2.0 Pistons in a 1.8

[maytag]

If I remember right, the 2ltr crank won't do a full revolution in the 1800 as the counter weights touch the 1800 block casting (possibly the bottom of the bore - can't remember it was 6mths ago). With the 1800 in standard form the pistons are right up on the deck. I measured circa <1mm clearance on mine. The 2ltr stroke would certainly have the pistons impregnated in the combustion chamber. I have not thought hard enough about if a stroker (longer rods only) would really be possible. 2ltr rods in an 1800 with F1 style pistons? Center to center we have 136 vs 145 == 9mm. Could the piston CH be safely lowered 9mm? Possibly with a forged set? I have not measured from the top of the pin to the deck. Anyway, some food for thought!

You can't make a stroker without changing the stroke. Increasing rod-length does not make it a stroker. IF you increase rod-length, and shorten the piston, you've done nothing. You're merely suggesting taking a different approach to reaching exactly the same distance between the crank throw and top-of-piston. This has no benefit, unless you build-in some compression increase, which could be done much easier with a piston swap.

As I stated above, a "stroker" needs a change in stroke. This is beneficial because you are changing displacement of the motor. If you increase the stroke, you will need a shorter piston/rod combo for it to work with the same deck-height. But the piston travels farther with an increased stroke, and has a relatively lower BDC, where displacement is measured.

I am in no way suggesting that this is possible with these TC motors. I've not measured. I don't know if anyone else has either. to me, it seems that it's a lot easier to replace with a 2L, than to try to build something like this.

[FiatMac]

I am in no way suggesting that this is possible with these TC motors. I've not measured. I don't know if anyone else has either. to me, it seems that it's a lot easier to replace with a 2L, than to try to build something like this.

I agree with just going with a 2 Liter. The 1756 stroker was done by PBS Engineering years ago to get around some rules in a racing class. See the thread below "Building a 'stroker' 1756":
http://www.fiatspider.com/f08/viewtopic ... 17&t=14228
I am sure it would be expensive to do and apparently the longevity of the engine, at least in racing applications, was questionable.

[Berek]

That is very interesting. I would love to see the result of this. I am now on a mission lol. I will find a video of a completed conversion.

[vortspeloce]

You can't make a stroker without changing the stroke. Increasing rod-length does not make it a stroker.

Correct. I diverged the topic here. Typing on my phone makes it hard to proof read. Changing the rod length does not change the stroke. We can agree on that.

IF you increase rod-length, and shorten the piston, you've done nothing. You're merely suggesting taking a different approach to reaching exactly the same distance between the crank throw and top-of-piston. This has no benefit, unless you build-in some compression increase, which could be done much easier with a piston swap.

It is not accurate to say "you've done nothing" and "This has no benefit". There are many reasons that longer rods make some sense. With a longer rod you increase the dwell time at TDC, which increases combustion efficiency. It is also accepted that you have a better/flatter power curve by increasing rod length which can lead to stroked engine like performance. It is quoted that Smokey Yunick points out in his books to get the longest rods possible for these and other reasons. Another reason to use longer rods is to reduce piston speeds (delayed until further down the bore) which reduces tensile loading on the rod. Additionally a longer rod reduces maximum rod angle and thus reduces friction and side loading on the piston and reduced bore wear. I read that BMW used longer rods in their 80's 4 cylinder turbo F1 cars and gained 4-5% power increase due to the lower friction losses. Apparently both V10 and V8 F1 cars run serious rod length/stroke ratios of 2.2 to 2.8. The 1800 Fiat engine runs 1.6.

There is a ton of info out there on this which has been likened to a religious debate I am not advocating either way, it is merely an interesting topic to consider.

[maytag]

IF you increase rod-length, and shorten the piston, you've done nothing. You're merely suggesting taking a different approach to reaching exactly the same distance between the crank throw and top-of-piston. This has no benefit, unless you build-in some compression increase, which could be done much easier with a piston swap.

It is not accurate to say "you've done nothing" and "This has no benefit". There are many reasons that longer rods make some sense. With a longer rod you increase the dwell time at TDC, which increases combustion efficiency. It is also accepted that you have a better/flatter power curve by increasing rod length which can lead to stroked engine like performance. It is quoted that Smokey Yunick points out in his books to get the longest rods possible for these and other reasons. Another reason to use longer rods is to reduce piston speeds (delayed until further down the bore) which reduces tensile loading on the rod. Additionally a longer rod reduces maximum rod angle and thus reduces friction and side loading on the piston and reduced bore wear. I read that BMW used longer rods in their 80's 4 cylinder turbo F1 cars and gained 4-5% power increase due to the lower friction losses. Apparently both V10 and V8 F1 cars run serious rod length/stroke ratios of 2.2 to 2.8. The 1800 Fiat engine runs 1.6.

There is a ton of info out there on this which has been likened to a religious debate I am not advocating either way, it is merely an interesting topic to consider.

