b5 s4 2.7t vs b8 3.0t

[IMOLA_KEV]

hey guys got nothing to do today (just spent 2 hours finding specs for 2.7t and 3.0t engines) so i though i'd start thread on a comparison of these motors. looking through the specs the 2.7t seems like the stronger motor (minus cast con rods) for high hp builds, although the 3.0t does have direct injection variabable valve timing on both intake and exhaust side. supercharger vs turbo? blah blah blah..... let me know what you think










3.0 tsfi - engine specs


- 3.0 supercharged gasoline engine with fsi direct injection
- four valves per cylinder
- 2-stage variable intake manifold
- Bore - 3.33 in (84.5mm)
- Stroke- 3.50 in (89mm)
- compression ratio - 10.3:1
- fuel requirment - 91 oct
- horsepower - 333hp @ 5500-7000
- max torque - 325lbs @ 2900-5300
- cylinder block - aluminum
- cylinder head - aluminum
- valvetrain - DOHC with hydraulic adjustment
- fuel injection - electronic engine management, drive by wire, fsi direct injection
- crankshaft - forged steel *edit*
- pistons - forged aluminum
- displacment -2998cc (182.9 cu in)
- dry weight - 417lbs






2.7t engine specs


- 2.7 Liters
- 6 Cylenders
- 5 Valves per Liter
- Bore: 3.19 in. (81 mm)
- Stroke: 3.40 in. (86.4 mm)
- Displacement: 163 cu. in. (2671 cc)
- Compression Ratio: 9.3:1
- Horsepower (SAE Net): 250 @ 5800 RPM
- Torque: 258 ft. lbs.@ 1850 RPM
- Cylinder block: Cast Iron
- Crankshaft: Forged Steel, 4 main bearings
- Cylinder head: Aluminum alloy
- Valve Train: DOHC, belt driven, hydraulic lifters / variable intake valve timing and variable geometry composite intake manifold
- Firing Order: 1-4-3-6-2-5
- Cooling System: Water-cooled, thermostatically controlled radiator fan
- dry weight - 489lbs with turbos

[julex]

Seems to me like there is too much aluminum used inside of 3.0t, namely crankshaft and block to be capable of anything approaching current 2.7t limits without doing something with at least the crank. There is also a problem of stock compression on 3.0t which is too high for serious boost.

[AWDriver]

Aluminum crank... Gonna have to look into this one...

[tosh2.7]

also they have a HUGE problem with there water pumps housing/seal failing on stock boost alone. Some work needed for the crank bearing to hold any real ridiculous hp too.

[IMOLA_KEV]

also they have a HUGE problem with there water pumps housing/seal failing on stock boost alone. Some work needed for the crank bearing to hold any real ridiculous hp too.

yep this engine was built to be as fuel efficient as possible hence all the use of aluminum to reduce rotating mass. They don't build them as they used to as the saying goes
(like the 2.7t)

[TipTucker01]

Has anyone tested what the 3.0t block can handle for power?

[UkuRiSh]

would be nice to make it custom twin turbo 3.0T with supercharger :)

[rockcandy]

also they have a HUGE problem with there water pumps housing/seal failing on stock boost alone. Some work needed for the crank bearing to hold any real ridiculous hp too.

The H2O pump failure has absolutely nothing to do with boost. It is just a crappy plastic water pump. It is the exact same water pump Audi uses on all their V6 engines right now including the TDI 3.0 and the 3.2 (not boosted). They are all leaking and I have done gobs of them. The amount of plastic on the supercharged 3.0 is lame. Regardless, the SC 3.0 imho, will be sick once folks figure out how to modify them. (not just a simple tune)

[FNK]

"Sherif" use a 3.0 from a B6 and he Bi-Turbo'ed it to 588 wheel hp!
Very potent build! You can ask him in the B5 S4 section;

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...rif-3.0l-build

[GURUMAN]

"Sherif" use a 3.0 from a B6 and he Bi-Turbo'ed it to 588 wheel hp!
Very potent build! You can ask him in the B5 S4 section;

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...rif-3.0l-build

Has nothing to do with 3.0L stated above...

