2.7T Stroker... talk me into it, or talk me out of it.

[PovGRide742]

Hello everyone,

As most people do, I'm sure... I've gotten used to my car (FrankenTurbo Stage III, 400AWHP). There's a few issues I need to sort out with it, but other than that I have the car pretty well taken care off.

I want to build a spare motor. I'm not trying to fool myself... I'm not going for 1000HP, not going for a one-off fabricated engine bay, and I'm not going for something unstreetable. My main goal is something overbuilt for what's being pushed through it, decent off-boost power, and quick spool.

As far as turbos go, I like the quick response of my FrankenTurbos... but there's already lag (as to be expected) at lower speeds in certain gears. I don't usually go for high speeds on the highway, so I guess you could say my build is more acceleration oriented. For this reason, I'm looking to stay away from GT28s, 770Rs, and so on.

As far as the engine goes, I don't want to take a lot of material out, but I do want more displacement than 2.7L. To go 2.8L on the stock crank would require a bore of 83mm (82.5mm if you consider 2.770L a 2.8L), which I will not do. I want to be able to hold power for sustained amounts of time without worrying about overheating. So we take into account a 3.0L crank. Stepping the bore up from the stock 81.0mm to 81.5mm nets 2.905L, which is perfect... not a lot of material removed, but .2L more than stock. I WILL NOT bore the necessary 83mm to reach 3.0L (82.5mm if you consider 2.976L a 3.0L).

Being that I don't plan on running huge turbos and pushing an excessive amount of boost, I'd like to 9.0:1 compression. This should help sustain off-boost throttle response and safely handle the boost levels I'm going for on 93 octane.

So this is the game plan...
3.0L crank (92.8mm stroke)
81.5mm bore (2.9L on 3.0 crank)
9.0:1 compression
TiAL 605.2s or JHM RS6-Rs

Now the question of concern...
There is a common issued with 3.0L strokers of oil consumption. Before hearing this... I looked into a custom set of JE pistons (92.8mm stroke, 81.5mm bore, 9.0:1 compression). However, from just a little research and other's input, it appears the oil consumption is most commonly caused by two problems:
1. Improper piston to wall clearance... corrected with proper tolerances.
2. Angle of piston against cylinder wall due to increased stroke... corrected by proper ring spacing.

In regards to #1, I won't be running a lot of boost, so a tighter tolerance should be fine in my build. In regards to #2, it sounds like the ONLY pistons that seem to ring spacing that won't cause oil burning are those sourced from Jason@AMD (Wiseco IIRC). The fact that I'll only be doing 2.9L vs. 3.0L shouldn't change the fact I need to make sure these two things are correct... so if I do go through with this, I'll be sourcing my pistons from him (unless I'm convinced otherwise).

So those are my plans. Talk me into it, or out of it... or correct me in anything I've said. I already have a 3.0L crank on the way, but it wouldn't be a huge deal to rid of it if I bail.

Thanks,
Brett

[Meow]

Do a long rod 2.7 and rev to 8500. /thread

[8520]

How much power are you trying to achieve? It seems like a lot of work to gain what, 100-125whp?

I personally came in to this thread thinking you were going to destroke a 2.7 and got all excited.

Reading comprehension
______________________

My head.

[aysix]

First, did you dyno to make sure you are at 400whp?

Get meth and retuned?

E85?

[1gcrazy]

First, did you dyno to make sure you are at 400whp?

Get meth and retuned?

E85?

Forget meth, go E85 and just be done with it...

[FlyboyS4]

Forget meth, go E85 and just be done with it...

Why? Cool the charge air and get more into the cylinder.

[BlazinB5]

more displacement = more low end torque/power = more fun

[julex]

first off, 2.7 is not really that, it is really 2660 or something close to that so with wiseco you get 250cc. that's for.displacement.

little known fact is that with long stroke, which is nothing else than rod bearing situated further off crank center, you also get increased torque due to you fulcrum arm being further out than on non-stroker motor.

