# 2.7t in a golf IV?



## gera (Aug 28, 2003)

Is this swap reasonable? Will it work?


----------



## Peter Badore (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (gera)*

The Audi 2.7l turbo is a 90 degree V6 based on an Audi V8.
The 2.7l design is not related to the 15 degree VW VR6. Anything is possible if you cut away enough sheetmetal as for a "funny car" but 
not really feasible.


----------



## Pete_S4 (Aug 14, 2003)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (gera)*

Umm...I get the strong feeling you haven't researched this much at all. First off the 2.7T is a longitudinal motor the Golf uses a transverse motor. If you don't know what I am talking about here, then the simple answer is no, you can't. You'd really be better turbo charging a VR6.
The 2.7T is a debored version of the 2.8 V6 used in the current Passat and B5 A4/A6. The V8 is a different animal all together.


----------



## Peter Badore (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (Pete_S4)*

If you go back far enough you will find the origin of the 2.7l biturbo in the type 44 V8 for the 1990 model year, then came the 1992 model year 2.8l 12 valve V6 in the Audi 100 (based on the type 44 V8) and others (several engine codes used), then the 2.8l 30 valve in Audi and Passat models, and finally the 2.7l biturbo APB code with a 81 mm cylinder bore for the 2000 model year S4 and A6. Too bad Audi dropped the engine for the current V8s. Audi products sold in the US are constantly getting bigger and heavier. But the A3 is coming.


----------



## billzcat1 (Sep 10, 2001)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (Peter Badore)*

We seem to have a battle of the Peters! (Pete Vs Peter)
The 2.7tt has very little in common with the V8 motors. Sure the basics like bore spacing and general architecture are the same, but there are significant differences in head design, materials (all V8s are aluminum block, all V6s are cast iron), timing belt, breather system, etc
I would say that the 12v V6 was developed independantly from the V8 and that the evolution of the V6 models closely mirrored the V8s. Of course, the VW 4-cylinder has the same bore spacing as any of the V6s but I don't see people claiming their V6 was developed from a VW motor. 
Bottom line: sure they are similar. They came from the same company. But they are independantly developed motors. Its not as simple as VW/Audi's 4/5 cylinder relationship in the 80s - where the 5 cyl was a 4 cyl with one extra cyclinder tacked on.


----------



## g60vw (Oct 3, 2002)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (billzcat1)*

Just as a side note, doesn't the early audi V8 use a vw 16v on one side?
Garth


----------



## billzcat1 (Sep 10, 2001)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (g60vw)*

Essentially, with a few characteristics that differ such as placement of the intake manifold bolts and the shape of the valve cover. Valves and port shape are virtually identical, as are the combustion chambers.


----------



## jhillyer (Feb 17, 2002)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (Pete_S4)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pete_S4* »_Umm...
...
The 2.7T is a debored version of the 2.8 V6 used in the current Passat and B5 A4/A6. The V8 is a different animal all together.

Eggs-crackery.


----------



## Dogdude222 (Jan 20, 2004)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (Pete_S4)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pete_S4* »_Umm...I get the strong feeling you haven't researched this much at all. First off the 2.7T is a longitudinal motor the Golf uses a transverse motor. If you don't know what I am talking about here, then the simple answer is no, you can't. You'd really be better turbo charging a VR6.
The 2.7T is a debored version of the 2.8 V6 used in the current Passat and B5 A4/A6. The V8 is a different animal all together.


Exactly...the question is...is the golf IV engine bay long enough to accomodate the longitudinal 2.7T engine block? I doubt that he is referring to using the same drivetrain anyways...you would have to modify an Audi quattro transmission setup to have all wheel drive with an engine like this.


----------



## billzcat1 (Sep 10, 2001)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (Dogdude222)*

Exactly. With a swap this difficult, if he has to ask, he can't do it. If he has the money to jus pay someone to do it, then he doesn't need to ask about it. 
My vote is NO you cannot swap a 2.7tt into a Golf 4. Why bother? The 1.8t and VR6 are both good motors that take well to upgrades and 300 whp is not far off on either.


----------



## Dogdude222 (Jan 20, 2004)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (billzcat1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *billzcat1* »_Exactly. With a swap this difficult, if he has to ask, he can't do it. If he has the money to jus pay someone to do it, then he doesn't need to ask about it. 
My vote is NO you cannot swap a 2.7tt into a Golf 4. Why bother? The 1.8t and VR6 are both good motors that take well to upgrades and 300 whp is not far off on either.

In that case...what about the 4.2L V8 (which has far more potential than the 1.8T or the VR6-no replacement for displacement)...sport compact car has a V8 rear wheels drive focus of the month now. Can we do it too, but with AWD of course?


----------



## billzcat1 (Sep 10, 2001)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (Dogdude222)*

Umm hello? Its not going to get any easier to fit a motor by picking one that physically takes more room.
NO YOU CANNOT DO IT!
There is LESS potential in the 4.2L V8 because of many factors, including high compression ratio, and all the Audi V8s are NOT REBUILDABLE so you cannot add forced induction...the "right way". Stacked headgaskets cause the intake manifold to not line up with the head, and you can't buy pistons, rings, or bearings for the block. So you are stuck with a 11:1 compression motor, no bolt ons, and an incredibly expensive prospect if you try to even get a set of cams (cheapest camset for a 4.2L 32v is $2200, cheapest for a 40v is $4000)
Nice dream, but totally impossible for 99.9999% of the population. And those who CAN do it already know better than to try.


----------



## Dogdude222 (Jan 20, 2004)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (billzcat1)*

Wow! You are really opposed to this whole idea. The point of a project like this is not performance gains, it is simply to see if and how it could be done. The fun of it would be both subtle engineering feats and large obstacles to overcome. For example...the entire cooling system would have to be relegated to the trunk area...how could you get proper duct cooling...things like that.
I mean...people put two engines in Honda CRX's. Hell, I remember reading about a twin engine TT. Dealing with the synchronization of two engines has got to be harder than all the trouble of packing one big one in.


----------



## billzcat1 (Sep 10, 2001)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (Dogdude222)*

Nah, syncronizing two engines is easy. Give them the same transmissions and tires you let the road do the syncronizing.
Yes I am opposed to this idea. Ever seen the Dahlback Golf? Its going to be as much work to jam a V8 in there. Its not like 1.8t into a Rabbit. Sure thats a bit of work, but the motor is at least the right size and points the right way.
Most of my opposition to this idea is to deter the wannabes and dreamers. Don't want people who can't accomplish this task out there dreaming about it, starting it, not finishing, etc. If you really wanted to do it you couldn't be talked out of it. I guess I'm saying the people who CAN do it don't have to ask about it on Vortex


----------



## Dogdude222 (Jan 20, 2004)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (billzcat1)*

With regards to the two engines...I understand that it is easier if they both have the same tranny and final ratios...but in many cases that is not feasible. For example, in the CRX's...many of those have the rear wheels powered by either supercharged GM V6's or V8. There would be little point in putting an engine and transmission setup of an even similar size in the rear of a CRX if you are going to spend that much dough to begin with.
Yes, I have seen the Dahlback Golf...but like I said before...the work of jamming a V8 in there is exactly why one would do something like this. It is not always about performance gains. After getting a swap like this work, I would feel complete confidence of my abilities to perform pretty much any other project.
I don't really understand why you would even want to deter the wannabes and dreamers. The more people that we have out there thinking outside the box, getting dirty using their hands, and learning new things...the better. I will concede, however, that the typical person posting up on the Vortex to ask if it is possible is incapable of doing anything like this.
As a sidenote, I just want to say that this is one of the better, real dialogues that I have had with someone on the Vortex in some time (even if the subject is kind of stupid). Thanks billzcat1.


----------



## fiorya (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (Dogdude222)*

I keep reading these big engines into small cars posts...
once again I will add my 2Cents
Golf II + Northstar V8








http://www.cwstuning.com/galle...age=1


----------



## Dogdude222 (Jan 20, 2004)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (fiorya)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fiorya* »_I keep reading these big engines into small cars posts...
once again I will add my 2Cents
Golf II + Northstar V8








http://www.cwstuning.com/galle...age=1

And transversely mounted too!
P.S...I still hate GM.


