924 Carrera GT

[DivineE]

I think the VAG unit is going to be the cheaper option, lining a 944 block is circa £3k before you consider the other works. 300hp would definitely be more easily achievable with a 944 turbo engine swap though. That is a true point. 280hp is really the limit of the 225bhp 1.8t without changing the turbo and dealing with the occociated work/cost that brings. I've been there with my S3 and Revo maps/custom maps, lots of small extras and a peak of 1.85bar boost. It still wouldn't dyno over 280hp - 260hp on a '300hp' map. The guy at the dyno said 300hp on the standard turbo was a myth.

Getting 300hp I can assure you is easier with a 250 turbo engine.

 

[333pg333]

ORIGINAL: 944 man

Nice. Im about to do this to my 924S. I have also secured a forged large port 20 valve VAG turbocharged engine and am about to find out why no one else has done this yet.....[]

Here's a little inspiration then! []

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/944-turbo-and-turbo-s-forum/406993-20v-5cyl-turbo-944-project.html?highlight=audi

 

[333pg333]

Here's a pic, but that is well worth a read about. Scary fast Swedish madness!

 

[944 man]

Thanks Pat - Ive read that thread a number of times already though.

Im using a four cylinder, five valve per cylinder (like a Yamaha Genesis) twenty valve AEB engine; as opposed to a four valve five cylinder 'AAN', or similar. That engine would bolt straight up to the clutch housing/torque tube, but theres no room for a turbo using OEM manifolds, and the NA engines arent viable.

 

[944 man]

ORIGINAL: hotblack944

Any use?

That could be a great deal of use Jim. I will let you know, if thatl be alright: because I may yet find one with a TT in traveling distance.


Simon

 

[Hilux]

ORIGINAL: DivineE

I think the VAG unit is going to be the cheaper option, lining a 944 block is circa £3k before you consider the other works. 300hp would definitely be more easily achievable with a 944 turbo engine swap though. That is a true point. 280hp is really the limit of the 225bhp 1.8t without changing the turbo and dealing with the occociated work/cost that brings. I've been there with my S3 and Revo maps/custom maps, lots of small extras and a peak of 1.85bar boost. It still wouldn't dyno over 280hp - 260hp on a '300hp' map. The guy at the dyno said 300hp on the standard turbo was a myth.

Getting 300hp I can assure you is easier with a 250 turbo engine.

Regarding costs, if the 944T will fit then thats what I`d do but if it wont then there are millions of Vag units available including the 1.8T and also the 20v T which responds very well with a larger turbo and decent intercooler (my son is about to do this on his Mk4)

I`m a great believer in power to weight and not so concerned about how much power is available in any of the cars I have built. A 300bhp 944T in standard trim is say 230? bhp per tonne so in a circa 1000kg (can you get them that low?) 924 you only need a 230 bhp engine and with shorter gearing it`ll do the 944T properly I`d say and with less inertia it will out corner it too I would imagine. With 300 bhp in a 924 at circa 1000kg there will not be a lot that will stay with it.

I hope to achieve around 190 - 195 BHP per tonne out of the Mk1. About the same as a standard 944T but with slightly shorter gearing (which should be very interesting)

Drop the weight drastically and fairly ordinary engines become very exciting []

 

[944Turbo]

ORIGINAL: DivineE

I think the VAG unit is going to be the cheaper option, lining a 944 block is circa £3k before you consider the other works. 300hp would definitely be more easily achievable with a 944 turbo engine swap though. That is a true point. 280hp is really the limit of the 225bhp 1.8t without changing the turbo and dealing with the occociated work/cost that brings. I've been there with my S3 and Revo maps/custom maps, lots of small extras and a peak of 1.85bar boost. It still wouldn't dyno over 280hp - 260hp on a '300hp' map. The guy at the dyno said 300hp on the standard turbo was a myth.

Getting 300hp I can assure you is easier with a 250 turbo engine.

Would the cost be that high if going smaller? much of the cost of going larger is the machining of the block going smaller would this be a problem? also If you sized so that cheap pistons were available it may be a budget option - dont know the answers though!
Tony

Going smaller will reduce the off boost torque though, but would be interesting to see what could be done.