I think you are still confusing theories.
A longer rod can provide many of the benefits you've mentioned above; but not when coupled with a shorter piston which results in the same net rod-piston length. The exception to this being the max rod angle; a longer rod will reduce rod angle, as you've suggested. I'm not aware that the TC motor suffers from any issues related to rod angle, are you?
But ALL of the other benefits you've suggested which can be realized from a longer rod are completely negated by the shorter piston you paired it with to compensate for your constant: deck-height. Your assertion would be correct if you prefaced it with "all other factors being equal..." or something similar.

And don't get me going on Yunick. He'd be the first one to tell you that 98% of the $h!t he tried FAILED MISERABLY. He would further tell you that he never had a single stroke of genius. ALL of his "tricks" (Yes, every single one) were happy accidents he came across by trying to find new and more-clever ways to cheat. He'd use those words to describe it. He felt that the rule book was there to be broken, not to provide parity. Caution to those who look to him as a pinnacle of ingenuity; he left behind himself a wake of broken parts, bankrupt partners, failed ideas, broken contracts, sanctions and citations and many more enemies than friends. Did I like him? yup. in small doses. very small.

And remember: we are talking about the TC motor here: not engine-building theory in general. (Otherwise we'd be talking about the benefits of a "square motor" theory). The TC has a very specific set of parts and relatively few variables. I still say that a 2L provides HUGE benefit over any crappy cobbled-together "hope-it-runs" Frankenstein of a bastardized motor with longer rods and shorter pistons. and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.

[vortspeloce]

I think you are still confusing theories.
A longer rod can provide many of the benefits you've mentioned above; but not when coupled with a shorter piston which results in the same net rod-piston length.

A nice change of perspective here from "nothing gained". Can you define your term "shorter piston"? Setting a pistons compression height can be done in multiple ways. We can set the pin location or we can reduce the piston deck. The words "shorter piston" is entirely your own, not something I mentioned.

The exception to this being the max rod angle; a longer rod will reduce rod angle, as you've suggested. I'm not aware that the TC motor suffers from any issues related to rod angle, are you?

There is a reason that Fiat offset the piston pins for the TC engine.

But ALL of the other benefits you've suggested which can be realized from a longer rod are completely negated by the shorter piston you paired it with to compensate for your constant: deck-height. Your assertion would be correct if you prefaced it with "all other factors being equal..." or something similar.

The term "shorter piston" is entirely yours. I am not sure why you are using this terminology. My words were "reduced CH" with respect to forged pistons to make the system work. There are plenty of options when using forged pistons. No where did I define what reduction in CH would be required or the method one would utilize to undertake such task.

And don't get me going on Yunick. He'd be the first one to tell you that 98% of the $h!t he tried FAILED MISERABLY. He would further tell you that he never had a single stroke of genius.

Regardless of the Yunick rant, Monroe, Vizard, Voegelin and many more all state that one should use the longest rod possible. I am happy to quote verbatim here if you wish.

My only point here is that there is merit in longer rods. To dismiss it as "nothing gained" does not add anything to this discussion.

I still say that a 2L provides HUGE benefit over any crappy cobbled-together "hope-it-runs" Frankenstein of a bastardized motor

The irony of your last sentence is not lost on me.

[maytag]

look, vortspeloce; it seems you are looking for an argument over something different than we were discussing. you're arguing what you think are absolutes from me, when in fact, they are not. I am specifically talking about the TC motor. And in the TC motor, you have gained NOTHING by lengthening the rod, when you follow that up with a shorter piston to maintain the same deck height.
And since you are set on playing semantics, I would define "shorter piston" as the CH, or distance from wristpin CL to top of quench area. Although I'm sure you'll find something wrong with that definition.

But hey, if you want to try it out, by all means; go for it. keep us posted on how that goes, will ya? Keep track of your budget, and your time. Keep track of all of the machining and re-engineering required. And then show me ANY benefits from it. even one.

and by the way; the irony IS lost on me. I don't know what you are referring to, and wonder if you know the meaning of Irony?
I DO wonder if you've ever BUILT a motor, or if all of your 'experience' comes from books? Because it sure seems like you should understand these very basic principles.
And the way you're grasping at semantic straws to try to "win" a non-existent argument reminds me of Steve C.
Are you Steve C.? Because that would explain a lot of things. It would explain your misunderstanding of the word "irony", and shed new light on your take on my comments.

[vortspeloce]

look, vortspeloce; it seems you are looking for an argument over something different than we were discussing. you're arguing what you think are absolutes from me, when in fact, they are not.

Unfortunately maytag you are the only one that has absolutes. Us the readers have no idea on the absolutes in your mind. You tend to put words into other people's mouths to help persuade or distract from fact.

I am specifically talking about the TC motor. And in the TC motor, you have gained NOTHING by lengthening the rod, when you follow that up with a shorter piston to maintain the same deck height.

