2.0 5 cyl crank?

General automotive discussion
Post Reply
User avatar
pilihp2
Posts: 1106
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:18 am
Location: Reno, Nv

2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by pilihp2 »

So this was posted over on quattroworld. bunch of NOS audi parts. Among those parts I see what they call a 2.0 5 cyl crank and none of the engine codes match what I'm used to.
I've never really seen a 2.0 crank discussed before. I know they existed in the european market, but nobody has discussed whether it would be beneficial in a performance setup. Would this benefit anybody attempting to rev to the moon?
http://shop.autewo.de/Neuteile-AUDI-VW- ... 0498fd9d/q
-Phil
87 5ktq - 20vt
91 v8 5spd - Why?
05 S4 - Gone and very much so forgotten
14 TDI Touareg

-Terrible at responding to PM's
ChrisAudi80
Posts: 875
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: Bangkok, Thailand

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by ChrisAudi80 »

pilihp2 wrote:So this was posted over on quattroworld. bunch of NOS audi parts. Among those parts I see what they call a 2.0 5 cyl crank and none of the engine codes match what I'm used to.
I've never really seen a 2.0 crank discussed before. I know they existed in the european market, but nobody has discussed whether it would be beneficial in a performance setup. Would this benefit anybody attempting to rev to the moon?
http://shop.autewo.de/Neuteile-AUDI-VW- ... 0498fd9d/q


This crank was found in Italian market only engines. Engine code NM for NA motors.
96 S6 auto
95 80Q AEB VEMS
User avatar
chaloux
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:43 am
Location: Muskoka, Ontario, Canada

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by chaloux »

Chris (loxx)?
Matt

18 Silverado 1500 work pig, roof rack and tonneau cover
11 Jetta sedan TDI DSG, rear muffler delete
GONE :( 87 4ktq - 4 FOX SNAKES

Image
EDIGREG
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:50 am

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by EDIGREG »

Yes, the benefit in a performance application is a shorter stroke, less rod angle, which means less stress on the motor at higher revs. AudiSport used to do this back in the day on their race cars. I can't say if this crank will fit our 5cyl blocks though
Ed
Image
User avatar
dana
Posts: 951
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:54 am

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by dana »

could it be a 2.0 diesel crank? wasnt there a 2.0td 5 cylinder audi engine?
current:
-mk4 tdi wagon with some mods
-TDI b3 90q, holset turbo, be strong little connecting rods!
-the turbo tractor
past:
-11 second 90q junker
-20vt swapped 90q winter beater
-efi 20vt 4kq
-way too many other long gone urs's, 200's 4000's, b5's
User avatar
Mcstiff
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:16 pm
Location: Erie, CO

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by Mcstiff »

Could be interesting in a tall deck block. I'd guess that it fits but could not say for sure.

Or, just build an 07K.
ChrisAudi80
Posts: 875
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: Bangkok, Thailand

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by ChrisAudi80 »

EDIGREG wrote:Yes, the benefit in a performance application is a shorter stroke, less rod angle, which means less stress on the motor at higher revs. AudiSport used to do this back in the day on their race cars. I can't say if this crank will fit our 5cyl blocks though

I think loxx is using this crank. They do fit the 5 cylinder blocks.
The Italian AAN uses this crank IIRC. Italian AAN engines are 2.0.
96 S6 auto
95 80Q AEB VEMS
User avatar
chaloux
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:43 am
Location: Muskoka, Ontario, Canada

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by chaloux »

I thought he was just using the normal crank in a tall block. But I don't know.
Matt

18 Silverado 1500 work pig, roof rack and tonneau cover
11 Jetta sedan TDI DSG, rear muffler delete
GONE :( 87 4ktq - 4 FOX SNAKES

Image
petAr
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:49 pm

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by petAr »

Would be too short for tall deck. 86.4 in tall deck will be more than rev-happy. Even 92.8 would rev fine, maybe not 9k+, but healthy 8-8.5k np.

AudiSport used following combos although not sure what block heights they used.

Bore x stroke
79.5 x 85 mm (A1, SportQ, SQ S1, S1 PP, TransAm 200)
79.5 x 86.4 mm (200 q rally)
81 x 85 mm (IMSA 90q)

81 x 86.4 mm (V8 DTM)

85 x 88.1 mm (80 Competition, A4 Supertouring) - these 4 cyl engines had some real trick heads and port work btw to produce 310+chp from 2L motors.
quattro
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:49 am

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by quattro »

pilihp2 wrote:So this was posted over on quattroworld. bunch of NOS audi parts. Among those parts I see what they call a 2.0 5 cyl crank and none of the engine codes match what I'm used to.
I've never really seen a 2.0 crank discussed before. I know they existed in the european market, but nobody has discussed whether it would be beneficial in a performance setup. Would this benefit anybody attempting to rev to the moon?
http://shop.autewo.de/Neuteile-AUDI-VW- ... 0498fd9d/q



I have quite a few js coded engines. They are 2.0l, kjet 20v, 85kw
Noisy Cricket
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by Noisy Cricket »

EDIGREG wrote:Yes, the benefit in a performance application is a shorter stroke, less rod angle, which means less stress on the motor at higher revs. AudiSport used to do this back in the day on their race cars. I can't say if this crank will fit our 5cyl blocks though


(ed. note: I wanted to reply to this back when it was "fresh" but was having login issues)

Let's chew on a few things. Longer strokes make the cranks weaker because of reduced overlap between the crank and rod journals. The crank becomes less of a solid rod and more of a big bendy stick. This makes the internal harmonics happen at lower frequencies, meaning the critical RPM where crank torsional harmonics want to tear everything apart is lowered.