 

[DivineE]

ORIGINAL: 944Turbo

Would the cost be that high if going smaller? much of the cost of going larger is the machining of the block going smaller would this be a problem? also If you sized so that cheap pistons were available it may be a budget option - dont know the answers though!

I think because everything is built to such meaty proportions inside the 944 T cost wise its going to be the same to go small as going big. The pins in the top of the standard rod are very likely going to be too big for any standard small diameter pistons, the crank is going to be too big for mass produced rods small enough to match the pistons etc etc so you end up going custom pistons and rods either way, then you've still got to machine out the original cylinder liners or you'll have no cooling to the new liners. I'm told sleeving of any kind is not ideal because heat transfer through two layers fixed together is not as good as one solid material liner.

A cheaper option may be to get a short throw crank made up and some 'taller' custom pistons to reduce the stroke? ..but I still think it's going to be a bit expensive for a fun project.

 

[sawood12]

I don't see the point in going smaller by re-sleeving. You'll end up screwing up the entire combustion chamber design - you'll have valves clipping the sides of the liners and at the end of the day you'll have an engine with worse torque, peakier powerband an oversized engine. Going smaller really only works if you can reduce the inertia's, frictions and everything else associated with it - i.e. a smaller engine i.e. a different engine.

I really don't see what is wrong with the standard turbo engine - yes you can get 300bhp+ with an Audi engine - but you can with a 944 T engine a whole lot cheaper, with better torque characteristics and powerband, and if there is no weight benefit to be had with going Audi which it sounds like there isn't (surprised to hear that) then do the ends justify the means for anything other than a 'do it for the fun of it' project?

 

[Lizard]

ORIGINAL: Hilux



I hope to achieve around 190 - 195 BHP per tonne out of the Mk1. About the same as a standard 944T but with slightly shorter gearing (which should be very interesting)

Drop the weight drastically and fairly ordinary engines become very exciting []

Easy peasy with a mk1, I ran a 200bhp/ton mk2 track golf for yrs, bit less than that now but similar ballpark in my current 'ring snotter-

Am pondering other powerplants in my 924s track car at the mo also, but small budget stuff, love the car juest needs more mojo, really like idea of bmw e36 328i as a powerplant, little fettle = 230bhp great noise & 200 quid for a good engine, vs 1500-2k for an s2 or m3 lump.

 

[DivineE]

Oh how I do so love the mk2 golf! What has been done to the one in the pic?

p.s. yes m3 engine is a lot more expensive but... oh is it so worth the money. I've had a 325i stealth m3 conversion with a 300hp chip and a standard 3.0 e36 m3 with the same engine. Possibly my favourite engine in any car you can buy for under 10k far surpasses the R32 golf, its only competition in that bracket is the 2jz supra engine that even running 1.6bar boost and big turbos will idle so smoothly you can balance a coin on the top of it.

 

[DivineE]

Some piccies just because we're all car enthusiasts here and thought you might like the stealth appeal of this one

 

[Lizard]

Oh like that a lot, yeh I've had 3x e36 m3s= road car, hard core tracker & one that had the six removed & a 540 v8 in & that was a cracking road car, no more power than a fruity evo but such lovely torque & noise []

Love my m3s but are not cheap when you need bits, is 944t money both great but cant track em hard on a small budget, tho i did with one of mine but had had lost spent on it by prev owner so the bits that go had all been done, just needed decent track suspension & brakes which didnt cost me the earth.


Golf above not really a mega spec. ABF 2.0 bottom end (16v mk3) mated to 1.8 KR top end & cams (16v mk2) 4 branch, lightweight flywheel, fettled k jet= 172bhp on the rollers (my last one was tad more fruity with 190bhp) tdi big rad, big oil cooler, runs beautifully cool on track, solid mounts, stripped full cage, buckets, harnesses, g60 280 brakes, koni/eibachs, in the pic= 7j fronts with dunlop Rs 6.5j rears 888s normallys 888s all round just an experiment i was trying ( worked v well)

Its done a lot of ring miles prob 2000 or so & its a little cracker & does solid 8.50s all day long, likes to harass the less brave in GT3s []tho ive been going years I'm being a tad soft & need to man up in a few spots but I bring enough dead stuff back not to want to crash, a pals similar golf less power but better chassis wise lsd & other bits & he does 8.30! which i can do in my m3s but is blooming quick fora 160bhp 20 yr old golf on cheapo setup.