[Sherif]

absolutely nothing

[tosh2.7]

The H2O pump failure has absolutely nothing to do with boost. It is just a crappy plastic water pump. It is the exact same water pump Audi uses on all their V6 engines right now including the TDI 3.0 and the 3.2 (not boosted). They are all leaking and I have done gobs of them. The amount of plastic on the supercharged 3.0 is lame. Regardless, the SC 3.0 imho, will be sick once folks figure out how to modify them. (not just a simple tune)

Your absolutely right with what your saying, saying I've done a shit ton also on the VW side. Ive only noticed that on my friends cars that when they got tuned the water pump blew on the way home. Its probably coincidence and I totally agree with you on they will be SICK fully tuned

[Aggv]

Turbo > Supercharger

[sean1.8t]

Seems to me like there is too much aluminum used inside of 3.0t, namely crankshaft and block to be capable of anything approaching current 2.7t limits without doing something with at least the crank. There is also a problem of stock compression on 3.0t which is too high for serious boost.

Direct injection. There is a reason the CR is so high on fsi engines[fuel systems], they are designed for it

[IMOLA_KEV]

Direct injection. There is a reason the CR is so high on fsi engines[fuel systems], they are designed for it

true, direct injection cools the combustion chamber allowing you to have a higher compression with out pre detonation

[julex]

true, direct injection cools the combustion chamber allowing you to have a higher compression with out pre detonation

What?

Injecting a fuel is injecting a fuel. Direct injection doesn't inject any more or less fuel than B5 "Stone age" system that sprays it down the heads' intakes. Stoich AFR is stoich AFR. Direct injection might allow for slightly better distribution of fuel and more timely injection of it but then that's why B5 has THREE intake valves vs two valves on 3.0t.

You DO KNOW that 3.0t engine doesn't run any serious boost in stock form and therefore it doesn't ping at all? They can afford higher compression ratio since it is running on a bleeding edge of its performance. Audi learned its lessons from previous generations where people are reliably daily driving 500-600whp 2.7ts for years without any problems so long couple of weak MECHANICAL items are fixed proving that their conservative design was far to conservative for its own sake and only implemented to facilitate 4.2L/RS4/Rs6 sales? The truth is that you could probably re-do the 2.7t to 3.0t's compression ratio and running stock it would never get any timing correction anyway and would have the same if not more power. No parasitic supercharger would free some ponies....

[sean1.8t]

What?

Injecting a fuel is injecting a fuel. Direct injection doesn't inject any more or less fuel than B5 "Stone age" system that sprays it down the heads' intakes. Stoich AFR is stoich AFR. Direct injection might allow for slightly better distribution of fuel and more timely injection of it but then that's why B5 has THREE intake valves vs two valves on 3.0t.

You DO KNOW that 3.0t engine doesn't run any serious boost in stock form and therefore it doesn't ping at all? They can afford higher compression ratio since it is running on a bleeding edge of its performance. Audi learned its lessons from previous generations where people are reliably daily driving 500-600whp 2.7ts for years without any problems so long couple of weak MECHANICAL items are fixed proving that their conservative design was far to conservative for its own sake and only implemented to facilitate 4.2L/RS4/Rs6 sales? The truth is that you could probably re-do the 2.7t to 3.0t's compression ratio and running stock it would never get any timing correction anyway and would have the same if not more power. No parasitic supercharger would free some ponies....

Do more research and less posting.

But I don't want to type everything out for you as I'm on my phone, but basically, you're wrong.100% wrong. And what Imola_kev said is spot on. Don't believe me, look it up. Look up all of the 2.0t FSI motors that are running high/stock CR and boosting in the 20's and 30's with big turbo setups

[IMOLA_KEV]

What?

Injecting a fuel is injecting a fuel. Direct injection doesn't inject any more or less fuel than B5 "Stone age" system that sprays it down the heads' intakes. Stoich AFR is stoich AFR. Direct injection might allow for slightly better distribution of fuel and more timely injection of it but then that's why B5 has THREE intake valves vs two valves on 3.0t.

