# Stroker opinions



## donner454 (May 11, 2013)

Are stroker blocks really worth it and make a big difference for spool up and off boost power? I'm estimating it's about 5K+ for everything (pistons, crank, rings, deck machined, bore, honed, install, etc). Also, what would be the best displacements between 2.0L, 2.1L, 2.2L? 

Thanks


----------



## T-Boy (Jul 16, 2003)




----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

donner454 said:


> Are stroker blocks really worth it and make a big difference for spool up and off boost power? I'm estimating it's about 5K+ for everything (pistons, crank, rings, deck machined, bore, honed, install, etc). Also, what would be the best displacements between 2.0L, 2.1L, 2.2L?
> 
> Thanks


An ALH 95.5mm crank will gain you about 415 RPMs in spool over a stock crank at 3000 RPMs and 900 RPMs at 6500 RPMs. Calculate as follows: 1781/NEW_DISPLACEMENT X STOCK_RPMs. So, 1781/2067 x 3000 = 2585 RPMs. Whereas if your turbo spools at 3000 RPMs using stock crank, it will spool at 2585 RPMs using stroker crank. Likewise if you reach maximum power at 6500 RPMs on stock crank, it will now achieve maximum power at 5600 RPMs with same turbo. The best stroker option IMO is the ALH 95.5mm crank because you can purchase for cheap (


----------



## ANT THE KNEE (Aug 25, 2000)

What's the story on the 2.1L revs? What's a "safe" rev limit ? I, like the OP am trying to decide which route to go. I was leaning towards the 2.1L myself, but am afraid I won't be able to go over 8k.


----------



## Andaloons (Apr 16, 2004)

I just picked up an ALH crank for my 2.1 build for about $150. I'm glad to see some good information be presented on this topic. 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

ANT THE KNEE said:


> What's the story on the 2.1L revs? What's a "safe" rev limit ? I, like the OP am trying to decide which route to go. I was leaning towards the 2.1L myself, but am afraid I won't be able to go over 8k.


There was some discussion about this topic about a month ago. IIRC there is no issue with reving the ALH crank to 8000+ RPMs. The concern has to do with maximum piston velocity, which can be calculated without to much difficulty. If I have some time, I will post some comparisons between the pistons velocities of stock crank versus other cranks.

Also, some people are worried about the connecting rod ratio. The ALH crank is within acceptable limits using stock block (144mm/95.5mm = 1.50). The recommended ratio is between 1.50 and 1.75. You won't notice any difference in engine vibration between stock crank and ALH crank. The only difference is a more aggressive exhaust note at idle and slapping pistons  during warmup if you're using forged pistions.


----------



## 3iverson (Jun 17, 2010)

could i use a ALH crankshaft in a standar 1.8t block(AMK engine)? with 144 mm rods and 83mm pistons?

if the answer is yes , what i need to change ? oil pump gear? etc ....
someboy knows the part number of the crank?


----------



## Andaloons (Apr 16, 2004)

3iverson said:


> could i use a ALH crankshaft in a standar 1.8t block(AMK engine)? with 144 mm rods and 83mm pistons?
> 
> if the answer is yes , what i need to change ? oil pump gear? etc ....
> someboy knows the part number of the crank?


PN 038 105 021 E

These guys have all the info you need. Two CR available.


----------



## 3iverson (Jun 17, 2010)

thanks for the info


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

mainstayinc said:


> There was some discussion about this topic about a month ago. IIRC there is no issue with reving the ALH crank to 8000+ RPMs. The concern has to do with maximum piston velocity, which can be calculated without to much difficulty. *If I have some time, I will post some comparisons between the pistons velocities of stock crank versus other cranks.*


Click here to download spreadsheet I adapted from this website. 

I do not take credit for creating this spreadsheet. I only adapted it to address concerns people might have regarding the ALH (TDI) crank. I did not enter values for piston dish volume etc so those are not correct but are not necessary for this discussion. I encourage people to download the spreadsheet and change values or even improve spreadsheet and re-post.

This spreadsheet calculates (among other things) piston velocity, piston acceleration and connecting rod angularity for the stock, FSI and ALH cranks. 

Click here for background information about about this subject.

Stroke lengths are as follows:
Stock: 86.4mm
FSI: 92.8mm (7.4% longer stroke)
ALH: 95.5mm (10.5% longer stroke)

Connecting rod ratios ("rod ratio") are as follows:
Stock: 144mm /86.4mm = 1.67
FSI: 144mm /92.8mm = 1.55
ALH: 144mm /95.5mm = 1.51

Below is a screenshot comparing piston velocities for the stock, FSI and ALH cranks at 6000 RPMs.










The first thing you will notice is that the piston velocities for the FSI and ALH crank are very close. The Maximum piston velocity for all cranks occurs at between 70 and 74 degrees after TDC and are as follows:

Stock: 28.05 m/s
FSI: 30.36 m/s (8.2% increase)
ALH: 31.34 m/s (11.7% increase)

Below is a screenshot comparing piston acceleration for the stock, FSI and ALH cranks at 6000 RPMs.










Again, values for the FSI and ALH crank are close. Maximum piston acceleration for all cranks occurs at TDC and are as follows:

Stock: 21,807.4 m/s^2
FSI: 23,817.0 m/s^2 (9.2% increase)
ALH: 24,681.2 m/s^2 (13.2% increase)

Below is a screenshot comparing connecting rod angularity for the stock, FSI and ALH cranks at 6000 RPMs.










Maximum angularity for all cranks occurs at about 90 after TDC and are as follows:

Stock: 17.46 degrees
FSI: 18.80 degrees (7.7% increase or 1.34 degrees)
ALH: 19.37 degrees (10.9% increase or 1.91 degrees)

The shorter connecting rod ratio for the ALH crank (1.51) only translates into less than a 2 degree increase in connecting rod angle at it's maximum point.

If you were to use the longer 159mm connecting rod and an ABA block with the ALH crank, you would get connecting rod angles identical to stock 1.8T with stock crank (see below).










Alternatively, if you were to run stock crank at 6383 RPMs, you would get same maximum piston acceleration as ALH crank at 6000 RPMs (about 24,680 m/s^2. See below). This is important to know because g-force is directly related to piston acceleration. There are 101.9716 gravitational acceleration units "g forces" per 1,000 meters per second per second acceleration. *At 24,680 m/s^2, g-force equals 24,680/1000 x 101.9716 = 2517!*










Doubling RPM squares piston acceleration. So, increasing RPM from 6000 to 7200 results in a 44% increase in piston acceleration and a 44% increase in g-force. 

As mentioned above, larger displacement allows you to reduce engine speed for a given amount of power. A 95.5mm ALH crank with 83mm bore running at 6500 RPMs is equivalent to stock displacement at 7543 RPMs. *Which do you think has higher piston acceleration and g-force?* 

In this case, the piston acceleration of stock crank at 7543 RPMs is 34,466 m/s^2 whereas the ALH crank at 6500 RPMs is 28,966 m/s^2. That's a 19% increase in piston acceleration and g-force for stock crank. *That's 561 more g-forces acting on your piston, wrist pin, connecting rod and crank.* Something to think about.

------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: As you can see, there is not much difference between the FSI and ALH crank in terms of maximum piston velocity, acceleration and connecting rod angularity. Therefore, the ALH is a better option IMO for stroker bottom end due to the fact that it can be purchased cheap and is built to withstand compression-ignition (diesel) combustion pressures.

I've also demonstrated that it's better to build a larger displacement, lower reving engine in terms of lowering the g-force stresses on your bottom end while increasing overall power. You can use the spreadsheet above to calculate your optimum setup.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

mainstayinc said:


> The only difference is a more aggressive exhaust note at idle and slapping pistons  during warmup if you're using forged pistions.


No piston slap with 4000 series alloy.

Just sayin


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

No real piston slap with 2618 too, if your machinist isn't hammered.  It's only a ~12% difference in thermal expansion anyways between the two, or about .0004".


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> No real piston slap with 2618 too, *if your machinist isn't hammered*.  It's only a ~12% difference in thermal expansion anyways between the two, or about .0004".


My setup tended to be a little slap-happy during the wintertime when I had the bottom end built. I'm not sure if that's because the machinist was hammered or because of the colder weather. At any rate, the car is still at the transmission shop getting clutch replaced. Ottawa Clutches sent me the wrong clutch disk twice and now I'm awaiting the third one. I'm hoping the warmer weather will help with the slapping issue when I finally get car back.


----------



## dane. (Nov 16, 2007)

Thank you for the graphs and explanation mainstay. Many :beer: to you. I think I may end up going the ALH route myself. I'm just curious to see if it can withstand 8500 RPM.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

dane. said:


> Thank you for the graphs and explanation mainstay. Many :beer: to you. I think I may end up going the ALH route myself. I'm just curious to see if it can withstand 8500 RPM.


:thumbup:NP. Powerwise, an ALH crank at 8500 RPMs is equivalent to FSI at 8750 RPMs and stock crank at 9400 RPMs if you keep stock 81mm bore for all three cranks. This is summarized as follows:

Displacement at 81mm bore:

ALH: 1968 CCs
FSI: 1913 CCs (-55)
STK: 1781 CCs (-187)

Equivalent engine speed:

ALH: 8500 RPMs
FSI: 8750 RPMs (+250)
STK: 9400 RPMs (+900)

Maximum piston velocity is as follows:

ALH: 44.40 m/s
FSI: 44.26 m/s (-0.14)
STK: 43.92 m/s (-0.48)

You will notice that maximum piston velocity increases slighly for the ALH crank at 81mm bore. However, this measurement only concerns the limits of flame speed.

More important are the mechanical stress, which are as follows:

ALH: 49,533.8 m/s^2
FSI: 50,618.5 m/s^2 (+1084.7)
STK: 53,467.2 m/s^2 (+3933.4)

Converted into g-force, they are as follows:

ALH: 5051 g's
FSI: 5162 g's (+111)
STK: 5452 g's (+401)

As you can see, the mechanical stress from g-force increases for the FSI and stock crank. The stock crank exerts 401 more g-forces (401 times gravity) on bottom end as compared to ALH for the same amount of horsepower. This is illustrated as follows:










If you were to also bore out block to 83mm, then the comparison to stock crank with stock bore (81mm) is even more favorable.

