it will give you a really crappy rod/stroke ratio (as I said, I don't know what comp height you have but I find it hard to belive that you could make a set of pistons with the pin moved upwars 16mm, so a shorter than stock 3B rod is a must in that case!). A better way to go is with the ultra strong TDi block, it's got a higher deck height which allows longer rods (std 3B/ABY/AAN/ADU rod length!) even with stock piston compression height. The TDi block is capable of withstanding at least 809hp, as Jonus runs it in his Audi 80 GTEQ (ran 10.07/24X this summer, then again Stertman kicked him with a sub-10 run with a similar engine). According to him, 900hp is not a problem with stock TDI block, stock TDI crank - doesn't even need a girder to hold the crank in place.
I'm going to use a AAT block and crank, 144mm Parner rods and then stock ABY pistons (possibly over-bore custom pistons). The reason I want a stroker is, just like Palle, to have a large capacity engine that will produce more low end torque and give me more driveability. I want it to be like an electric engine. Roll-on power!
Another killer engine concept is a TDI block, stock 3B/ABY/AAN crank, loooong rods and stock size pistons. This is a bottom end that will last, it will be much more reliable at high revs as the added deck height means longer rods whcih in turn gives you a much nicer rod ratio. Aim beyond 900 crank hp...
henka@ i think you conrods are too short....the rod and strokeratio are NOT good,with144 mm rods...similar chevrolet 5,7" and 6" .....rodlength/ stroke=at least 1,6.the higher fig,the better.with lack of torgue ,if you reduse stroke....f.x.2,5 tdiblock,and the old 1,9 or 2,1 liter crank,77,4mm,and 165(!)mm conrods
jonus have the stroker to 7500rpm with soft cut,and 7800 max.he use 155mm conrods.you may have more rpm if you have dry sump oilsystem. nearly 1000 rpm at race.
henka@ i think you conrods are too short....the rod and strokeratio are NOT good,with144 mm rods...similar chevrolet 5,7" and 6" .....rodlength/ stroke=at least 1,6.the higher fig,the better.with lack of torgue ,if you reduse stroke....f.x.2,5 tdiblock,and the old 1,9 or 2,1 liter crank,77,4mm,and 165(!)mm conrods
jonus have the stroker to 7500rpm with soft cut,and 7800 max.he use 155mm conrods.you may have more rpm if you have dry sump oilsystem. nearly 1000 rpm at race.
Yeah, it's actually no good with 144's (am I wrong, isn't that stock ABY length???). Try to work it out what kind of rods PalleS2 is using then? Must be ultra short stuff!
Well anyways, I wasn't planning on revving more than stock, I'm after the low rpm torque and getting my relatively small turbo spinning really fast. Still think it's a problem?
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment