2.1 Mi16

[jimbean 0]

got a new project in the pipe line

 

i have just got a mi alloy block engine and want to do somthing different....

 

i want to mate a 2.1 d crank to the mi engine, with some new rods it should make a really torquie 2.1 16v

 

then if i use a mapable gti6 ecu and loom i could get some good power without spending a fortune

 

and keep the standard feel to the engine bay

 

street sleepers rule!!

[B1ack_Mi16 67]

The 2.1 crank (92mm) mated to an alloy 83mm bore engine will only give 1991cc, so a bog standard S16 engine will have more displacement.

[Sam 4]

87mm x 88mm iron block is the way. 2093cc and thats what I have.

[jimbean 0]

the iron block in a 205 is a bit heavy

 

i want a nice light motor

 

the 2.1 crank is all steel

 

and if mated to 1.7 d conrods it will make the 2.1 displacement on the alloy block

 

a work coligue built a engine with these internals in early 90`s for a rallycross motor

 

as i have most of the parts available i thought i would have a play

Edited February 10, 2007 by jimbean

[B1ack_Mi16 67]

the iron block in a 205 is a bit heavy

 

i want a nice light motor

 

the 2.1 crank is all steel

 

and if mated to 1.7 d conrods it will make the 2.1 displacement on the alloy block

 

a work coligue built a engine with these internals in early 90`s for a rallycross motor

 

as i have most of the parts available i thought i would have a play

 

So what bore ere you running in the alloy block then to make it a 2.1 litre?

With standard 83mm bore it will only be 1991cc and that's not even a proper 2.0.

 

To get it to a 2.1 (2088cc) you will need 85mm bore (same as the diesel engine) and that's with special liners and pistons. Even heard those 85mm liners aren't very realible at all.

[jimbean 0]

i am only using my engine builders knowlege

 

he and the owner of said engine did all the hard work of building it

 

u seem to know your stuff on engines?

 

have you done this before? or just poo pooing it because you know how to work a calculator

 

as for not even a propper 2.0

 

is the 1360 engine a big 13 or a small 14

 

i am simply wanting more power and to do something different.. without the weight of a small county under my bonnet sorry if you do not share my enthusiasm

[B1ack_Mi16 67]

I've not done exactly this no, but I've build a fully custom 2.3 - 2299cc XU ironblock engine from scratch with custom pistons, rods and crank.

 

As for it not beeing a "proper" 2.0 that might have been a bit childish said, but as you were talking about 2.1 conversion I just wanted to know how that would add up, and did not get an answer, that's why

 

I'm sure the 92mm 2.1 TD crank will fit, but I've never heard of, or seen, anyone using it in an alloy block. Not sure how piston-stability and rod/stroke relationships will be using the alloy block which is about 15mm shorter than the cast iron ones. But I guess it could work fine with 83 or 83.5mm bore and the right pistons and rods.

[bales 1]

iwithout the weight of a small county under my bonnet sorry if you do not share my enthusiasm

 

 

Think your getting a bit excited with that comment! it's hardly a massive difference and most of the people who have iron-blocked motor's on here agree that you can't "feel" any difference to the handling.

 

There has just been that long thread that started off about mos's engine and ended up being a massive discussion about the alloy and iron blocks. I think the outcome was pretty much that unless you have an out an out track car or sprint/hillclimb where fractions of a second count there is no real difference in handling/feel.

 

Alex

[jimbean 0]

i have done some checkin on net

 

it may not get to the desired 2.1 but it could be close

 

the stroke on the 2.1 is 92 mm

 

as apposed to 88mm on the 1.9

 

i know my work colligue`s engine could set off in 2nd and had loads of torque and the other good reason for the 2.1 crank is it steel

 

got 1 coming hopefully this week so i will do some more measuring

[jimbean 0]

i have had both iron and alloy

 

and felt the alloy was alot more agile but i can understand the benifit for both

 

 

as i have said i want to do something different.. just playing with the parts i have in stock

 

 

i may have been a bit harsh with the small county comment.. but there is a big differece in weight

Edited February 10, 2007 by jimbean

[brianthemagical 1]

the 1.9 has an 83mm bore therefore,

 

83/2=41.5

 

41.5x41.5x3.14=5407.8

 

5407.8x92=497523.5

 

497523.5x4=1990094.32=approx1990cc

 

xu9's have 1905cc

[welshpug 1,626]

makes perfect sense to me brian

 

Just gotta work out how much extra bore is needed to achieve an extra 110cc, or 27.5cc per Cylinder.

[petert 554]

the 1.9 has an 83mm bore therefore,

 

83/2=41.5

 

41.5x41.5x3.14=5407.8

 

5407.8x92=497523.5

 

497523.5x4=1990094.32=approx1990cc

 

xu9's have 1905cc

 

an easier way is this:

 

area=(piD^2)/4

 

engineers use it as items are more commonly quoted in diameter

 

Anyway, enough of the maths lessons. What hasn't been considered here, is the better valve unshrouding provided by the 86 (and larger) bore. This equates to better intake flow and of course hp. The 83mm bore is more restrictive, especially with bigger valves.

[brianthemagical 1]

area=(piD^2)/4

 

thats only esier if you've had alot of practice with a calculater, during my mashs a level i just put the numbers in in as short a form as poss and then hoped it all came out ok but i'm getting confused easier now-a-days.

 

makes perfect sense to me brian

 

i suppose an explaination of what it all was may have helped but i'm lazy and want to look clever.

 

86x92 approx 2136cc. a proper 2.1, or is it too big to be a proper 2.1?

[jimbean 0]

86x92 approx 2136cc. a proper 2.1, or is it too big to be a proper 2.1?

 

ha ha very good at least we have got to the answer eventually..

 

all i need now is the actual crank and i can start

 

will keep you informed on final bore size used

[welshpug 1,626]

hmm, from what ive read 86mm may be out of the reach of an alloy block.

[brianthemagical 1]

hmm, from what ive read 86mm may be out of the reach of an alloy block.

 

i agree, there is only one bore size per liner size, if that makes sense, as i well documented. liner sets are very expencive. iron blocks are the only way forward for larger bores, 86mm is the bore of xu10's.

[jimbean 0]

it may be.. 2000 will have to do.. but 1 can only try

 

 

if i could do maths i dont think oil would run through my veins

Edited February 10, 2007 by jimbean

[B1ack_Mi16 67]

it may be.. 2000 will have to do.. but 1 can only try

if i could do maths i dont think oil would run through my veins

 

If you're willing to use custom rods you could easily offsetgrind the 92mm crank to for example 94.5mm like I did on mine.

 

That'll give 2045cc on 83mm bore, 2070cc on 83.5mm bore.

 

What about the 2.2 16v crank from the EW22 engine, that's 96mm stroke and will be 2103cc with 83.5mm bore. Proper 2.1

[brianthemagical 1]

do the ew cranks fit in xu's? how much approximatly does offset girnding cost and what kind of extra stroke is realistic? thanks.

[jimbean 0]

should have a crank coming early week

 

on monday i will head down to Amac my engine builder and see if he can find any info on said engine

 

1.7 dt rods were used

 

main shells had to be made

 

don`t know if pistons were modded or changed

 

but most of the internals were found second hand and reconned

 

i won`t be spendind a fortune on the motor wich is the main objective

 

as i say i was only an aprentice when it was all done so did not take enough interest

 

 

i do know all xu7,8,9,10 cast and alloy parts can be interchanged

 

dont think the newer ew will but never tried

Edited February 11, 2007 by jimbean

[TB_205GTI 1]

The EW crank will fit the XU bottomend - with slight modifications.

[Sam 4]

Is such long stroke vs small bore such a good idea?

[PsychoSimon 0]

I reckon not, I predict a piston failure!!!

[B1ack_Mi16 67]

I reckon not, I predict a piston failure!!!

 

Afaik the standard EW12 engine has 85mm bore and 96mm stroke, and block height is less than the XU10 block at least, maybe even shorter than the XU9, as they (EW) sit in 15 deg angle opposed to 30deg on of the XU.

 

So I really don't think it should be a problem running it, if it were I would assume there would be problems with the 2.2 production engine too.