Powerwise, an ALH crank at 8500 RPMs and 83mm bore is equivalent to FSI at 8750 RPMs (83mm bore) and stock crank at 9870 RPMs. This is summarized as follows:

Displacement:

ALH: 2067 CCs
FSI: 2008 CCs (-59)
STK: 1781 CCs (-286)

Equivalent engine speed:

ALH: 8500 RPMs
FSI: 8750 RPMs (+250)
STK: 9870 RPMs (+1370)

Maximum piston velocity is as follows:

ALH: 44.40 m/s
FSI: 44.26 m/s (-0.14)
STK: 46.11 m/s (+1.71)

Maximum piston acceleration is as follows:

ALH: 49,533.8 m/s^2
FSI: 50,618.5 m/s^2 (+1084.7)
STK: 58,952.2 m/s^2 (+9418.4)

Converted into g-force, they are as follows:

ALH: 5051 g's
FSI: 5162 g's (+111)
STK: 6011 g's (+960)

This is illustrated by the following screenshot. Notice how stock crank is way out of line with ALH and FSI, with the ALH having the least amount of mechanical stress.


----------



## 3iverson (Jun 17, 2010)

hi guys, i have a wiseco pistons for 2L , could i use with ALH crank ? or i need special pistons for ALH crank?


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

3iverson said:


> hi guys, i have a wiseco pistons for 2L , could i use with ALH crank ? or i need special pistons for ALH crank?


You'll need stroker pistons or custom rods :thumbup:


----------



## Andaloons (Apr 16, 2004)

Where's Groggory? This needs to get FAQed. 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2


----------



## 3iverson (Jun 17, 2010)

i had a brute rods 144 mm from pag parts and wiseco pistons 8.5:1 especial for 2L , they are enough?


----------



## groundupjetta (Feb 1, 2010)

Good info, stick it :thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

dane. said:


> Thank you for the graphs and explanation mainstay. Many :beer: to you. I think I may end up going the ALH route myself. *I'm just curious to see if it can withstand 8500 RPM*.


The ALH crank should be able to handle engine speed no problem.

According to IE website, JE forged pistions are rated to 8000 g's. They can easily handle the mechanical stress.



IE Website said:


> *JE Forged Pistons*These are a complete set of JE stroker pistons for all 1.8T 20V Turbo engines. JE Pistons make for a stout reliable engine for daily driving, road racing, drag racing, or full out competition racing. Built to withstand serious performance punishment, JE forged pistons have been specifically designed and engineered for acceleration forces of more than 8000 G's and directional changes exceeding 200 times every second. Additionally, each forging is application specific minimizing weight and ensuring a reliable interaction with the rotating assembly. JE shelf pistons are available in a selection of bore sizes and compression ratios, if you do not see exactially what you are looking for, contact us for a custom piston quote.


More important is the tensile strengh of rods, since they take the brunt of the mechanical stress especially on the exhaust stroke when there is nothing to push back against piston and connecting rods. I'm not sure what IE rods are rated at. I didn't have time to look that up.


----------



## ANT THE KNEE (Aug 25, 2000)

Great info here, thanks for taking the time to post this up for everyone.

:beer::beer::beer:
:beer::beer::beer: enjoy


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

ANT THE KNEE said:


> Great info here, thanks for taking the time to post this up for everyone.
> 
> :beer::beer::beer:
> :beer::beer::beer: enjoy


:thumbup:NP. Glad it's helpful.


----------



## Pisko (Jan 14, 2006)

Get this $hit the F#ck`d Faq`ed Some great info here:thumbup:


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Pisko said:


> Get this $hit the F#ck`d Faq`ed Some great info here:thumbup:


There's nothing in this thread that hasn't been covered, and faq'd/stickied already; except of course the little JE pistons sales pitch..


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Rod Ratio said:


> There's nothing in this thread that hasn't been covered, and faq'd/stickied already; except of course the little JE pistons sales pitch..


Please provide link to FAQ'd material.


----------



## Andaloons (Apr 16, 2004)

mainstayinc said:


> Please provide link to FAQ'd material.


x2 Smarty Pants McGee. 

This is all I found along with the link to a comparison of the 1.8t crank to the 2.0tsi crank.

*
Crankshaft

Differences between 2.0TFSI, 2.0FSI, and 1.8t Cranks

Stock Crank = 86.4mm stroke

Remember, if you change the crankshaft stroke, you need to change the piston to compensate. Do not go for shorter rods, go for a correct piston.

Common stroker cranks:
* 92.8mm - Most common, easy to source
* 95.5mm - TDI (ALH) Crank, generally expensive
* 100mm - Very uncommon, typically Eurospec Crank, MSRP $1395 USD*


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Andaloons said:


> x2 Smarty Pants McGee.
> 
> This is all I found along with the link to a comparison of the 1.8t crank to the 2.0tsi crank.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that looks pretty outdated. Plus no comprehensive comparison between cranks with regard to piston velocity, acceleration and connecting rod angularity. Not to mention any discussion of g-forces and mechanical stress for each crank.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

mainstayinc said:


> Yeah, that looks pretty outdated. Plus no comprehensive comparison between cranks with regard to piston velocity, acceleration and connecting rod angularity. Not to mention any discussion of g-forces and mechanical stress for each crank.


Unfortunately Science cost $$.
I have 1781cc , 1870cc , 2008cc and 2067cc 06A based bottom ends sitting on a palet in the corner of the shop just waiting to get dyno tested.
You can make a 97.5mm stroke crankshaft using the 2.0 TDI crankshafts with the larger connecting rod journal diameter but in reality the guys that do stroke there motors are doing so because of:


The stock 1.8T is tired and needs to go from 81mm to 81.5mm so why change pistons if you are not changing the crankshaft
They got a screaming deal on a blown ALH or 2.0 8V motor and pulled the crankshaft out of it.


