CTWG60

If your block is taller than standard you can have the following problems: 1: Exhaust manifold (especially big aftermarket ones) touching the body and other areas with engine movement. 2: Bonnet clearance issues which can mean rubbed sound insulation or running without cambelt cover. 3: Ancillary mounting, alternator, G60 bracket. 4: Valve timing issues which means running an aftermarket adjustable timing wheel. Some/all of the above may not be of importance to some people but I want my engine bay appear stock as much as possible. Anyone have experience of actually fitting a taller block may be able to inform you with a little more detail/information. I maybe wrong on some of the above points as I have never actually fitted a taller block. EDIT: I think the 6A is the 3A block with 16v pistons, again I maybe wrong.

The reason I choose a 3A audi block is: 1: It has the same deck height as a PG. So no complications there. 2: It it dimensionaly the same as the PG with regards to ancillary bolt holes etc. 3: It's got piston oil jets. 4: It can take a 92.8mm crank without modification. 5: You can buy the whole car for £150 and sell bits off of it so you get bottom end for free. And even make a profit! And so on. But there are other options. The only modification to the PG block that I know of is the plate covered hole on the pulley end to allow more cooling to cylinder number one. Anyone know of any others? I'd be interested to know!

Arrr you bastard Steve remove those images immediatly! :lol: EDIT: I look like I've had a stroke but least you can't see the parking dings in my drivers door.

I did consider doing a 1.9 but it just seemed to be a case of handing over some cash and there you go 1.9ltrs and I had always wanted to do a 2ltr Audi 3A bottom end engine conversion to my old mk2 8v. So I've got and audi 3A block and crank in the garage now and just waiting for the rest of the 83mm cast pistons to turn up and funds to arrive to get the engine to a local machine shop and have it built but it could be looking like I'll have to get custom rods made but still researching that one. 1.8 - 1.9 just doesn't excite me 1.9 - 2.008 does,and it makes life easier when you want more torque over more of the rev range when sticking with a G60. Take a look at blue_joes torque curve for proof of that!

double-6s, I could deal with that sort of procedure for a couple of months than driving around on motorways all night for a week!

rado-steve, Have you seen the magazine article yet with us all looking like right sado's and making us sound stupid with the "owners comments". :lol:

dirtytorque, Again I know where your coming from, it's almost as though it's more about doing it than the end result! I'd love a new Audi TT (if it wasn't the new "girls company fashion accessory") but I know I'd get bored with it and want to start spending money on it to make it go quicker, ABT here I would come.

Bloody hell! I thought you just had to drive it normally and keep it under a certain revs!

I don't think anyone has come up with an off the shelf 2ltr bottom end for a g60. Thay always seem to be custom, and that means they never use cast pistons in them. Stacked gaskets is a bad idea you'll have valve timing, flame travel and detonation issues not to mention bad fuel economy. :lol:

I think you like to think about what to do more than me. :D You know sometimes your post read like the thought processes of a petrolhead psycho. :) What souless engine comments? :scratch:

Agreed you could/can just fit a 1.8T which some people prefer. At a recent RR day at awesome my current spec engine gave more power and torque than a standard 1.8T I don't know much about the different audi/VW turbo engines and there power only going from experience of one corrado conversion on the day. Granted the engine could be improve easily but the engine would not have the same low end torque character. So going from a G60 to a 1.8T requires some serious thought as you probably well know. What sort of power/torque character are you going to go for? I actually like having an unusual engine. I never see another on the road locally. And I like putting lots of thought into improvements so as to get my money's worth if you know what I mean. First I get to think about it, then I get to buy it, then I get to make it work, then I get to enjoy it! Slows down the spending a lot and stops me getting bored. And when I've finished playing with this car in about 5 years I'd like to get a 1995 Porsche 928 5.4 GTS Manual and supercharge it woohoo 400 lb/ft from 2k hee hee. I'll just keep dreaming about that one! Horses for Courses though don't want to get into a 1.8T/G60 flame war.