Stroked motor gets more torque from two sources which are multiplicative, hence why they have more power than just a mere displacement would suggest.

They lose some of it by opting for lower compression, in your case it would only be couple of percents if that.

As to oil consumption... it is dependant on ring and piston design but improper break in procedures are most of time also the reason for it.

Having said that I have the 2.9er with amd/wiseco and after 100 miles of breaking in, I don't have any oil consumption issues.

[PovGRide742]

How much power are you trying to achieve? It seems like a lot of work to gain what, 100-125whp?

I personally came in to this thread thinking you were going to destroke a 2.7 and got all excited.

Reading comprehension
______________________

My head.

Yes... I'm looking for 5XX to the wheels. But it's not just the number, it's how soon the engine gets to that number, and how it feels off boost.

First, did you dyno to make sure you are at 400whp?

Get meth and retuned?

E85?

Old revision... timing and boost has since been raised slightly:

[PovGRide742]

more displacement = more low end torque/power = more fun

That's the idea behind the build... not to make MORE power, just where it's located, and how it comes on.

first off, 2.7 is not really that, it is really 2660 or something close to that so with wiseco you get 250cc. that's for.displacement.

little known fact is that with long stroke, which is nothing else than rod bearing situated further off crank center, you also get increased torque due to you fulcrum arm being further out than on non-stroker motor.

Stroked motor gets more torque from two sources which are multiplicative, hence why they have more power than just a mere displacement would suggest.

They lose some of it by opting for lower compression, in your case it would only be couple of percents if that.

As to oil consumption... it is dependant on ring and piston design but improper break in procedures are most of time also the reason for it.

Having said that I have the 2.9er with amd/wiseco and after 100 miles of breaking in, I don't have any oil consumption issues.

Yeah, I know the 2.7L is actually 2.671L when calculated.

I'm glad you posted this information... as it reconfirms my theories for doing the build. Also nice to hear another person with AMD (Wiseco) pistons without oil consumption. Would 9.0:1 be okay for (just for example) 28psi on TiAL 605.2s on 93 octane, or would you still suggest dropping to 8.5:1?

Also, in regards to your 2.9L... are you on the stock 81mm bore (2.869L) or 81.5mm bore (2.905L)?

[BlazinB5]

well there ya go.. more displacement it is - assuming you want low end torque/power

[FlyboyS4]

So this is the game plan...
3.0L crank (92.8mm stroke)
81.5mm bore (2.9L on 3.0 crank)
9.0:1 compression
TiAL 605.2s or JHM RS6-Rs

This is the route I'd go if I were building a motor, but stick with my F4H's for now. More grinning in the rpm range that I spend my time driving.

little known fact is that with long stroke, which is nothing else than rod bearing situated further off crank center, you also get increased torque due to you fulcrum arm being further out than on non-stroker motor.

Stroked motor gets more torque from two sources which are multiplicative, hence why they have more power than just a mere displacement would suggest.

Great point about the additional leverage that I had not thought of.

[julex]

[QUOTE=PovGRide742;8185957]That's the idea behind the build... not to make MORE power, just where it's located, and how it comes on.


Yeah, I know the 2.7L is actually 2.671L when calculated.

I'm glad you posted this information... as it reconfirms my theories for doing the build. Also nice to hear another person with AMD (Wiseco) pistons without oil consumption. Would 9.0:1 be okay for (just for example) 28psi on TiAL 605.2s on 93 octane, or would you still suggest dropping to 8.5:1?
Also, in regards to your 2.9L... are you on the stock 81mm bore (2.869L) or 81.5mm

The reason why smallest size is 81.5 is so that 0.5mm overbore is forced to even our old blocks that see wear, tear and ovalization

['00nogaros4]

I am looking to do basically this same build with rs6x turbos over the winter. I will be curious as to what you decide on. Subscribed!

[kbjy11]

hp to $ ratio is very bad if you decide to stroke it.. esp if you goal is acceleration and decide to stick to ko4 size turbos... also you are opening yourself to all the potential problems that come with building a block..