One way to help combat this is better dampers on the front and nowadays rear of the engine. That's not a cure-all but it is an effective band-aid.

Now, in the Miata world, people have found that if you put a lightweight crank pulley on a turbo engine, you destroy oil pumps at a rapid rate. With a proper damper on the front, the oil pumps stop failing. Hypothesis: Torsional harmoncs are beating the oil pump up.

Now... what problems do the Audi fives have over 8000rpm with the oil pump? Hmm? I don't think this is an oil pump issue, I think it is a crank harmonics issue.

So, how much more RPM can you get with a stiffer, shorter stroke crank?

Dahlback was a fan of destroking engines for more power, hmm? Maybe this is why.
Pete, that rallycross guy

'06 Volvo S60 R (Swedish GTR)
'84 RX-7 (bridge ported, fuel injected, way modified dirt buggy)
'86 QSW (MC2 goes here. Eventually.)
'81 RX-7 (restoration project)
'73 RX-3 (poor man's Mk2 Escort)
User avatar
ralleyquattro
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:46 pm

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by ralleyquattro »

quattro wrote:
I have quite a few js coded engines. They are 2.0l, kjet 20v, 85kw


Yep, this is what my 80 quattro (Sparquattro) has in it.. 2.0l 115hp
Martin Pajak

http://www.quattro.ca

82 Audi Ur-q, SQ project
83 Audi 80 q, Euro 2-Door
85 Audi Ur-q, Euro mit 3B
91 Coupe Quattro
93 Audi 80 q Avant, 2.5 TDI with 6-speed
04 Audi A4 1.8Tq Avant USP 6-speed
04 Audi A4 3.0q Avant USP 6-speed
EDIGREG
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:50 am

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by EDIGREG »

Sorry Pete I didn't see your reply earlier.

Now... what problems do the Audi fives have over 8000rpm with the oil pump? Hmm? I don't think this is an oil pump issue, I think it is a crank harmonics issue.


The main issue with running the factory oil pump at higher RPMs is oil cavitation, not physical oil pump failure. At least I have not seen evidence of a pump failure due to RPM.

Anyone know what the rev limiter was set to on the S1? Of course they were running dry sump systems, but curious what they revved those motors to.
Ed
Image
Noisy Cricket
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by Noisy Cricket »

Okay, so it is cavitation eating the gears and not the gears shattering?

Cavitation can be fixed, or at least mitigated.
Pete, that rallycross guy

'06 Volvo S60 R (Swedish GTR)
'84 RX-7 (bridge ported, fuel injected, way modified dirt buggy)
'86 QSW (MC2 goes here. Eventually.)
'81 RX-7 (restoration project)
'73 RX-3 (poor man's Mk2 Escort)
User avatar
vt10vt
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:44 pm
Location: Winooski, VT

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by vt10vt »

Noisy Cricket wrote:Okay, so it is cavitation eating the gears and not the gears shattering?

Cavitation can be fixed, or at least mitigated.


I think ed means its not a problem of pump component failure but more a problem of the volume and speed at which it pumps?

Cavitation is happening in the oil itself so basically the oil is getting aerated because of the speed of the pump I think.
-Shawn C.
2001 S4 6spd Avant blk/blk - stock daily
2002 01E B6 A4 Built FYF, Built 1.8T, HX35 ~330whp
1989 MC-1 200 Avant- MS1 -Gone but will never forget her lessons
1987 5ktq Sedan - Best $500 beater ever
Noisy Cricket
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: 2.0 5 cyl crank?

Post by Noisy Cricket »

Right... and you can help pump caviation to some degree by reducing restrictions on the inlet side of the pump, and in extreme cases by reprofiling the lobes slightly or allowing oil to bleed back to the inlet side of the gears... I have not had a 5cyl pump apart so I don't see what the pump flow problem is here specifically. I was under the assumption that the gears were being rattled apart, so I figured to just keep the RPM down and worry about other things. Keeping RPM down is also a cheap way to spec an engine :)

The 13B in my Mazda has had quite extensive work done to the inlet side of the oil system with respect to flow, and the pump has been altered, and a cross-channel bleed added... and I am using the smallest of the pumps Mazda made because Mazda increased capacity by adding width, and this makes cavitation more likely. Most people go with the bigger pump to solve top end oil pressure issues, I have long felt that this is a step backwards. My engine holds 90psi oil pressure from 4000rpm to 10,000rpm with none of the "high RPM pressure sag" that many people note with wet-sump rotaries.

Heck, even Mazda seems to have known this, when they increased oil pump capacity for the twin turbo FD, they redesigned the pump to have inlets on both ends instead of expecting it all to get pulled through one end like the previous designs. The RX-8 was reverted to the narrowest pump of the modern (pre-FD) type, despite/because of having the highest redline.
Pete, that rallycross guy

'06 Volvo S60 R (Swedish GTR)
'84 RX-7 (bridge ported, fuel injected, way modified dirt buggy)
'86 QSW (MC2 goes here. Eventually.)
'81 RX-7 (restoration project)
'73 RX-3 (poor man's Mk2 Escort)
Post Reply