Available stroker kits for 16v engines

[boost monkey 0]

Hi guys,

 

I just been running searches for 2.1 and 2.2 Litre, but it's picking up anyting with a 1 or 2 in :mad:

 

So, I'll just ask you: besides the traditional KR head on 9a block, are there any kits out there to overbore / stroke either a KR or 9A past 2.0 litres?

 

I'm thinking 2.1 or 2.2 litre mainly, and also any experiences with either of these would be greatly appreciated!

 

p.s. please don't just say "don't bother".. I'm an engineer, I will need scientific proof!

 

Ta,

 

Jon.

[Jim 2]

I've certainly heard of 2.1l VW 16v's so they can be done - though not sure what is done to get em there!

[junkie 0]

Im sure you will find this place Eurospec Sport a very interesting read yet a surprisingly good wallet emptier at the same time.

 

Good luck, hopefully see you around these parts again in the future. :lol:

[boost monkey 0]

"The largest commercially available conversion for a 1.8 litre GTI engine is the AutoTech 2.1 litre kit which has an 84mm bore and a 92.8mm stroke for 2057cc... uses 2-litre Passat crankshaft, AutoTech/Mahle oversized cast pistons, new bearings and a special head gasket. For the 16 valve engines, you also need a set of reduced height oil squirters, necessary because of the size of the crankshaft."

 

I wouldn't farm out any of the work except the overbore/things I couldn't do myself, it's just interesting to see what's available out there really.

[boost monkey 0]

Good luck, hopefully see you around these parts again in the future. :lol:

 

:?

[davidwort 0]

From what I've read the best 2L engines to take out to 2.1 are the ABF/ACE mk3 16v ones, they have a longer block, same capacity and crank throw, just longer rods making the engine better for revving high on a 2.1 build. If you bore out a 9A to 2.1 the revs generally have to be limited to about 6500rpm.

[boost monkey 0]

If you bore out a 9A to 2.1 the revs generally have to be limited to about 6500rpm.

 

How so?

 

 

Thanks for the mk3 information, great stuff! I guess my spare KR will stay a 1.8 for now then.

[davidwort 0]

I'm not exactly sure, but it may be down to the crank used, making it longer throw but still retaining the shorter rod ratio compared to the ABF.

I wouldn't bore a 1.8 again myself, I had one, the 2.0 blocks not only have the correct piston oil squirters which you have to remove when fitting a 2L crank in a 1.8, but the 2.0 litre blocks have better water jackets, I had the two side by side and they look quite different. I'd imagine the 2.0 block is better at cooling the bores and doing more evenly on a high power motor than over-stretching the 1.8 casting.

[Yandards 0]

I'm not exactly sure, but it may be down to the crank used, making it longer throw but still retaining the shorter rod ratio compared to the ABF.

I wouldn't bore a 1.8 again myself, I had one, the 2.0 blocks not only have the correct piston oil squirters which you have to remove when fitting a 2L crank in a 1.8, but the 2.0 litre blocks have better water jackets, I had the two side by side and they look quite different. I'd imagine the 2.0 block is better at cooling the bores and doing more evenly on a high power motor than over-stretching the 1.8 casting.

 

I thought that high revving engines need to be long throw with narrow pistons to ensure good piston stability as the revs rise.

 

Might be wrong about that but it does seem to make sense.

[boost monkey 0]

I'm not exactly sure, but it may be down to the crank used, making it longer throw but still retaining the shorter rod ratio compared to the ABF.

I wouldn't bore a 1.8 again myself, I had one, the 2.0 blocks not only have the correct piston oil squirters which you have to remove when fitting a 2L crank in a 1.8, but the 2.0 litre blocks have better water jackets, I had the two side by side and they look quite different. I'd imagine the 2.0 block is better at cooling the bores and doing more evenly on a high power motor than over-stretching the 1.8 casting.

 

Ah cool cheers, that helpfully puts me off thinking about modding the KR, esp if the 9A is a better base.

 

Perhaps it will stay as

 

Yan, would be interested to hear your thoughts. I know that under-square engines (bore larger than stroke) such as bike engines are happier to rev, where as over-square (stroke larger than bore) are lazier, such as some V8s. I guess this is because U/S engine have less inertia as the bottom end is reciprocating less and as such are much more stable at high rpms?

