1400cc 16v

[bren_1.3 1]

long time no post..

 

quick question.

 

been looking into an alloy 16v using the short block TU24 motor, using custom liners and pistons.

wanted to know the definite stroke of the TU24 crank. i have here 73.2mm..?

 

is this the same as the 106 rallye TU2J2 crank? just a case of longer rods and block to suit?

 

both are using 75mm bore....

[christopher 5 1 Cars]

Bren, Noooooo don't do it to another Euro Rallye!!!

 

I think you are right about the stoke.

 

 

Check this link out.

 

 

http://www.globalcar.com/datasheet/Peugeot..._205_Rallye.htm

 

Regards

 

Christopher

Edited August 20, 2009 by christopher

[welshpug 1,661]

I know sandy has looked into building one, I think he may have built one too, there's a thread discussing the methods on the rallye register and IIRC the general consensus was that its not a cheap engine to build at all.

Edited August 20, 2009 by welshpug

[bren_1.3 1]

imagine a short stroke 16v. it would rev its noodles off.

 

73.2mm with an 78.5mm bore gives a CC of 1417cc i think. slightly over the class limit but so what?

 

the liners ive had ballparked at 95 pounds in nitrile cast iron. but its the block machining and liner thickness that stumps/worries me.

i had read the information on the rallye register. and ive just done some rough measurements tonight.

 

it would appear the spigots on the bottom of the 75mm liner are only 2.25mm in thickness. so that rules out taking the o.e 75mm liners out to 78.5mm, youd simply machine them clean off. also the thickness of a proposed custom liner at 78.5mm would only be 0.5mm thick between cylinders. would 0.5mm nitrile cast iron be up to the job considering your talking about 170+ horsepower?

 

the block machining is a real problem though. again where the liner spigot locates into the bottom of the block the thickness on the block is only about 4.5mm between cylinders. but considering youve got to come out to meet the 78.5mm bore and youd have to machine 1.25mm into the block just to meet that requirement youve already lost 2.5mm in wall thickness without there even being room for the spigot yet. so that leaves 2mm for say 0.5mm thickness spigots leaving you with 1mm wall thickness between spigots... its all abit paper thin??

[drmo 5]

I think that it is easyer to build a 1370cc engine out of tu5 block and tu1 crank. That will give you arround 69mm stroke and 78,5mm bore. Sandy built an engine like this. The only problem is the hight of the iron block so longer rods must be used i.e. kit car (kit car rods are 138mm, and 1.4/1.6 are 133,5mm). Wossner makes 138mm rods.

 

The liners are too thin to make such rebore. I think max must be around 76mm, especialy with higher tuned engines. Thou probably it can be done with larger holes for liners in the bottom of the block and custom made liners, but too much hastle and money.

Edited August 21, 2009 by drmo

[welshpug 1,661]

http://www.106rallyeforum.com/forum2008/sh...hlight=1400+16v

[SPGTi 2]

Martin Bowyer builds a 1.4 16v TU engine complete with management (mapped on an engine dyno). It is an iron block, something like a 1.1 tu crank, custom rods and pistons. They have a reputed 190bhp. They like to rev and sound amazing. They are quick as well.

 

Steve

[bren_1.3 1]

The liners are too thin to make such rebore. I think max must be around 76mm, especialy with higher tuned engines. Thou probably it can be done with larger holes for liners in the bottom of the block and custom made liners, but too much hastle and money

 

it would appear the spigots on the bottom of the 75mm liner are only 2.25mm in thickness. so that rules out taking the o.e 75mm liners out to 78.5mm, youd simply machine them clean off. also the thickness of a proposed custom liner at 78.5mm would only be 0.5mm thick between cylinders. would 0.5mm nitrile cast iron be up to the job considering your talking about 170+ horsepower?

 

the block machining is a real problem though. again where the liner spigot locates into the bottom of the block the thickness on the block is only about 4.5mm between cylinders. but considering youve got to come out to meet the 78.5mm bore and youd have to machine 1.25mm into the block just to meet that requirement youve already lost 2.5mm in wall thickness without there even being room for the spigot yet. so that leaves 2mm for say 0.5mm thickness spigots leaving you with 1mm wall thickness between spigots... its all abit paper thin??

 

not too much money at all. you'd only be boring out the bottom of the block to get the oversize spigot to sit into it. and 95 quid a custom liner isnt bad.

 

then it would only require custom 78.5mm pistons. Je pistons maybe? 400-500 quid?

 

just read what little information there was on the 106 thread, before it disintegrated into the usual pumaracing "debate." heard all that bollocks years ago and the information is nothing new.

[drmo 5]

not too much money at all. you'd only be boring out the bottom of the block to get the oversize spigot to sit into it. and 95 quid a custom liner isnt bad.

 

then it would only require custom 78.5mm pistons. Je pistons maybe? 400-500 quid?

 

just read what little information there was on the 106 thread, before it disintegrated into the usual pumaracing "debate." heard all that bollocks years ago and the information is nothing new.

Just thinking about it. What about cilinder cooling with wider liners? I belive that also can be a problem.

 

I think it is an interesting build, and if you are thinking about custom pistons and aiming for class limit, then you could go for 78mm custom pistons, which would than be 1398cc.

[bren_1.3 1]

Just thinking about it. What about cilinder cooling with wider liners? I belive that also can be a problem.

 

they would end up being a hell of a lot thinner than stadard cast items, but maybe nitriled "performance" liners would be able to handle that sort of heat?

