ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
LY 182
i assume you will be fitting throttle bodys a turbo and turinis to it ?
Craig
ClioSport Club Member
4 wheels
im fitting a euro fighter engine to mine its only costin £1200000000 but im on csers wages so its not a problem
172cup
i've done it before.
piece of pi55 tbqfh
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a48/clio172cup/smallchopcopy.jpg?t=1217621360
piece of pi55 tbqfh
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a48/clio172cup/smallchopcopy.jpg?t=1217621360
Nippy white cup
Welcome to CS jambo...don't ever be afraid of asking questions and people taking the piss because they know more about cars...cool
Chris
Chris
LY 182
i never dismissed it mate.. from reading on here i reckon the best bloke to speak to would be ben @ angelworks gdi or stan at apd
dont think it would be worth the money it would cost.. but loads of things are possible
for expample ford zetec engines running a turbo some tuners use vauxhall pistons
dont think it would be worth the money it would cost.. but loads of things are possible
for expample ford zetec engines running a turbo some tuners use vauxhall pistons
as said, not enough meat between the bores to gain that much. you can go to 84mm ok, you could physically go a lil bit more but you risk losses due to bore flex and gasket sealing issues.
as for increasing stroke, these engines are massively under-square by comparison to other manufacturers well-spec'd 2.0's, so whilst yes it could be done at cost, there is an eliment of detriment. especially if you plan on making power at higher revs. cost wise, a crank would cost about £2k, and then custom pistons to reduce the deck height £600. you could have shorter rods made, but then you really are making the rod-length/stroke ratio too low, where its already really very low as std.
as for increasing stroke, these engines are massively under-square by comparison to other manufacturers well-spec'd 2.0's, so whilst yes it could be done at cost, there is an eliment of detriment. especially if you plan on making power at higher revs. cost wise, a crank would cost about £2k, and then custom pistons to reduce the deck height £600. you could have shorter rods made, but then you really are making the rod-length/stroke ratio too low, where its already really very low as std.
even if you did bore it to 2.2, i dont thing you would see a massive mount of difference. But as said it cant be done anyway as youd be left with no walls in the block.
Are there any other blocks off other renaults that you could fit to the 172 engine?
For example on the punto gt 1.4, you can bolt the bottom end off a 1.6 sporting to it.
Just a thought........
Are there any other blocks off other renaults that you could fit to the 172 engine?
For example on the punto gt 1.4, you can bolt the bottom end off a 1.6 sporting to it.
Just a thought........
ValverInBits
The stock R/S ratio isnt that bad stan, and i certainly wouldn't worry about the ratio after stroking. The benefit of the extra capacity will be well felt and with material science as good as it is today, even high rpm power will be good.
High r/s ratios are over hyped and tend to loose out on more low rpm tractability then they gain with high rpm efficiency, which can always be argued against due to their long dwell periods.
Put it this way, i've got a 106mm crank which replaces an 87mm crank and still spins to 11k.
Dont worry so much, take the advice of nike.
High r/s ratios are over hyped and tend to loose out on more low rpm tractability then they gain with high rpm efficiency, which can always be argued against due to their long dwell periods.
Put it this way, i've got a 106mm crank which replaces an 87mm crank and still spins to 11k.
Dont worry so much, take the advice of nike.
lol
106mm--this a NA engine?
The theory behind it all sways me away from long stroke...but im going to be testing back-to-back soon "just for fun", and to try and confirm some of the theory.
Im building an "idealised" geometry F7R, which im going to run on the dyno with a standard head/cams/inlet and compared to a stock F7R. kepping cr the same, should be intresting to see how they differ.
NA yes.
I quite like lower r/s ratios like 1.55-1.65 on higher rpm engines. You get a nice big fat depression over TDC, which with rpm really helps. Depends if the engine is designed with a long service life as I can only see increased side loadings being a mild issue. High r/s's are just gutless.......trust me, i work with too many hondas.
I quite like lower r/s ratios like 1.55-1.65 on higher rpm engines. You get a nice big fat depression over TDC, which with rpm really helps. Depends if the engine is designed with a long service life as I can only see increased side loadings being a mild issue. High r/s's are just gutless.......trust me, i work with too many hondas.
the increased loadings on the thrust axis are part and parcel of a short rod. with this also comes reduced bore sealing around TDC as the piston "rocks". with a longer rod, this movement is reduced since the reciprocating motion becomes closer to SHM.
This the theory obviously, and only engine-dyno testing will confirm or disprove this.
Agreed on the road they may be more gutless lower down, but that kinda comes with the territory when your aiming for a high rpm power limit.
This the theory obviously, and only engine-dyno testing will confirm or disprove this.
Agreed on the road they may be more gutless lower down, but that kinda comes with the territory when your aiming for a high rpm power limit.
I know they are part and parcel, thats why i said the only problem might be if your using it for the road and expect significant milage. But saying that, The B20's have a r/s of 1.54 and spin all day long to 10k, make significantly more power and torque than any of the raised deck 2ltr conversions present a good servicable lifespan.
I wouldnt worry about sealing over TDC, geometry and real life dont always work hand in hand. If your hot piston clearance is about 1 thou on a 1.5 and 1.75 rs engine, then available 'rock' angle over TDC is limited to the same value, so long as skirt length is the same.
Its been tested to death, long rods dont really give you any real benefits on anything we would come into contact with.
Dont worry stan, just rock the high angles and get some torque!
I wouldnt worry about sealing over TDC, geometry and real life dont always work hand in hand. If your hot piston clearance is about 1 thou on a 1.5 and 1.75 rs engine, then available 'rock' angle over TDC is limited to the same value, so long as skirt length is the same.
Its been tested to death, long rods dont really give you any real benefits on anything we would come into contact with.
Dont worry stan, just rock the high angles and get some torque!