You DO KNOW that 3.0t engine doesn't run any serious boost in stock form and therefore it doesn't ping at all? They can afford higher compression ratio since it is running on a bleeding edge of its performance. Audi learned its lessons from previous generations where people are reliably daily driving 500-600whp 2.7ts for years without any problems so long couple of weak MECHANICAL items are fixed proving that their conservative design was far to conservative for its own sake and only implemented to facilitate 4.2L/RS4/Rs6 sales? The truth is that you could probably re-do the 2.7t to 3.0t's compression ratio and running stock it would never get any timing correction anyway and would have the same if not more power. No parasitic supercharger would free some ponies....

k bro got to kick you some knowlege, do you even know what direct injection means? do you know why it has a cooling effect on cylinder temperature? well like sean1.8t said you should do some research rather than throw out false info. Im at work right now so i wont get into all the scientific details (www.google.com) but when you inject fuel directly into a cylinder at pressures up to 26,000 psi (compare that to a normal injection system at 40 psi) at that pressure the fuel instantly atomizes as it swirles around the chamber, this lowers cylinder temperatues by taking energy (heat) away from it having a cooling effect. This enables you to run a higher compression without the fear of pre-detonation, its also far more efficient because less fuel is used per combustion cycle, hope that kinda clears things up for you and just remember "injecting fuel is injecting fuel" is right per say but that would be like saying a carb and fuel injection are the same cause they both inject fuel.


p.s when i get home tonight i might start a thread on how to do research before you post! (if i have time)

[URHank]

I have never broke open a b8 v6, so I can not comment on strength, but I do wanna say that Audi learned it's lesson with the b7 rs4, and the inflated numbers it put out. While the 420hp rs4 struggles to make 300whp on mustang dynos, the 330hp b8 s4 almost makes that hp in stock trim at the wheels. They are very underrated for power. A b5 s4 is lucky to get 200whp stock, and usually comes in around the 185whp range.

[beemercer]

Aluminum crankshaft, interesting

[ThirdStrike]

I dont see the point of this...
One person's questioning Audi's already proven designs, and the meaning of the thread is to compare a 12 year old motor to current production..
:yawn:
I drove a b8 over this past weekend. It was FUN. ...I'll still take my beat ass b5 tho

[wdbdy2000s4]

p.s when i get home tonight i might start a thread on how to do research before you post! (if i have time)

Please don't

[GURUMAN]

Try gathering interest in the B8 section before experiencing the B5 section, since nothing relevant will be posted !

[julex]

I admit that my reply was hasty and I pressed reply button to wrong post anyway,my bad. I also educated myself on direct injection, thanks.

What makes me wonder is how much room is there left in direct injectors for fuel that might be needed for higher boost levels... are we talking expensive replacement injectors here?

[sweets4style]

k bro got to kick you some knowlege, do you even know what direct injection means? do you know why it has a cooling effect on cylinder temperature? well like sean1.8t said you should do some research rather than throw out false info. Im at work right now so i wont get into all the scientific details (www.google.com) but when you inject fuel directly into a cylinder at pressures up to 26,000 psi (compare that to a normal injection system at 40 psi) at that pressure the fuel instantly atomizes as it swirles around the chamber, this lowers cylinder temperatues by taking energy (heat) away from it having a cooling effect. This enables you to run a higher compression without the fear of pre-detonation, its also far more efficient because less fuel is used per combustion cycle, hope that kinda clears things up for you and just remember "injecting fuel is injecting fuel" is right per say but that would be like saying a carb and fuel injection are the same cause they both inject fuel.


p.s when i get home tonight i might start a thread on how to do research before you post! (if i have time)