I would go meth and e85 and a retune to satisfy your need for speed.. enjoy the car.. and save your money for another platform or when things go wrong with the s4.

my 2 cents

[FlyboyS4]

Would 9.0:1 be okay for (just for example) 28psi on TiAL 605.2s on 93 octane, or would you still suggest dropping to 8.5:1?

The aspect of lowering the CR bothers me. The goal is to increase TQ via the longer stroke but that gets partly negated by lowering the CR. I had the stock CR with 605's boosting 26-27 psi and no w/m injection. I would think that keeping a 9.3 CR with the 3L crank and adding a safety margin with w/m would be fine so long as the boost level is kept reasonable. Not something I researched before so perhaps something with my logic is wrong.

[sektor M7]

http://www.loba-motorsport.com/en/pr...tons-mahle-124 would be the only piston I run if going 3.0.

Lowering the compression enables one to run much better timing besides the potential for more boost.

[FlyboyS4]

Lowering the compression enables one to run much better timing besides the potential for more boost.

My main goal is something overbuilt for what's being pushed through it, decent off-boost power, and quick spool.

How is lowering CR going to help the OP reach their goal? Lowering CR is going to hurt off-boost performance and higher boost calls for a bigger, more lag, turbo.

[UkuRiSh]

http://www.loba-motorsport.com/en/pr...tons-mahle-124 would be the only piston I run if going 3.0.

Lowering the compression enables one to run much better timing besides the potential for more boost.

This pistons over price $ 2000 JE Pistons is good price and quality .

[Matador]

http://www.loba-motorsport.com/en/pr...tons-mahle-124 would be the only piston I run if going 3.0.

Lowering the compression enables one to run much better timing besides the potential for more boost.

Just 'bout shit myself, Cap'n.

$2100 (before shipping) on pistons, rings, and wrist pins? You could get JE pistons and send them to Swain Tech for a full coat treatment and still have at least $500 left over.
http://www.ctsturbo.com/cart/product...-2566-265.html
Overbuilding is one thing, overspending is just a bad move.

[julex]

Lowering compression is a mixed bag of goodies:

Pros:
- lowered temps and less knock at the same boost level and timing between low CR and high CR engine
- due to the above, you can cram more charge than on high CR engine and have the same timing. Ofc that's not the goal so you just cram as much as the engine can take with knock being limiting factor.
- Now, here is the kicker granted you tune your car properly: overall higher timing possible ANYWHERE before knock is detectable, not only in boost!!!, so you can extract lost torque with higher timing in normal "Economy" mode. Fuel dependent ofc as I am not sure if this tactic would work all that well with E85 and higher as they already allow for crazy timing. No low CR needed for that fuel.

Cons:
- lowered thermal efficiency, economy suffers, but might be regained with adjusting timing for low-med load conditions.
- due to the above, lowered torque. 9.3 to 9.0 would be almost not perceivable, we are talking 1-2% loss of torque.

I have 8.5 on my 2.9L but I can't really tell you what the difference between 2.7 and 2.9 is, since in the process I also changed transmission on my AR from super short POS one to TDI and my gear ratios completely changed. FWIW with my much longer 2-3 gears and 2.9L stroker it feels about the same as pre-changes so it tells me that I indeed have much more torque than before. But I will be only able to tell in about 2-3 weeks once the engine is broken in.

If you're not looking for all out build, stick with stock block, but if you're already in there.... why not. Perhaps a set of rods and stock pistons are sure fire way to go with lessened risk of issues.

[martin0079]

I am willing to bet that CTSturbo could get you those pistons without the LOBA tax. A standard Mahle piston set is just shy of 900 I doubt these pistons cost too much more than that. Having said the mahle or wiseco are the only pistons I would use have used wiseco more than once before with good results.

[FlyboyS4]

- lowered thermal efficiency, economy suffers, but might be regained with adjusting timing for low-med load conditions.