I put it to you that you in-fact know very little about the TC motor. This is highlighted by the fact you seemed unaware of the pin offset. Tell me why Fiat did this? Would rod angle have a similar purpose? Why is it that you completely ignore facts in your response and move to complete rambling which is not backed up by any references or anything founded on fact?

And since you are set on playing semantics, I would define "shorter piston" as the CH, or distance from wristpin CL to top of quench area. Although I'm sure you'll find something wrong with that definition.

That is a most interesting definition. Are you sure CH is the encompasses the "top of the quench area"? I think you will find that the definition of piston Compression Height is from the center of the piston pin to the deck of the piston and has nothing to do with the "top of the quench". Unless of course "top of the quench" has a "special" maytag meaning.

and by the way; the irony IS lost on me. I don't know what you are referring to, and wonder if you know the meaning of Irony?

"Frankenstein builds". Questioning members on their knowledge. Are you not the person that has the "purple cams" thread? I rest my case.

I DO wonder if you've ever BUILT a motor, or if all of your 'experience' comes from books? Because it sure seems like you should understand these very basic principles.

That is more a question for you. Frankenstein builds. Ignoring advice from people with a tremendous amount of experience. And now your definition of Compression Height? I think you could do with hitting the books.

Are you Steve C.? Because that would explain a lot of things. It would explain your misunderstanding of the word "irony", and shed new light on your take on my comments.

It is interesting that you mentioned Steve C. I have had dealings with Steve in the past. He sent me a part (that I paid a few hundred dollars for) that turned out to be the wrong part. I did not go accusing him, blaming him and slandering him online. I let him know about the problem and he resolved the issue even though he had gone to considerable hassle and expense (the part went to the machinists before he posted) before I received it. I think it all comes down to how you deal with people. Your openly combative manner is on display for everyone to see. Maybe this contributed to the bad experience you had with Steve?

Additionally, I would like to point out that YOU (using your own capitals) are doing this community here a great disservice by chasing off people like Steve. Even though I would likely never buy from him again, I do respect the fact that he knows an enormous amount about Fiat engines. He tends to share his knowledge freely with the community and clearly knows much more than both of us about these engines. By you personally chasing him off this board your robbing the entire community of that knowledge. And for what? What do we the community get in return?

Apologies to anyone reading this Fisking of maytag, but it had to happen for everyone's sanity. I am pretty much done with this thread. I have made my point on longer rods with ample evidence and reasoning. I do not want to see this thread denigrate any further. So I will be the bigger person and leave it to maytag to have the last word, because lets face it, he seems like the "type" (and we all know one) that would need to have the last word every time.

[RRoller123]

Gentlemen! Take it outside and settle it on the racetrack!

[maytag]

I'd love to settle it on the racetrack, where I'd absolutely kick his ever-lovin' ass.

vortsplooge; can you even read English? Because you wander all over the place in your commentary on my posts. You clearly have not understood the sentences I've used.
So let me see if I can communicate the same way you do, with half-cocked thoughts in a jumbled-up mess.

Steve C is a duechebag and a lieing sack of scumbag waste. He's also a crook. Its been proven, repeatedly.
He also can't do simple math, or read a calendar.

Go read the purple cam thread again and ask yourself who doesn't know the TC motor, when I can't get a single knowledgeable answer on what crank degrees FIAT set FL to?

I never, ever claimed to be a TC expert. I've built MANY, MANY motors of many types. This was my first TC. Funny that you avoided the question... so I assert again that you've never built a motor. Not that you have to, to know anything, but you are arguing points that shouldn't be argued. And of course, you've avoided the question there too. 'cuz you prefer to play semantics, like some Bill Clinton wannabe. OF course I'm aware of the pin offset. What does that have to do with the question? It seems Fiat built-in a grand solution to several problems. I asked if you are aware of the TC motor having a problem with rod-angle? and you happily avoided the question, as you have all of my other questions.

I think you ARE Steve C.

So you're going on my "ignore posts from this member" list.

And if you think I'm doing such a disservice, then quit. 'cuz frankly, I'm unaware of ANYONE who misses you, Steve. You are a coward and a crook.

disservice? what a predator you are. you come flying in here with a recent join date and a half-dozen posts, obviously posing as someone other than who you are, and attack.
go back and read my posts where I'm actually helping people, instead of telling them how stupid they are, the way you always did / do. You go off on these rants that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the question. You then tell everyone else they're stupid because we don't use the same parts you use, which, conveniently you have for sale.

Tell me again how much of a disservice I am to this community?
coward. crook. a$$bag.

and lastly:
tell us all again, really, how you intend to build a stroker motor without changing the crank, by using a longer rod but using the same piston and block. tell us about the benefits of this. tell us how grand it will work for you.
because that's what your entire argument has been.
Then tell the poor OP who asked about it how you have these longer rods for sale.