I get exactly what you are saying DirtyTorque. You don't just want to hand over 2-3k and say thank you very much for my big bore/stroke engine and drive off into the sunset. You want to be involved in the process and understand how and why! I'll start you off. The biggest problem with producing more than a 1900cc low compression (8:1/9:1) engine is the block height (The height from the centre of the crank to the gasket surface of the block, about 220mm). If you increase this height by using a different block you then run into all sorts of other problems. This is why Blue_Joe spent so much on his pistons other than the fact that he wanted an 83.5mm bore. So you don't want to be using an 83.5mm bore as long term reliability may be a question and it's expensive. So to get to 2ltrs you need to use a 92.8mm crank and at least 82.5mm pistons. If you use a 92.8mm crank your going to have problems with clearing oiljets and the sides of the crank case again expensive to sort out so maybe a PG block is not the best starting point. Also if you use the 92.8 crank you cannot use the G60 rods which are 136mm, apart from possible problems with the bigend bearings rotating, your crank to rod ratio will be 1.465 which is way too low and will be lumpy and your engine won't last very long. So you will have to use longer rods. I believe Blue_Joe used 144mm rods so he only had 29.6mm left for the compression height of the piston as far as I can work out (220-(92.8/2)-144=29.6). Considering a least 10mm of this would be required for half the piston pin only 19.6mm are left to contain 3 piston rings and a nice deep dish in the piston which is not much. So I would suggest you start with an engine block that already has a 92.8mm crank and the same deck height of 220mm and then start thinking about getting some low compression pistons and I think custom rods will be a must with no no less than 140mm in 0-0 length. I'm currently in the process of working all this out. Just saving up now before I go convince an engine builder to build want I have come up with. Good look with it.

It should be possible to swap a CTN diff in but the drive flanges are different in that they are spring loaded which I think helps with torque biasing. Also worth noting that the quaife diff for a standard CBA/O2A cannot be used in a diesel/CTN box!

If you or any one else wants check out a box then you can put the box in gear and turn the input shaft once and count the number of turns of the drive flanges or vice-versa. The CTN box or similar should give the following results. 1st = 1 turn of input shaft = 12 turns of drive shafts (or vice-versa) 2nd = 6.5 turns 3rd = 4.25 turns 4th = 3 turns 5th = 2.3 turns

Ohh dear, Was all good with the ratios for this box until I got to the FD. It's got a final drive of 3.9444. I doubt this is off a diesel as this FD makes this box shorter than a CBA box which has an FD of 3.647. A diesel box should have an FD of 3.1579. All the other ratios were the same as a CTN/CBA. Sorry mate. Unless ETKA is wrong on the FD ratio of 70/18 then this looks like it was off a 16v passat which would explain the short ratios heavier car and a peaky high rev engine. Numbers Gearbox:- Passat TDi CHA Tyre:- Michelin all patterns 205/50 x 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Gear gives 24.702 MPH/1000 RPM and a top speed of 153.155 MPH at 6200 RPM Engine speeds in top gear:- 30 MPH = 1214 RPM 40 MPH = 1619 RPM 50 MPH = 2024 RPM 60 MPH = 2429 RPM 70 MPH = 2834 RPM 80 MPH = 3239 RPM 90 MPH = 3643 RPM 100 MPH = 4048 RPM Top Speed in 1 gear = 29.084 MPH And changes into 2 gear at 3475 RPM dropping 2725 RPM Top Speed in 2 gear = 51.886 MPH And changes into 3 gear at 3982 RPM dropping 2218 RPM Top Speed in 3 gear = 80.789 MPH And changes into 4 gear at 4179 RPM dropping 2021 RPM Top Speed in 4 gear = 119.857 MPH And changes into 5 gear at 4852 RPM dropping 1348 RPM Top Speed in 5 gear = 153.155 MPH ******************************************************************************************

Check the code again they can be difficult to read. I don't recognise it and can't find any reference to it in the ETKA software. EDIT: just found it it's off a Passat I'll have a look at the ratio's

Have you got a graph for your current spec. Will be interesting to see how the CTN box will cope with your spec engine.

Thought is was due to the ISV dumping the boost but thought the SNS chip would of increased the rpm at which it was dumped. I thought it had done well torque curve wise. I don't think it is due to knock. This is on a standard charger and internals other than the Gwerks manifold and through exhaust. I wasn't to concerned about max hp more about good torque through as much of the rev range as possible but yes if this drop was sorted out it would give a bit more torque over 5600rpm. I'll hopefully be taking it to Chip Wizards with some redtops late this year after I get the 2ltr bottom end sorted out. Anyway thanks for the comments V. helpful.

For anyone else wondering about this box swap here is the power graphs for my car at a recent rolling road day at awesome. As you can see it is doing well below 3k. Wanted to post this up just to give a bit more infomation for anyone wondering if this box will make there car slow which it might if your torque is a bit more peaky, which some turbo motors can be.

---

---

---

---

---

---