 

I think it is an interesting build, and if you are thinking about custom pistons and aiming for class limit, then you could go for 78mm custom pistons, which would than be 1398cc

 

78mm pistons would give you another 0.25mm in liner wall thickness. but that still makes them oooo 0.75mm thick between cylinders? if uprated liners were up to the job then maybe that would be ok.

 

it would give you abit more material to play with at the bottom of the block aswell, that is if you were still insisting on using the rubber 0 rings to seal everything.

 

i have some ideas regarding the fitting and sealing of the liners but its all to be confirmed/ridiculed by people in the know.

 

EDIT: had mentioned going to an interference fit between liner and block, but scrap that idea on heat expansion properties of cast iron and aluminium.

Edited August 21, 2009 by bren_1.3

[drmo 5]

You are probably right and that is also what I was thinking regarding liner thickness. You also have to take into consideration that in some point in the future you would have to change a few parts, after all we are talking of competition high reving engine, and such an engine would be quite expensive.

[base-1 17]

Didn't Harry Hockley build one a while ago? Not sure how they did it mind.

[TT205 42]

Just a thought ....

 

As it is sounding as though it is going to be difficult to get the capacity you want with sufficient remaining block strength

 

Have you considered doing it the opposite way round - sleeving down a 1.6 to 1.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and then adding a turbo

[James_R 3]

Hmm sleaved down, make a mega revvy engine that would, only issue would be port sizing, unless the Xu7 head can be tickled enough for that sort of capcity.

 

interesting idea though

 

 

Would a turbo need to be 1350cc to be within 2L regs??

[EdCherry 34 1 Cars]

Just a thought ....

 

As it is sounding as though it is going to be difficult to get the capacity you want with sufficient remaining block strength

 

Have you considered doing it the opposite way round - sleeving down a 1.6 to 1.4

 

I know a few series will not let you do that, best bet is to check with your a scruitineer first!

 

 

Would a turbo need to be 1350cc to be within 2L regs??

 

Isnt the norm just move up a class with a turbo, so depending on what class is next highest surely you'd move into that I expect.

[James_R 3]

I thought it was 1.4x the capacity of the turbo's engine, so a 1L woudl be in the 1400cc class and a 1350cc would be 2L class, and it can't go over the "natural" largest size for that car, i.e 1905cc?? but then everywhere applys the rules different and we're spaming bren's thread :s

[EdCherry 34 1 Cars]

I thought it was 1.4x the capacity of the turbo's engine, so a 1L woudl be in the 1400cc class and a 1350cc would be 2L class, and it can't go over the "natural" largest size for that car, i.e 1905cc?? but then everywhere applys the rules different and we're spaming bren's thread :s

 

Ahh yes I remember reading that somewhere before... Guess it depepnds what series!

 

Sorry Bren for spamming your thread

[snillet 1]

I´m "working in my head" on a solution containing an alloy block 1360cc with the TU5JP4 head, which supposedly is a BETTER head then the TU5J4, according to some people in the 106 world of PSA. Ideal if possible i want to use a TU5 crank to get a cc in the region of 1.5 liter but still keep the low weight of the alloy block.

 

This should be doable by all means.

Since i´ve experience with MS i´ll run the engine with that management.

 

Input ?

[Sandy 191]

The main problems are getting the bore size (chamber is 78.3mm typically on TU5 16v castings) and getting the CR up. Then getting the rods to suit and getting suitable cam profiles. It's not easy and it's certainly not going to be cheap, unless you just want to do the best you can on hydraulic lifters with a 7500rpm limit basically.

 

I wouldn't agree that the JP4 head is better than the J4, it's different, better in some ways, but not all. For flow bench results the JP4 is better, but the J4 suits the methods I use to achieve good reponse and mid range better.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Sandy

[snillet 1]

unless you just want to do the best you can on hydraulic lifters with a 7500rpm limit basically.

 

Well, that is defenitly not a good one... hmm.

I think i´ll start to rethink back to the 8V MPI head again

MY main goal is as high cc as possible without iron-block.

[sub205 5]

I´m "working in my head" on a solution containing an alloy block 1360cc with the TU5JP4 head, which supposedly is a BETTER head then the TU5J4, according to some people in the 106 world of PSA. Ideal if possible i want to use a TU5 crank to get a cc in the region of 1.5 liter but still keep the low weight of the alloy block.

 

This should be doable by all means.

Since i´ve experience with MS i´ll run the engine with that management.

 

Input ?

 

the weight difference between alloy and cast iron tu is not really much. just about 10-15 kilo. i wouldn't bother with that.

i think it should be much easier for you to get an tu5j4 and do the classic tuning to this engine.

this engine is very capable!

 

btw: more weight is not always bad - i recently changed my xu9 alloy to xu10 cast iron and my car handles better _because_ of the extra weight. battery is in the back of the car now and i have more grip in right corners, less wheelspin.

 

btw2: someone driving a 309 gti front axle in his 205? amazing!

 

but i'm getting off-topic .. ;-)

[Sandy 191]

The weight difference as I've measured it, between the Alloy and Iron TU blocks (inc liners) is 23kg. There's alot to be said for the easier prep of the Iron block though! A good 8v TU will run a 16v surprisingly close, £ for £ it could even work out better.

[Rippthrough 98]

and my car handles better _because_ of the extra weight.

 

No, it handles better because your car wasn't setup with the lighter block in mind beforehand...