I'm doubtful that the efficiency lost when lowering CR is recouped by advancing timing. The CR is basically setting what the cylinder pressure is going to rise to and timing is just going to shift where the peak falls relative to crank position. Lowering the pressure curve by lowering CR and then shifting the curve to the left by advancing timing doesn't make sense to me. The result is more heat being dumped into the cooling system instead of propelling the vehicle and the earlier pressure build-up fighting the piston longer during the compression stroke. Perhaps there's another factor at play, but it seems that over time automobiles have moved toward higher CR to obtain more work from the fuel rather than low CR's with more advanced timing.

[julex]

I'm doubtful that the efficiency lost when lowering CR is recouped by advancing timing. The CR is basically setting what the cylinder pressure is going to rise to and timing is just going to shift where the peak falls relative to crank position. Lowering the pressure curve by lowering CR and then shifting the curve to the left by advancing timing doesn't make sense to me. The result is more heat being dumped into the cooling system instead of propelling the vehicle and the earlier pressure build-up fighting the piston longer during the compression stroke. Perhaps there's another factor at play, but it seems that over time automobiles have moved toward higher CR to obtain more work from the fuel rather than low CR's with more advanced timing.

Correct. I am speculating... e.g. thinking outside of a box. Partially filled cylinder will burn mixture much slower than normally filled one. The fact is that audi tuned the ecu for lower loads with a very high safety limit which is never reached in normal operation. Light loads have this limit in 40-50 degrees of advance but engine runs at 1/2 that usually. So there is room, especially with low CR engine which has much wider safety margin, to adjust that and recover some lost torque.

I will be trying that once I get around some other issues my car is having and upgrades I have in the pipeline.

[034Motorsport]

I would venture to say that 90% of the oil consumption issues most people have seen have been because of tolerances. When you build a performance motor, you are not using the same ring gap, etc. For example, on our 3.0L GTi-RS motor, we of course kept the gap pretty wide since the car is not daily driven and needs room to expand and make big horsepower. Generally when you get a motor "built", the shop building it is going to build it for power, not oil consumption when daily driving.

If you are going to be doing that, you must explicitly relay this to the builder, otherwise the recommended JE piston specs for example are a bit wide for daily driving in cold conditions.

I've got over 12,000 miles on my 2.8L built motor, good compression all around, runs great, daily drove it everyday, consumes less oil than it did stock even with a vent to atmosphere catch can. I run 82.5mm JE pistons, and we've built many 82.5/83mm 3.0L builds without oil consumption issues, granted the person was daily driving the motor and not racing it.

****

To the OP, you mentioned wanting a specific powerband, and you suggested 605's, but say you don't want to deal with 770s? I'm confused by this statement considering 770s spool the same as 605s. A 3.0L with high compression and good gas on 770s will spool below 4000rpm.

I think you are expecting beyond the capability of your setup. 3.0L adds a LOT of money and while it will add +50ft/lbs of torque under the curve and help spool, if you are running K04 or RS6 based turbos you are losing out on a lot of powerband with such limited exhaust flow.

Shifting the powerband over doesn't make you any slower, it just requires be conscious of the powerband. If you love to floor it from 2000rpm, then you should be in a V8.

For example, why would you spend all that money on a 3.0L to gain a small amount of power early in the powerband, when all the money you spent on a 3.0L can support a huge amount more power in the higher rpms? RPM's don't have anything to do with high speeds.

3.0L RS6 cars are an absolute blast. The Giggles B5 S4 race car runs a 3.0L built by us with genuine RS6 turbos and the powerband is huge. But 3.0L on 770's isn't far off and has a lot more peak potential. If you have never been in a 770 car, I recommend it. Even with 2.8L, the car has a lot of power under the curve and down low.

[FlyboyS4]

Shifting the powerband over doesn't make you any slower, it just requires be conscious of the powerband. If you love to floor it from 2000rpm, then you should be in a V8.

Listen to your customer, learn what your customer wants, find a way to provide what your customer wants and you make money. Tell your customer to go buy a different car? Wasn't the point of Audi making a quick spooling bi-turbo to be a way to give customers that "V8" oomph without the V8 engine?