----------



## billzcat1 (Sep 10, 2001)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (Dogdude222)*

Indeed, the swap would be less about ultimate performance and more about fabricating skill and uniquity (if thats a word). Just like the Northstar V8 G2, or the 944-RWD G2 that hides in the G/J2 forum. That particular swap makes even less sense...143 hp? The entire 944 drivetrain and suspension was adapted to the Golf, even the 944 steering rack and reversed front knuckles on the Golf. Doesn't make any sense for performance per unit effort, but it IS different and they did a very good job on the project with one exception - I didn't like the 1" box tubing subframe they made for it. I would have made it beefier.
Obviously a V8 and RWD is getting to be a semi-popular swap for a variety of formerly FWD cars. I think this will be much easier than attempting to swap any sort of AWD system in, mostly due to VW's placement of the front wheels. With quattro, the transmission houses the front output flanges about 9" behind the leading edge of the bell housing. Good luck getting shafts that can lead forward to the front knuckles. That's a pretty steep angle for CV joints. 
The end result is that the motor has to get pushed even farther forward. Then it becomes too tall to fit under the hood, so down it goes, time for a dry sump and all of a sudden the transmission is too close to the ground to be a reasonable street car. 
I need to differentiate between dreamers and doers. Right now, there's a fellow doing a quattro conversion into a Golf-2. Normally, when someone asks "hey can I put quattro in my Golf?" I give them the same response I am giving here. With him A)he never asked, he just did some looking on his own, and B) I know he is ready to go all the way and he's got the skills to do it, so I help him as much as I can. He's a doer, the askers are the dreamers.


----------



## Dogdude222 (Jan 20, 2004)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (billzcat1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *billzcat1* »_
Obviously a V8 and RWD is getting to be a semi-popular swap for a variety of formerly FWD cars. I think this will be much easier than attempting to swap any sort of AWD system in, mostly due to VW's placement of the front wheels. With quattro, the transmission houses the front output flanges about 9" behind the leading edge of the bell housing. Good luck getting shafts that can lead forward to the front knuckles. That's a pretty steep angle for CV joints. 
The end result is that the motor has to get pushed even farther forward. Then it becomes too tall to fit under the hood, so down it goes, time for a dry sump and all of a sudden the transmission is too close to the ground to be a reasonable street car. 
I need to differentiate between dreamers and doers. Right now, there's a fellow doing a quattro conversion into a Golf-2. Normally, when someone asks "hey can I put quattro in my Golf?" I give them the same response I am giving here. With him A)he never asked, he just did some looking on his own, and B) I know he is ready to go all the way and he's got the skills to do it, so I help him as much as I can. He's a doer, the askers are the dreamers. 









Well...you have definitely got me with the angle of the output shafts on the quattro transmission. I would be really scared to run any angle like that...however, just as a side note, there is a driveshaft manufacturer (I think it is called high-angle driveline) out there that makes u-joint setups designed for up to sixty degrees. Pushing a V8 that far forward would also just compound the understeer problem...even with quattro.
I understand your frustration with the "dreamers"...I think that it would be more accurate to call them "posers". It seems like the term fits better with the typical ignorant foolio who wouldn't even do the work himself. I say this because I would call myself a dreamer. Seeing as how I am still basically a kid in college with no solid income...I am forced into such a role. It would be ignorant for you to try to crush the aspirations of any "dreamer". After all, don't you want people out there pulling off the incredible when you are an old man? I know I do...it's the only way I will be able to get a hard-on when I am eighty!


----------



## billzcat1 (Sep 10, 2001)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (Dogdude222)*

Indeed I have seen driveshafts with up to 80 degree operation, but thats typcially for a rock-crawling type application. I'm not sure if that would be prudent for a street-driven vehicle or if they are designed for that kind of abuse (long service life, high heat, prolonged use, etc). And anytime torque changes direction it introduces more drivetrain loss in the form of heat, so I imagine they would get pretty hot pretty quickly.
And you're right.  "Posers" is a much better word


----------



## Dogdude222 (Jan 20, 2004)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (billzcat1)*

Yes...you are right. It would be quite infeasible to run driveshafts at any kind of high angle like that.
Glad you like my term better. Thanks again for the great dialogue. It is really nice to talk with someone who knows what he/she is talking about (especially when he/she knows way more than me).


----------



## billzcat1 (Sep 10, 2001)

*Re: 2.7t in a golf IV? (Dogdude222)*

Sure thing chief! Actual dialogue/discussion/disagreement is hard to find on Vortex anymore. Usually its more arguing/bickering whcih is totally pointless. 
Although you have got me thinking. I don't know if those high-angle CVs are worth a damn on the road. I'm going to look into that just for ish and giggles.


----------