That being said , I decided to give it a go and do a production run of 83mm x 95.5mm stroker pistons (sales pitch Rod Ratio ) with Mahle 142 alloy as been getting requests for them due to all the blown ALH motors popping up in the classifieds.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Overlooked in this discussion is how a stroked 20v engine's power delivery is changed at engine speeds significantly lower than the 8500 or 9500 revs being mentioned. Because from my testing experience, the most significant improvement is at 1500-3000. In other words, every time you pull out from a stop.

The ALH crank delivers torque. And you notice it every time the street light goes green. No dyno testing will illustrate this, but it's the salient benefit from this kind of mod.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Overlooked in this discussion is how a stroked 20v engine's power delivery is changed at engine speeds significantly lower than the 8500 or 9500 revs being mentioned. Because from my testing experience, the most significant improvement is at 1500-3000. In other words, every time you pull out from a stop.
> 
> *The ALH crank delivers torque. And you notice it every time the street light goes green*. No dyno testing will illustrate this, but it's the salient benefit from this kind of mod.


That's for sure. In first and second gear, I normally don't rev past 3000 RPMs on my setup (GTX2867R + 2.1L). In third through fifth gear, I get plenty of torque below 2500 RPMs. I regularly take 15 to 25 MPH corners in 4th gear. Acceleration in 4th and 5th gear on the highway below 2500 RPMs is phenominal. It's actually very economical to drive this way because UNI 630 is not dumpimp excess fuel at those engine speeds. On the flip side, this driving style puts a lot of stress on my other components like clutch and probably transmission. I already had a clutch fail on me as some of you know (sheared into pieces). And that happened at only 3000 RPMs shifting from 4th to 5th gear on the highway.

The higher piston velocity of the ALH crank due to shorter connecting rod ratio actually favors low-end torque because it has a stronger sucking action as compared to stock crank. The other point to make is that the "normal" force on the crank with a shorter connecting rod ratio is closer to TDC as compared a setup with larger ratio (click here for article) This helps to align the "normal" force from the crank with the torque curve which creates more power.



Rod Ratio - Dynamics said:


> Also, with ignition occurring well before TDC, the maximum combustion pressure is going to occur not long after TDC (never before hopefully ). Since the most torque will be produced then the crank normal force and combustion force curves have the same shape, and the combustion force curve is biased to the TDC side, then it again makes sense to bias the crank normal force curve towards TDC. This is a second reason that a shorter rod might make sense. *Grumpy Jenkins (V8 drag race engine builder) was a fan of shorter rods for this reason. *


I have a revised spreadsheet which deals with "normal" and sidewall forces that I might post up later comparing the different cranks. Interesting vidoe of Grumpy Jenkins who is from your neck of the woods.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai3cnc-77ZE


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> The ALH crank delivers torque. And you notice it every time the street light goes green. No dyno testing will illustrate this, but it's the salient benefit from this kind of mod.


:thumbup:
Throttle response is key.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i'm still debating between 2.1 and 2.0 because i don't trust any machinist here and well. i don't feel renting a torque plate lol. but 8.5:1 is just too low of compression for me. i either want to stay 9.5:1 or go 10:1 whether 2.0 or 2.1l. 


fuk i miss the mainland. eff hawaii


----------



## One-Eight GTI (Jan 5, 2010)

Vegeta Gti said:


> i'm still debating between 2.1 and 2.0 because i don't trust any machinist here and well. i don't feel renting a torque plate lol. but 8.5:1 is just too low of compression for me. i either want to stay 9.5:1 or go 10:1 whether 2.0 or 2.1l.
> 
> 
> fuk i miss the mainland. eff hawaii


Machinest here on the mainland can screw things up also, Mine overbored my block so I had to source a new one... At least you have good temps year round, its 45 here and rainy Eff northern Minnesota:laugh:


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

One-Eight GTI said:


> Machinest here on the mainland can screw things up also, Mine overbored my block so I had to source a new one... At least you have good temps year round, its 45 here and rainy Eff northern Minnesota:laugh:


It seems that more machinists get it wrong; than get it right.


----------



## ANT THE KNEE (Aug 25, 2000)

Any of the 2.1L guys out there going in to the 8k+ rpm range? seems like it's a myth to be scared .


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

On the topic of larger strokes. Every side has its pros and cons. When you're using a long stroke with the same rods, you're basically shortening the rods as you go from 86.4 to 92.8 to 95.5mm. You are altering piston velocity and this will increase wear no matter how you shake it. As you move the piston rings up, you're also increasing the likelihood of piston heat soak as the ring is exposed to more heat which effects its ability to pull heat from the piston and also compromises the piston's structural integrity and it will be weaker then its shorter stroked counterpart.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> On the topic of larger strokes. Every side has its pros and cons. When you're using a long stroke with the same rods, you're basically shortening the rods as you go from 86.4 to 92.8 to 95.5mm. You are altering piston velocity and this will increase wear no matter how you shake it. As you move the piston rings up, you're also increasing the likelihood of piston heat soak as the ring is exposed to more heat which effects its ability to pull heat from the piston and also compromises the piston's structural integrity and it will be weaker then its shorter stroked counterpart.


I agree. There are pros and cons. Here is a quote from the background article I posted earlier.



