Jump to content
  • 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.

AndreasN

TU44J2 - is it possible?

Recommended Posts

205rallye_slo
On 2/9/2025 at 3:34 PM, AndreasN said:

Okay, I got it at last :)

 

Any progres on tu4 engine? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arthur

Hi, any updates? In the meantime my 1860 cc EC8/TU5 engine,inspired by this treat, is running. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205rallye_slo

No from my side. 

Still run standard tu3s.

Working on manifold for 2xdhla.

 

Your ec8/tu5? Where we can see more about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arthur

I have a threat about it on here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AndreasN
Posted (edited)

Apologies for the lack of updates, but there haven't really been anything to write. Due to various circumstances I have not been able to do much work on the car, but I've resumed again now :)

 

I decided to change the plan a bit by using the pistons and rods from a TU3JP. This is both due to parts availability (with the previous plan I'd basically have to buy a set of TU24 pistons and cylinder liners, just to throw out the liners, whereas I can use a complete set of TU3JP pistons+liners "as is"), and partly to get the advantage of the more modern pistons in the TU3JP. They have a much shorter compression height (27.75 mm), and a corresponding longer connecting rod (140,25).

 

Full of optimism I ordered a complete set of Mahle cylinder liners + pistons, and a bunch of connecting rods from a breaker's yard. I'm still waiting for the Mahle parts, but I've received the connecting rods...

 

But now I'm having second thoughts. I know that modern engines tend to have much slimmer rods than the old TU3A, but the TU3JP rods just seem so fragile that I don't know if I'll dare rev them to 7000+ RPM.

Sure, the pistons will be 10-15% lighter, but the rods are SO thin under the piston pin - which is 18mm on the 3JP, as opposed to 19.5mm on the 3A.

 

On the other hand, I suppose the JP rods may be made of stronger steel. The sides of the forging certainly look cleaner. I've attached some pictures of a TU3JP rod next to a TU3A rod. And if the failure mode of a TU bottom end is ovalization of the big-end bearing or stretch of the rod studs, rather than breaking of the rod itself, then I suppose the lighter TU3JP bottom end might actually be better...

 

What do you all think? Has anyone tried building a 120hp+ engine on a TU3JP bottom end?

TU3JP vs TU3A rods 2.jpg

TU3JP vs TU3A rods 1.jpg

Edited by AndreasN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×