|
|
|
|
#1
12-12-2009, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
D24 series, not even in the LT trucks. Its a very rare crank that makes it possible to reach 2,76litre, and thats with original bore and piston, not oversized stuff. I understand that the block height isnt enough, so probably there is shorter rods made to that crank. As i wrote earlier the crank was made by some aftermarket firm in germany to stroke D24 in the Lt series, there was Lt trucks with max weight of 5600kg=5,6ton so i understand that the engine had to work hard. Regards Martin 
|
|
#2
12-13-2009, 02:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would be suprised that they would go with a shorter rod. You can only go so short before you will have issues with too steep of a rod angle. I would still like to see it. I would be if the same block and bore is used, there is a thicker head gasket that goes with it. The stroke to go from 2.4 to 2.76 would have to be increase quite a bit with only a 76mm bore. I did the math, and to get 2.76 Liters you would need a 100mm stroke which would come out to 2757cc or 2.76. 14mm increase in stroke is HUGE! Thats over a half inch! Still sounds iffy to me.
__________________
  Back again with a '84 760 GLE D24T/ZF SOLD but not forgotten! 1984 760 Sedan, built D24Tic/ T-5 swapped My engine build: http://www.d24t.com/showthread.php?t...t=engine+build T-5 swap: http://d24t.com/showthread.php?399-W...to-quot-w-pics!
|
|
#3
02-17-2010, 04:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi all. Long time lurker, first time poster.
The rod length to stroke ratio of the stock D24 (and T) is only 1.57 to 1. The con rod length is only 136mm (5.36"). These numbers are already about as low as you would want them. When VW created the 1.9 diesel they bumped those numbers up to 1.80 to 1 and 172mm (6.78") respectively. They raised the deck height to achieve this and the stroke still didn't reach 100mm! (It only reached 95.5mm). They chose to increase the bore a bit more (to 79.5mm from 76.5mm) rather than making the stroke any longer than that already too long 95.5mm. The point is that unless there is a 6 cylinder version of the 1.9 (which would be a 2.85L), this mystery engine didn't happen. Too bad too because that would be a sweet engine. http://books.google.com/books?id=bE1...age&q=&f=false http://www.not2fast.com/vw/stuff/vw_engines.shtml Regards, Eric
|
|
#4
02-17-2010, 04:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Testing my sig.
__________________
"I've had the car upside down and still been steering trying to correct it" - R. Petty 89 300E "Benzer1" 15.924 Uncorrected 88 300E "Benzer2" 93 400E "Benzer3" 14.200 U.C. 95 E420 "Benzer4" 92 300E "Benzer5" 16.299 U.C. Future turbo CNG 85 Volvo 744 D24T "Bolbo1" 90 Volvo 745 T "Bolbo2" 94 Volvo 854 T "Bolbo3" 01 Volvo S40 1.9T "Bolbo4" 85 Dodge F.B. tow rig "Festus" 71 AMC Javelin AMX 401 "Sidewinder" 74 AMC Hornet 401 "C.K.10" 13.63 U.C. 74 Bricklin SV1 "Presto" AMC 360 pwrd.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