FTL Racing said:


> Effects of stroking an engine
> * Increased displacement.
> * Increased rod angularity increases wear.
> * Increased piston velocity and acceleration increases tensile loading of the rods.
> * Increased scavenging at low rpm (increased low RPM power).


So, the pros are:
Increased displacement, increased scavenging at low RPMs. 

Not mentioned in the background article is: reduced engine speed for a given amount of power, stronger sucking action on intake stroke due to higher piston velocity. This translates into higher volumetric efficiency at lower RPMs which increases low-end torque, and the "normal" force on the crank being closer to TDC which also increases power. I will demonstrate this last point as I have completed the revised spreadsheet.

The cons are:
Increased wear due to rod angularity. The angularity between stock and ALH crank is minimal as I have demonstrated (less than 2 degrees). There is a 1/2 degree difference between the ALH and FSI crank at its maximum point.

Increased tensile loading of rods at higher RPMs. However, if you were paying attention, you will notice that I've already demonstrated that you can actually reduce tensile loading with more displacement/lower engine speed.

Please provide link to info. on piston heat soak if you have.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

Sorry, this information wasnt from any particular source. I'm sure you can find them if you search. Just rules and principles that I apply to building engines for particular applications. My personal checklist of do's and dont's accumulated over the last 20+ yrs of builiding random engines of all makes and models. Piston rings help pull heat out of piston. When you have a very hot combustion or one w/ mileage, when you take the pistons apart from their respective grooves, you'll notice oil coking and carbon buildup in these areas. This is from heat and burning oil from blowby.You'll notice that it accumulates alot b/w the top and 2nd rings and very little in the oil scraper reqion as its much cooler down there. The 2nd ring in the modern piston config acts as as a comp ring but also as an oil scraper as the top ring does most of the 'compressing'. This second ring would have a much larger gap and lately, I've been giving them even more then the recommended gap to offset ring flutter under high rpm situations ( but this is another story). When you have the piston rings move up, you'll expose them to more heat as its moved closer to the combustion region. While its more efficient as it traps less vapors, its much more prone to the effects of combustion events, namely the heat that is generated from this. It'll promote more of this coking, more of this heat is absorbed by the piston ring which compromises ring integrity and its ability to pull heat out of the piston which I've mentioned. You'll also have a shorter piston, most likely, along with a shorter piston crown to first piston groove which will heat soak faster as you have less mass around the squish zone. If the grooves arent moved up, you'll have a thin ring land somewhere but 2+mm's is quite alot to not have something move.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Thanks, Al for detailed explanation.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

No worries man and the community appreciates your contributions :thumbup:

Here is a glimpse at what I do which prompts me to contribute in my own way and always in laymen's terms

Bore measuring post bore/hone process to make sure it measures up during assembly









Car came in with a mysterious smoking issue and we systematically eliminated possibilities and found this on a recently 'built' head. Leakage pulling oil from the head on decel on intake side while exhaust being forced into the crankcase via exhaust guide. We pressurized the intake to find this









Measuring of an 'oversized' guide to find that its .018mm undersized from spec so if we reamed to spec, we would've been in trouble (normally we wouldnt use a caliper but my digital mic was borrowed from a neighbor shop owner)









cheers :beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

That's odd- most of the aftermarket guides I've seen are too big, not too small... Then they usually broach the heads and screw them up when a crappy shop forces them in. 

We have to make .010" over guides to fix some of those- we just ream the guide bores at that point.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

These are definitely larger then stock but not for an oversized guide. I'm used to +.018 (+.0005/-.0005) on OS guides. As you can see, its falling short of that. Larger then OE OD but if you subtract allowable tolerance, its just about there which isnt cutting it...


----------



## tedgram (Jul 2, 2005)

opcorn:


----------



## donner454 (May 11, 2013)

Arnold is the only one I'd trust to build my motor correctly. Thanks so much for everyone's solid input.


----------



## One-Eight GTI (Jan 5, 2010)

donner454 said:


> Arnold is the only one I'd trust to build my motor correctly. Thanks so much for everyone's solid input.


True dat. Arnold built my head for me. Excellent work


----------



## donner454 (May 11, 2013)

One-Eight GTI said:


> True dat. Arnold built my head for me. Excellent work


same here. he did my AEB Head with Supertech, Cat Gold and Cat Cams 3658. Soon going with his 72ar housing and billet v2 wheel, then the stroker for the next timing belt. 

Everything from him bullet proof so far... including his tuning :thumbup:


----------



## One-Eight GTI (Jan 5, 2010)

The tuning part is what I need. I'm hoping if all goes as planned I can drive to see him this fall and have him tune my car. We will see. It's a long drive though


----------



## donner454 (May 11, 2013)

One-Eight GTI said:


> The tuning part is what I need. I'm hoping if all goes as planned I can drive to see him this fall and have him tune my car. We will see. It's a long drive though


Damn, that would be a long drive but totally worth it. I only live 5 mins from Arnold so I guess I'm lucky. I just have to rely on public transportation after I drop it off to him... No back up car. I'm sure he can work on yours because of your travel distance.

I think he might have his dyno machine up by then.


