View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2001 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From: larso Email: lars.olson@3web.net Date: 25 Jul 2001 Time: 12:59:40so supposedly the 924 block originated from this 1.5 litre from the 60s and 70s audi.
Who actaully thinks that a 1.5 litre block can be bored out to 2.0 litres?
Is there anyone that is sure that it actaully came from this block, is teh 2.0 litre block actaully a DIFFERENT block.
I find it very hard to believe that a 1.5 litre block was bored out to 2.0 litres.
Also, the stroke is different! How the hell is that possible?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2001 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From: rick maclaren Email: rick.maclaren@home.com Date: 25 Jul 2001 Time: 13:48:45Lars,
I think it's time you told everyone the truth: The Porsche 924 engine came from Mars. Mulder knew it, so did Scully, but the file was closed by the X-file team.
:-)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2001 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From: Mike K Email: Kouridakis@msn.com Date: 25 Jul 2001 Time: 14:36:40I want to believe.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2001 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From: ajl Email: LafertyAJ@AOL.COM Date: 25 Jul 2001 Time: 15:12:17Don't know about the 1.5 liter but my audi 5000 book has a 1.6 liter, with 79.5 mm bore x 80 mm stroke. the 924 motor, 1921 cc vice 2000 is 86.5 mm x 84.4 stroke. The stroke isn't all that bad. 80-84.4=4.4 mm. Top and bottom of the stroke means you divide the 4.4mm by 2 to get 2.2 mm up and down more. 2.2 mm isn't really a lot. 86.5 bore -79.5 is 7 mm. ok, remember that is diameter so you are cutting only 7 mm divided by 2 =3.5 mm more metal off each side of the cylinder walls. Ever had one of these blocks apart? gobs of cylinder wall thickness (considering the brake mean effective pressure of the explosion). I suspect the only thing that kept them from boring bigger was the extraordinary harmonic vibration coming from the 4 cylinder....
Oh yeah, remember volume is radius squared times pi, times the stroke, times the number of cylinders.
Don't mean to be condescending. It was my understanding the motor was originally designed by mercedes benz to be a tractor motor, then sold to NSU, then to audi. Then modified by designers for the 924 going to over head cam and FI. Oh yeah, there is always the AMC aspect. Anyway, as a tractor motor, they probably designed it for big torque loads (haven't seen many of these motors with bad bearings and weren't really concerned about harmonics in the 6500 rpm range.
my 2 cents....:)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2001 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From: Lars Email: l_porsche@hotmail.com Date: 25 Jul 2001 Time: 15:15:05I am dead serious, I was convinced by PST and roland kunz or whoever it was that the engine DID actually come from an audi engine, and it was just bored out....
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2001 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From: Eric Email: Elynch@itt.com Date: 25 Jul 2001 Time: 15:30:58The truth is out there!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2001 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From: Lars Email: l_porsche@hotmail.com Date: 25 Jul 2001 Time: 15:53:34what year is this 1.6?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2001 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From: Lars Email: l_porsche@hotmail.com Date: 25 Jul 2001 Time: 15:56:40by the way, about the bearing strength stuff, i know a guy witha 931 that spun a bearing, and all 924s seem to have oil pressure problems because of bearings.
but staying on topic...what year is this 1.6 litre in, do you know.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2001 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From: bob Email: Porschetech@mac.com Date: 27 Jul 2001 Time: 23:31:16Spinning a bearing can be more of an over rev problem and bad oil, and not related to inherent bearing journal design.
The oil pressure issue that is common on the 2.0 liter engine is in the head as the heat and oil dispersion is less than desired. The weak part of the design is the failure to have replacable cam bearings in the caps and volume limits.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2001 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From: ajl Email: LafertyAJ@aol.com Date: 28 Jul 2001 Time: 12:40:49I concur.
If you do the math for loads on the crank, revving up a motor is pretty extraordinary for forces. Further, the 2.0 motor is set up pretty loose clearance wise, decreasing the internal friction of the motor. Of course, it also means you must use a higher viscosity oil to cover the gap. Ever wonder why today's new cars can get by on 30 wt oil? the clearances and manufacturing tolerances are much closer.
again, sorry to rant and rave, just my 3 cents (inflation)
ajl
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2001 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From: larso Email: l_porsche@hotmail.com Date: 28 Jul 2001 Time: 13:29:42i dunno, every single 924 i have seen and heard about has had a bad bearing problem, i guess all the 924 owners just don't use the right oil and don't take care of their cars then.
that's why they burn oil too, not tight clearances...
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|