 

pure theory/opinion.

[flusted 0]

I thought diesel 1.9 crank was the way forward?

[mrbeige 0]

I remember an featured car in either The Golf mag or PVW that had a 2.2l 16v engine. I believe it was a bored ABF, but it madethe cylinder walls particularly thin and I think the guy had the cylinder walls nitrided(?). IIRC he used forged pistons and rods too, but a standard crank. It used to go through quite a bit of oil though.

 

HTH

[dirtytorque 0]

If you bore out a 9A to 2.1 the revs generally have to be limited to about 6500rpm.

 

How so?

 

 

Thanks for the mk3 information, great stuff! I guess my spare KR will stay a 1.8 for now then.

 

stolen from the internet

 

A longer con rod creates a narrower Rod : Piston angle when the piston is halfway down the cylinder ,causing less friction which means a smaller force is needed to move the piston.With a larger rod : piston angle there is more vibration in the engine.

 

Very crude explanation and not the full picture but..

[davidwort 0]

stolen from the internet

 

A longer con rod creates a narrower Rod : Piston angle when the piston is halfway down the cylinder ,causing less friction which means a smaller force is needed to move the piston.With a larger rod : piston angle there is more vibration in the engine.

 

Very crude explanation and not the full picture but..[/quote:3tgl20js]

 

yep, that makes sense then, the 2L 16v 9A/6A was cammed so it red-lined at about 6500, although the head and block will take more than 7,500rpm with the existiong valvegear they do get a bit rough at high revs

 

the ABF in the mk3 has more 1.8 16v/KR-like cams, in fact even more lift, and so to keep a 1.8-like red-line and smoothness to suit, they lengthened the block and used longer rods even though displacement stays the same

 

both 9a (bubble block) and ABF (tall block) will make a powerfull 2.1, it's just the ABF will make it more smoothly, not to mention that the ABF heads have modified valvegear from the KR and 9A type ones

 

The ABF was afterall the final development of the VW group KR 16v engine

[steveo29 0]

c&R ENTERPRISES had a 2.1 golf some time back...he posts on here under the name crasher , maybe he will chime in

[joby 0]

c&R ENTERPRISES had a 2.1 golf some time back...he posts on here under the name crasher , maybe he will chime in

Called by the name of ZESTORER if im not mistaken :lol: (german for destroyer) how sad am I :)

I remember it at the GTI international years ago, it smoked like a teenager on 20 benson & hedges :lol:

[CTWG60 0]

Studied this quite a bit. The maximum you can safely get with a 2 ltr 236 mm block is 2164 cc thats 83 mm bore 100 mm stroke, but it will reduce your rod ratio to 1.59 and your bore to stroke ratio to 0.83 this ratio is almost the same as a 1.9 ltr diesel engine with a 79 mm bore and 95.5 mm stroke so you create an engine that gives you more low end but will not rev as high easily and I would only consider for a fairly small turbo or big Supercharger application.

 

The 2 ltr 220 mm engine can be taken out to 83 mm and given a 95.5 mm stroke but your rod ratio will be very close to what is deemed acceptable for any conventional 4 stroke engine which is 1.5:1.

 

So low ratio rod/stroke and bore/stroke creates low end torque but is slower to rev and more limited in it's rev range. I personally wouldn't mind that but it'd have to be a FI engine. For track use I'd go the other way but with a larger turbo.

 

I to after much research would not go near a 1.8 with an increased stoke there just isn't the room unless like Henny you can get hold of the mythical 90mm crank which with an 83 mm bore will get you to 1940 or there abouts.

 

Just my thoughts from some extensive reading on this matter.

[boost monkey 0]

Awesome info from everyone!

 

I'm guessing that 2.2 that smoked like a trooper was because of the forged pistons allowing oil past them?

 

It's just nice to go against the norm sometimes and see what else is out there off the beaten track...

[jezzaG60 0]

I've got a lovely Holbay Engineering billet crank with a 94mm stoke, knife edged, cross drilled etc. For sale now as i'm not going to get round to using it.

Nice combo of a longer than stock 2l stroke but not so long as to be lazy like a tdi crank.

[boost monkey 0]

Do continue... :D