----------



## turbodub (Jul 6, 2000)

Issam Abed said:


> Unfortunately Science cost $$.
> I have 1781cc , 1870cc , 2008cc and 2067cc 06A based bottom ends sitting on a palet in the corner of the shop just waiting to get dyno tested.
> You can make a 97.5mm stroke crankshaft using the 2.0 TDI crankshafts with the larger connecting rod journal diameter but in reality the guys that do stroke there motors are doing so because of:
> 
> ...


so anyone have anymore info on the 2.0 tdi cranks with the larger rod diameter? recently got one and trying to see if i want to keep it or not.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

turbodub said:


> so anyone have anymore info on the 2.0 tdi cranks with the larger rod diameter? recently got one and trying to see if i want to keep it or not.


Did you weight it yet? 
You will need to cut down the connecting rod journals to be able to use a KB 026/051 bearing but other than that it is a pretty crankshaft.


----------



## turbodub (Jul 6, 2000)

Issam Abed said:


> Did you weight it yet?
> You will need to cut down the connecting rod journals to be able to use a KB 026/051 bearing but other than that it is a pretty crankshaft.


no but I will just for you! There are pretty good odds im not going to have any interest in using this. Anyone want a project? Time for a fs thread


----------



## lewp91 (May 9, 2011)

someone fancy sticking that crank into the comparisons on page 1 to see how much different it is?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

lewp91 said:


> someone fancy sticking that crank into the comparisons on page 1 to see how much different it is?


What stroke is this crank?

I plan on adding some new info. to this thread in the next week or so.


----------



## 1999.5GTIVR6 (Jun 15, 2011)

97.5mm ?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

1999.5GTIVR6 said:


> 97.5mm ?


Internet search didn't return results for 97.5mm 2.0 TDI crank. It did return a page from TDIClub where Issam talks about 97.5mm custom stroke.

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=334271&page=2

Issam would have to elaborate on how to get 97.5mm stroke from a 2.0 TDI crank.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Originally Posted by Issam Abed said:


> You can make a 97.5mm stroke crankshaft using the 2.0 TDI crankshafts with the larger connecting rod journal diameter


see a few posts above


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

18T_BT said:


> see a few posts above


Yeah. I saw that. I'm drawing a blank here on how that would work.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

You have to grind the journals down to 48mm for regular VW gas rods / bearings etc. 

You don't necessarily have to grind the same amount of meat off all the way around on the journal.  Offset grind it to make the bigger stroke.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> You have to grind the journals down to 48mm for regular VW gas rods / bearings etc.
> 
> You don't necessarily have to grind the same amount of meat off all the way around on the journal.  Offset grind it to make the bigger stroke.


Uuu... that's a good idea... but I just bought a 95.5 crank :sly:


----------



## lewp91 (May 9, 2011)

I like the Idea of grinding the crank for a larger stroke.

I would like to see the prospects of using a 97.5mm crank 
wasn't there a 100mm crank made by a euro company? heard it didn't hold up to well or something though?

when I do start a build I'll be aiming for the largest stroke/bore combination I can achieve


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

lewp91 said:


> ...wasn't there a 100mm crank made by a euro company? heard it didn't hold up to well or something though?...


Never heard of this crank failing but I suppose it's possible - as with any crank… http://www.eurospecsport.com/products/components/performance-4cyl-crankshafts.htm


----------



## lewp91 (May 9, 2011)

sorry Issam, hope you don't mind me quoting something you said on the S2Forum:



> FACTS:
> 2 former employees @ eurospec themselves have told me directly those crankshafts are poor quality bending as much as 0.006" out of spec.
> INA has returned 2 of the bent units to 034 directly for store credit then was handed to overland/eurospec for anything further to do with billet crankshafts (we still have yet to resolve Armin's 92.8mm billet crank issue btw...approaching almost 2 years ) . We have had 100% failure with these crankshafts. The only person I know of that has had success with a 100mm 4 Cylinder unit is Romero and his motor is naturally aspirated w/ 11.5:1 CR.
> In the 034 time attack A4 the 100mm Eurospec Billet unit failed and was subsequently replaced with an OEM Volkswagen 92.8mm fsi forged crankshaft. The failure was inline with the B6 A4 we built that 034 knew about.
> ...


I have also seen reports that people with the 1/8t block (220mm isn't it?) with the 100mm crank are spinning bearings, something that was solved by going to an ABA 236mm block?
If that's the case then what's the chance of spinning on a 97.5mm crank? or was it constriction ans the twist that was spinning bearings?

but I have seen a few reports on the forums of cranks bending .005/6. hence why eurospec Isn't seen in anyone's BT car i guess


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

lewp91 said:


> I have also seen reports that people with the 1/8t block (220mm isn't it?) with the 100mm crank are spinning bearings, something that was solved by going to an ABA 236mm block?


The people that are running the 2.2L combination hardly post about it. I know of a few over the years that have gone back to 2.1L/2.0L set ups for reliability.
The only set up I am aware of that did a 2.2L combination (100mm stroke crank + 144mm rod) on a 220mm block was HSTuning? No clue how that turned out.


lewp91 said:


> If that's the case then what's the chance of spinning on a 97.5mm crank? or was it constriction ans the twist that was spinning bearings?


Would still need to test it. I had mine offset ground a few years ago and just never put it to any use. With the offset grinding you are able to get 93.5mm to 97.5mm range so you can pick whatever stroke you want once it falls into that range.


lewp91 said:


> but I have seen a few reports on the forums of cranks bending .005/6. hence why eurospec Isn't seen in anyone's BT car i guess


I still have 4 here that were removed and replaced with either 92.8mm FSI units or something similar. They make great door stops.