Kind of a jerk statement considering you are regergitationg googled works in summary instead of understanding the concepts. You are correct in the fact that it provides a cooling effect but you clearly dont understand why. Whether you inject more fuel in the intake runners or into the combustion chamber you are clearly going to get a cooling effect. latency of heat would be the variable you would be changing for the system. The only difference is the fine atomization that spreads this cooling effect to more of the homeogenous charge mixture. It brings it much closer to ideal charge mixing used in standard equations. That is why you can run a higher compression ratio without fear of an occasional low quality gas fillup etc that the engineer's account for. It has little to do with the cooling effect and substantially more to do with the atomization promoting a leaner and cleaner and more consistent burn. WIth that cosnistency comes higher ability to have more compression, more ignition advance, and more boost. You can synthetically achieve this ability by purely cooling by adding a ton more fuel or e85 or water/meth. But your not getting the mixture to "mix' better you are just synethically raising its threshold for pinging by lowering temps. The pressure is purely what is allowing for this finer atotmization. It doesnt even need to be anywhere near that high if you were not trying to overcome combustion chamber pressure from the piston's stroke. The number of valve design has nothing to do with atomization either as that is a give and take between total CFM flow and port velocity. This also has a lot to do with port shape and runner length but to keep it simple that is a quick explanation.

Maybe share some real information instead of generalities and mocking someone else since he was actually on the right track, allmost correct. While you just added one googled fact and thought that was the be all explanation. Read a book, something you can get real quantitative information from experts not internet engineers like yourself who googles.

[IMOLA_KEV]

The purpose of this thread is to compare the b5's proven 2.7t to be able to take alot of hp and not blow up. Looking at the new 3.0t which may be audi's new tuneable platform, just wanted to point out the strengths a weakness's of both engine's cause i know as parts become available for this motor someone is going to try to implant this into a b5. personally i'd take the 2.7t and my b5 but obviously b8 guys are going to think differently, but only time will tell....

[GURUMAN]

IMOLA KEV, only in Quebec would be possible to do such a Swap... :o)

[NOTORIOUS VR]

Pulling the 2.7t and putting a 3.0T in it's place would be the stupidest thing someone could do IMO.

[IMOLA_KEV]

IMOLA KEV, only in Quebec would be possible to do such a Swap... :o)

lol by u i take it, actually what i meant by "someone eventually swap this in a b5, i had a feeling you'd be the first to do this (hint)

[IMOLA_KEV]

yeah 2.7t is a much stronger engine thats 4 sure, but according to audi they worked on the 3.0t to be as fuel efficient as possible, using aluminum as much as possible and increasing air flow through the heads. I think the heads will probably out flow 2.8 heads for sure, the only thing that scares me is the aluminum crank and block but mabye it might get a iron block when it makes it way to the q7 i dunno.

[GURUMAN]

Honnestly, The next thin I will try will probably be boosting a Sleeved 3.2 V6 or 4.2 V8 or 5.2 V10

I found my guy to work on my future Aluminium project.

[IMOLA_KEV]

Kind of a jerk statement considering you are regergitationg googled works in summary instead of understanding the concepts. You are correct in the fact that it provides a cooling effect but you clearly dont understand why. Whether you inject more fuel in the intake runners or into the combustion chamber you are clearly going to get a cooling effect. latency of heat would be the variable you would be changing for the system. The only difference is the fine atomization that spreads this cooling effect to more of the homeogenous charge mixture. It brings it much closer to ideal charge mixing used in standard equations. That is why you can run a higher compression ratio without fear of an occasional low quality gas fillup etc that the engineer's account for. It has little to do with the cooling effect and substantially more to do with the atomization promoting a leaner and cleaner and more consistent burn. WIth that cosnistency comes higher ability to have more compression, more ignition advance, and more boost. You can synthetically achieve this ability by purely cooling by adding a ton more fuel or e85 or water/meth. But your not getting the mixture to "mix' better you are just synethically raising its threshold for pinging by lowering temps. The pressure is purely what is allowing for this finer atotmization. It doesnt even need to be anywhere near that high if you were not trying to overcome combustion chamber pressure from the piston's stroke. The number of valve design has nothing to do with atomization either as that is a give and take between total CFM flow and port velocity. This also has a lot to do with port shape and runner length but to keep it simple that is a quick explanation.

