Let's talk engine alternatives again - what are the possibilities for the 3.0L engine in our car?
09-29-2006, 09:17 AM
#41
"our motors" but they are 4 bolt main, the 3.0 is not.. Or did I misread
so we know the 4 bolt 2.7 bottom end is strong enough, but the 2 bolt main? There is a reason that people are not going to the 2.8 block (2 bolt main)
09-29-2006, 09:21 AM
#42
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point.
So the $64 question is ... does it really have to be a 4-bolt main? And did Audi know what they were doing when they switched back to a 2-bolt main? Or did they just save $10 in bolts?
The studs with the guide sleeves you can see do look stronger than the bolts. That's about the only observation I can add to the conversation.
Stephen
The studs with the guide sleeves you can see do look stronger than the bolts. That's about the only observation I can add to the conversation.
Stephen
09-29-2006, 09:22 AM
#43
found this... still cant find anything that says a material for the tdi
Engine Specifications
Cylinders: DTV6
Valve Gear: Dohc
Turbo: Yes
Diesel: Yes
Engine cc: 2967
Bore/Stroke: 83x91.4
Compression Ratio: 17:1
Power kW: 165
Torque Nm: 450
Cylinders: DTV6
Valve Gear: Dohc
Turbo: Yes
Diesel: Yes
Engine cc: 2967
Bore/Stroke: 83x91.4
Compression Ratio: 17:1
Power kW: 165
Torque Nm: 450
09-29-2006, 09:28 AM
#46
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 12,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see any insurmountable issues...
<center><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/Audi_3.0_V6.jpg"></center><p>
Not sure about this, but I read Bore X stroke is 3.25x3.65 inches, our engine is 3.19x3.4, which gives a slight quench area around the circumference of the dome, effectively increasing CR and introducing a few potential quench-related issues at higher boost levels if 2.x heads are used.
As far as I can figure, the deck design is similar to the 2.7T. Should be strong enough on what we consider normal boost levels at an 8.5ish CR.
The cylinder-wall material should be explored a bit closer when choosing pistons though. Being as it's rate of expansion will differ from iron blocked engines and may not be similar to conventional aluminum cylinders. Audi is not beyond inserting steel sleeves and using C02 lasers and such to carbon-harden them. At the bare-minimum there would be some sort of surface hardening treatment that should be taken into consideration.
Not sure about this, but I read Bore X stroke is 3.25x3.65 inches, our engine is 3.19x3.4, which gives a slight quench area around the circumference of the dome, effectively increasing CR and introducing a few potential quench-related issues at higher boost levels if 2.x heads are used.
As far as I can figure, the deck design is similar to the 2.7T. Should be strong enough on what we consider normal boost levels at an 8.5ish CR.
The cylinder-wall material should be explored a bit closer when choosing pistons though. Being as it's rate of expansion will differ from iron blocked engines and may not be similar to conventional aluminum cylinders. Audi is not beyond inserting steel sleeves and using C02 lasers and such to carbon-harden them. At the bare-minimum there would be some sort of surface hardening treatment that should be taken into consideration.
09-29-2006, 09:28 AM
#47
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can help with the comparisons, but someone like Verruckt would have to relate the details
of the block stresses at high boost/rpms. You have to consider damping characteristics as well. My initial reaction is that the Al block won't have sufficient stiffness; allowing to much movement of the rotating assembly and failure will occur due to that. Not so much related to the yield strength of the block itself. But I'm just rambling off the cuff here. If I can spend some time with Jared's al 3.0 block I might have some input.
09-29-2006, 09:29 AM
#48
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comment from my friend on weight...
"I had 2 3.0L shipped from AZ and the crate weighted in at 800lbs so they are considerablly lighter 61lbs to be exact crank is around 30-35lbs. The 2.7 is at least 30lbs more probably closer to 100lbs."
This was from a private conversation a year or so ago.
So my guess of 75 lbs savings is probably pretty accurate.
Stephen
This was from a private conversation a year or so ago.
So my guess of 75 lbs savings is probably pretty accurate.
Stephen