----------



## not SoQuick (Jan 8, 2004)

Issam,what is the journal size on the 2.0 diesel cranks to start with?I'm wondering if there is enough meat there to run a sbc rod


----------



## volkswjetta3 (Jan 25, 2008)

Great info here guys! With all this Knowledge here I think someone can help me with a question. I have a 1.8T, ALH crank. Was think of just putting in the TDI crank and running the TT 225 setup with the K04. Would like to do this to start. See what I get and go front there. I'm looking for a good reliable engine. If I use the stock 81mm pistons with the stock 144mm rods and the 95.5mm crank this would give me 1,973cc if my math is correct... This is good increase for my needs. And should help the 225 setup just a little. And that's all I'm really looking for. Anyone have any comments on this matter? Is there anything I'm missing?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

volkswjetta3 said:


> Great info here guys! With all this Knowledge here I think someone can help me with a question. I have a 1.8T, ALH crank. Was think of just putting in the TDI crank and running the TT 225 setup with the K04. Would like to do this to start. See what I get and go front there. I'm looking for a good reliable engine. If I use the stock 81mm pistons with the stock 144mm rods and the 95.5mm crank this would give me 1,973cc if my math is correct... This is good increase for my needs. And should help the 225 setup just a little. And that's all I'm really looking for. Anyone have any comments on this matter? Is there anything I'm missing?


This is what I was going to do when I upgraded my bottom end last year (95.5mm stroke x 81mm bore). However, my engine builder convinced me to bore out block to 83mm due to cylinders being out-of-round (120,000+ mile engine). This only added $600.00 to the upgrade. Either way, you will have to upgrade pistons when using 95.5mm crank. Bore out to 83mm now. This will give you the maximum displacement possible with off-the-shelf parts. Also, you will want to upgrade your rods now when upgrading to 95.5mm crank. Stock rods will limit your maximum power going forward and you will wish you would have done it.


----------



## bonesaw (Aug 8, 2004)

I would check to make sure crank is within spec. Many tdi cranks are not because of all the compression. I'd also see it the cylinders are out of spec. If it is a high mileage block they most likely are. At that point the new pistons cost the same. And the machine work should be similar in price. After you have these answered it will give you a better idea of what you need to get.


----------



## Jerm23MK4 (Sep 20, 2012)

opcorn: this is a great thread!


----------



## volkswjetta3 (Jan 25, 2008)

I plan on first thing taking the engine to my machinist and having everything checked. Then I can go from there. I'm still not 100% on what I want to do about rods. I know I want this engine to last... But build good power. I did get my K04 this week and am now on the hunt for the crank. All the junk yards out there that have them want to sell the block with! And here on vortex everyone thinks there GOLD! But all I'm due time.


----------



## A3dOUde (Dec 22, 2002)

congrat for such great thread !

I was searchin for some answers on a futur engine swap, and found this !! 


As I've always tought that stroker engine = to low rev engine why is everyone lookin for 8k's rpm if benefits are way down powerband ? And would having a 92.8/95.5mm stroked engine put as much of wear if a 7000rpm max rev limiter is applied ( and so, keep it a low reving engine or as much OE rev band ) as having it be a high rev RPM band ?


----------



## A3dOUde (Dec 22, 2002)

double post


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

A3dOUde said:


> congrat for such great thread !
> 
> I was searchin for some answers on a futur engine swap, and found this !!
> 
> ...


Stroking engine would have benefits through the entire powerband.



A3dOUde said:


> congrat for such great thread !
> 
> I was searchin for some answers on a futur engine swap, and found this !!
> 
> As I've always tought that stroker engine = to low rev engine why is everyone lookin for 8k's rpm if benefits are way down powerband? *And would having a 92.8/95.5mm stroked engine put as much of wear if a 7000rpm max rev limiter is applied *( and so, keep it a low reving engine or as much OE rev band ) as having it be a high rev RPM band ?


I have the revised spreadsheet that compares side-wall loading for each crank. This will give you a good indication of wear to the cylinder bore. If I have time I will post up.


----------



## tutuur (Apr 11, 2013)

More than a year later but thought i'd revive this thread.

Thanks for all the info! Really got me considering builing a alh/20v instead of a stroked 1.8t


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

FWIW: 

I once had to build a 1.8L 20v for a customer who was running in a class which limited displacement to that. The motor was the same specs we ~usually build but not stroked, just a forged 1.8L crank. 

It took approximately 400 rpm more to reach the same power levels as the 2.0L one across the board and never caught up whatsoever. There is absolutely no truth in the better rod ratio making a "better" revving engine or an engine which is better for high RPM, at least in this ballpark of RPM / rod / stroke / etc. 

It is a little lower stress and easier on rods and rod bolts etc- the crank is slightly lower stressed as well- but the FSI crankshaft is significantly beefier- so in the end, I would never build a 1.8L on purpose.


----------



## Ephry73 (Feb 18, 2002)

Great post and excellent read. Stroker 81mm pistons and 95.5mm crank don't seem like a bad idea if the block is round. Hate to revive a thread but the info here is worth reading


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Ephry73 said:


> Great post and excellent read. Stroker 81mm pistons and 95.5mm crank don't seem like a bad idea if the block is round. Hate to revive a thread but the info here is worth reading
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You should consider boring out to 83mm when you do a stroker build. That will ensure the roundness of the block. Issam sells 83mm x 95.5mm Mahle pistons which are perfect for most people doing an ALH crank. Those were not available when I did my stroker kit so I went with the IE JE pistons. The JE's are very nice but not as quiet as stock or the Mahle's. The JE's are better suited for my next project.