Maybe share some real information instead of generalities and mocking someone else since he was actually on the right track, allmost correct. While you just added one googled fact and thought that was the be all explanation. Read a book, something you can get real quantitative information from experts not internet engineers like yourself who googles.

that petty much sums up what i posted, however the atomising of the fuel is what what cools the chamber, the fuel at that psi creates a much finer mist which fully envelopes the cylinder, this lowers the temperature by absorbing heat allowing you to run a higher compression without the need for race gas or water/meth all the while burning less fuel and more air to produce the same hp on less boost. This couldn't be possible if injected in the intake manifold because of the distance the fuel would need to travel to get to the cylinder this reduces the consistancy of the atomization in the cylinder wich lowers the cooling ability. I mean thats why us s4 guys run water/meth right for the cooling effect so we could run more timing and get more hp.

as for researching stuff on google thats how i, if not most of us learn things we dont know, i am by no means a engineer or a scientist but that dosen't mean i can't search something i dont know. who knows your probably googled that yourself too :)

[IMOLA_KEV]

yeah! you'd be a pioneer if your did that, 4.2 all the way as the say there's no replacment for displacment right? btw that motor screams to 8500rpm.....I wish i had some $$$ I'll take donations if your willing to give :)

[GURUMAN]

yeah! you'd be a pioneer if your did that, 4.2 all the way as the say there's no replacment for displacment right? btw that motor screams to 8500rpm.....I wish i had some $$$ I'll take donations if your willing to give :)

I swapped on in my DD Avant A4

love the sound !

[Shomegrown]

This thread is bullshit-tastic.

1.) No way is the 3.0T's crank aluminum. It's C38 forged steel.

2.) Doublecheck your 2.7T's weight, it's 200 kg.

The 3.0T shares some of the bottom end with the RS6 V10TT which is built like a brick shithouse and has been putting down over 800 hp reliably in Europe for a while.

I'm pretty comfortable the 3.0T will handle similar power on the stock block as the 2.7T. It will be more difficult to build the engine from that point on though. Time will tell.

[NOTORIOUS VR]

This thread is bullshit-tastic.

hahaha

[GURUMAN]

Aluminium Block and main caps dosent mean it can not take boost, LOOK AT HONDAS !!!

I would just sleeve the thing and than crank the boost and fuel !

[IMOLA_KEV]

This thread is bullshit-tastic.

1.) No way is the 3.0T's crank aluminum. It's C38 forged steel.

2.) Doublecheck your 2.7T's weight, it's 200 kg.

The 3.0T shares some of the bottom end with the RS6 V10TT which is built like a brick shithouse and has been putting down over 800 hp reliably in Europe for a while.

I'm pretty comfortable the 3.0T will handle similar power on the stock block as the 2.7T. It will be more difficult to build the engine from that point on though. Time will tell.

the engine your thinking of thats related to the v10 is the 32 valve 4.2 fsi, and the 3.0t does have a forge aluminum crank basically the entire engine is built from aluminum.
and as far as the weights go 2.7t weight according spec sheet is listed as 489lbs its a heavy engine (iron block steel crank and pistons) i don't know how much power a 3.0t could handle like you said only time will tell, but im sure that being a aumininum block it ain't gunna handle more than the 2.7t. the v10 is a tough motor though undergroung racing built a gallardo twin turbo with 1500hp so im not saying that aluminum blocks cant take big horsepower

btw please post links to specs where you got the info

[IMOLA_KEV]

I swapped on in my DD Avant A4

love the sound !

nice is that the 40 valve or the 32? got any turbo plans?

[Shomegrown]

the engine your thinking of thats related to the v10 is the 32 valve 4.2 fsi, and the 3.0t does have a forge aluminum crank basically the entire engine is built from aluminum.
and as far as the weights go 2.7t weight according spec sheet is listed as 489lbs its a heavy engine (iron block steel crank and pistons) i don't know how much power a 3.0t could handle like you said only time will tell, but im sure that being a aumininum block it ain't gunna handle more than the 2.7t.

btw please post links to specs where you got the info

You're mistaken my friend.

1.) Look up part numbers in ETKA and you can see what parts the 3.0T and 5.0TT share.

2.) Look up the SSP on the 2.7T (#198) to give you accurate weight specification.

3.) Information on the construction of the Audi V6 (and crankshaft material) can be found in SSP #411 and #437.

4.) The whole engine isn't Aluminum. The bearing bridges in the bedplate are cast iron and GJS50.

If you don't have access to these technical documents, they can be purchased from Bentley.

http://www.bentleypublishers.com/audi/