Jump to content

205GTIDrivers.com has just received a major redesign and the update is still in progress, so please bear with us. You may want to clear your browser's cache and cookies for this site. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Also, we invite you to post feedback in this topic: http://www.205gtidrivers.com/topic/171489-new-website-feeback/ 

  • Welcome to 205GTIDrivers.com!

    Hello dear visitor! Feel free to browse but we invite you to register completely free of charge in order to enjoy the full functionality of the website.

Sign in to follow this  
Guest JasonS

1449cc

Recommended Posts

Sandy

I always hope i'm understood, but you can never be sure ! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JasonS

Yea, i made that a bit hard to understand by saying full rod length being distance between centres :P

 

Going back to what i was suggesting, about the choice of rods therefore. I was saying that using the shorter TU3J rods (like matt has done) would leave you with better/stronger pistons, rather than the longer TU5 ones. I have both, and even though the TU5 rods might be stronger rods, it will result in weaker pistons. There's a compromise from choosing one or the other, Stronger Long Rods-Weaker Crown or Weaker Short Rods-Stronger Crown. I'm slightly pushed towards the second option, as i think that a richer mixture could be needed to prevent the crowns from being burnt/melting in the first option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy

I've not yet come across a piston failure in these, at least one that isn't directly related to to something else, like overheating. Rod failures with the later engines however seem quite common and the one's I've seen dismantled appear to have been straight forward break failures of the neck, no spun or seized bearings or seized pistons etc. So i'm not awfully keen on using the later slimmer rods in any build, but especially a long stroke one.

Edited by sandy309

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JasonS

Good point. Thinking about it again the first option could suit the setup better considering the change in bore/stroke ratio and the retention of a high rpm limit. I think the best bet would be to calculate the amount of decking required in both cases and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bren_1.3

is this for a road engine or for a class / CC limited race/rally engine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattsav

The Quicksilver is a late (2000) Tu3Jp engine.

 

The rods and pistons are very light (the pistons is tiny compared to the XSI's) and they lasted Ok at 7500rpm but I have to say they didn't look very strong. As for Compression, we made a balls up with the calcs the first time and ended up with 12.??:1.

 

Then we dropped it to approx 11:1 from memory

 

The 270deg cam should work well on the 1400. Check the piston/valve clearance though as I can't give any guarantees!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JasonS
is this for a road engine or for a class / CC limited race/rally engine?

 

Its only for a trackday car, no cc limitations.

 

The rods and pistons are very light (the pistons is tiny compared to the XSI's) and they lasted Ok at 7500rpm but I have to say they didn't look very strong. As for Compression, we made a balls up with the calcs the first time and ended up with 12.??:1.

 

Then we dropped it to approx 11:1 from memory

 

The 270deg cam should work well on the 1400. Check the piston/valve clearance though as I can't give any guarantees!!!

 

I think i might chance the standard TU3J Pistons and Rods. Matt, out of interest, with the 280 catcam you used, was piston/valve clearance ok with just decking or were cutouts required? What lift was that cam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×