----------



## Ephry73 (Feb 18, 2002)

mainstayinc said:


> You should consider boring out to 83mm when you do a stroker build. That will ensure the roundness of the block. Issam sells 83mm x 95.5mm Mahle pistons which are perfect for most people doing an ALH crank. Those were not available when I did my stroker kit so I went with the IE JE pistons. The JE's are very nice but not as quiet as stock or the Mahle's. The JE's are better suited for my next project.


Excellent. This will yield a nice 2.1l plus the gt2871r turbo. Will need good software but il
Sure the wife will be happy with the added torque from the stroker. Her shifting habit is to granny shift and seldom goes past 3800rs unless she's having fun. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Ephry73 said:


> Excellent. This will yield a nice 2.1l plus the gt2871r turbo. Will need good software but il
> Sure the wife will be happy with the added torque from the stroker. Her shifting habit is to granny shift and seldom goes past 3800rs unless she's having fun.
> 
> 
> ...


That will be a very nice setup. There will be plenty of torque with the 2.1L bottom end and the GT2871R turbo.


----------



## Ephry73 (Feb 18, 2002)

mainstayinc said:


> That will be a very nice setup. There will be plenty of torque with the 2.1L bottom end and the GT2871R turbo.


That's the idea. I'm building this for her and hopefully she can get into track days or something. Thanks for the responses 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Warsupreme (Jan 23, 2018)

Do you have to bore your engine if using longer stroke crank?
I have wössner 81mm pistons and was wondering can I used them with longer stroke crank or do they come in contact with rods on block or what is the problem? sorry I tried to google but I did not find definitive answer


----------



## Andaloons (Apr 16, 2004)

Warsupreme said:


> Do you have to bore your engine if using longer stroke crank?
> I have wössner 81mm pistons and was wondering can I used them with longer stroke crank or do they come in contact with rods on block or what is the problem? sorry I tried to google but I did not find definitive answer


IIRC you do not have to bore the cylinders to have a longer stroke. Do a little more searching on the vwvortex forums and you will find your answers! Good luck! :thumbup:


----------



## One-Eight GTI (Jan 5, 2010)

Stroker pistons (83mm) are clearanced for oil squiters Your 81mm would most likely hit oil squiters


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

Warsupreme said:


> Do you have to bore your engine if using longer stroke crank?
> I have wössner 81mm pistons and was wondering can I used them with longer stroke crank or do they come in contact with rods on block or what is the problem? sorry I tried to google but I did not find definitive answer



Pins are in a different position to allow for the extra stroke - can’t use those stock spec pistons unless you have rods custom made to allow for the extra stroke... better just to get stroker pistons.


----------



## Andaloons (Apr 16, 2004)

rbd2 said:


> Found a 20th ed GTI for cheap and I am building a BT 1.8t. I am tempted to stroke it since I already have an FSI crank. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated. If I am to stroke this motor(AWP), what timing belt would I need with the FSI crankshaft setup?


The timing belt should be the same for your build. IIRC the Gates Timing Belt is preferred (Kevlar.)


----------



## rbd2 (Jan 23, 2017)

*nice*

Great at least im heading down the right track with that. Im going to fully build the head and go 1mm over on the valves. I already have a fluid damper for the crank pulley. Are light weight pulleys worth it for the other bits of the motor?


----------



## jammyauto (Mar 11, 2007)

*Help with stroker build*

Hi I'm hoping someone can offer some help. I'm trying to build a 2067 CC engine. 

I bought the Mahle pistons and rods from iABED. He also sold me the crank sensor trigger wheel for the ALH crank. 

I bought the head torque plate and all my valve train and a bunch of other parts from IE

I had a complete 2002 Jetta TDI with the ALH that I parted out. 

My problem is this- The trigger wheel that I was sold does not bolt onto the ALH crank. The holes are in the wrong location and the ALH crank mounting holes are a larger diameter than the gas trigger wheel. The trigger wheel that II was sold has the same bolt pattern as the wheel that was on the AWP crank The only difference is the AWP wheel has holes in it and the wheel iABED sold me has bumps on it. 

The wheel that iABED sold me looks a lot like this one but I'm not sure if it's the same part number https://www.performancebyie.com/crank-sensor-trigger-wheel-for-2-1l-1-8t-stroker

Any help is appreciated


----------



## jammyauto (Mar 11, 2007)

jammyauto said:


> Hi I'm hoping someone can offer some help. I'm trying to build a 2067 CC engine.
> 
> I bought the Mahle pistons and rods from iABED. He also sold me the crank sensor trigger wheel for the ALH crank.
> 
> ...


What I mean to say is that if you drew a circle that intecsected with the three mounting holes for the trigger wheel the Tdiis a larger diameter than the gas wheel. Another words the Tdi bolts are further apart as well as being in the wrong location. 










Here is a picture of the Tdi wheel sitting on top of the iAbed wheel. If you look closely at the screw hole on the left you can just see it intersect the hole in the gas wheel by a little bit. The shiny material is NOT the wheel below but the area where the shoulders of the screws sit.


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

TDI uses the ABA crankshaft trigger wheel. You probably got sent the wrong wheel

wheel pn 048105189b
screw pn 053105229


also, you're pictures didn't load


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

Should bump this for all the noobs

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------