For example, why would you spend all that money on a 3.0L to gain a small amount of power early in the powerband

You said it would add ~50ft-lbs, that doesn't seem like a small gain.

For my clarification, in addition to the 3L crank and appropriate pistons, what other hardware requirements are there that come along with 3L of displacement?

3.0L RS6 cars are an absolute blast. The Giggles B5 S4 race car runs a 3.0L built by us with genuine RS6 turbos and the powerband is huge.

Aren't 605's and RS6-R's comparable to the RS6? The OP was talking about potentially going with those turbo's. I'm a bit confused about whether a 3L RS6 is a blast or if the car is "losing out on a lot of powerband with such limited exhaust flow." as you say above.

[034Motorsport]

Listen to your customer, learn what your customer wants, find a way to provide what your customer wants and you make money. Tell your customer to go buy a different car? Wasn't the point of Audi making a quick spooling bi-turbo to be a way to give customers that "V8" oomph without the V8 engine?



You said it would add ~50ft-lbs, that doesn't seem like a small gain.

For my clarification, in addition to the 3L crank and appropriate pistons, what other hardware requirements are there that come along with 3L of displacement?



Aren't 605's and RS6-R's comparable to the RS6? The OP was talking about potentially going with those turbo's. I'm a bit confused about whether a 3L RS6 is a blast or if the car is "losing out on a lot of powerband with such limited exhaust flow." as you say above.

My primary job is not sales, and my point was to emphasize that you need to be realistic. You can't have 500whp with power from 2000rpm with a 3.0L V6 motor... Its reality, I'm not trying to tell the customer to buy another car. I've also spoken extensively with this customer in the past, so I'm pretty sure he knows what I mean.

Is a 3.0L with 605 or RS6 turbos awesome? Yes. Is it worth building a whole motor to the brink to run 500whp? Not in my opinion. Is 50 ft/lbs torque a lot? Not for the $10,000 a built motor costs when all you want is 500whp.

Ultimately I'm trying to say that his motor is capable of producing over 450whp without much modification or cost. With an ultimate desire of around 500whp (horsepower is simply torque and rpm), there's no reason to build a car that can rev to 8000rpm and spool big huge GT28's. Give up 500rpm of spool and save your $10,000 for something else. Otherwise, if you are going all out, then utilize a turbo that can take advantage of it.

To each his own, but the OP is asking for advice. That's my advice. I don't think 500rpm of spool and 50 ft/lbs of torque in the early powerband is worth $10,000 when you won't even have any reason to rev past 6500rpm.

PS. Were not talking 2.8L to 3.0L, we are talking stock motor to a "built to the hilt 3.0L"

[Wizard-of-OD]

Just 'bout shit myself, Cap'n.

$2100 (before shipping) on pistons, rings, and wrist pins? You could get JE pistons and send them to Swain Tech for a full coat treatment and still have at least $500 left over.
http://www.ctsturbo.com/cart/product...-2566-265.html
Overbuilding is one thing, overspending is just a bad move.

...and you would still have a 2618 alloy piston. It is no coincidence that builds that run JE's or other 2618 alloy pistons suffer from blow by issues yet the problems "magically" go away with the Mahle's.
Mahle 142 | Mahle 124 alloy pistons are what get a huge nod in the industry today. I guess it is no surprise either that the most powerful TiAL cars run Mahle 142 alloy pistons.

...and the can got opened.

[BlazinB5]

My primary job is not sales, and my point was to emphasize that you need to be realistic. You can't have 500whp with power from 2000rpm with a 3.0L V6 motor... Its reality, I'm not trying to tell the customer to buy another car. I've also spoken extensively with this customer in the past, so I'm pretty sure he knows what I mean.

Is a 3.0L with 605 or RS6 turbos awesome? Yes. Is it worth building a whole motor to the brink to run 500whp? Not in my opinion. Is 50 ft/lbs torque a lot? Not for the $10,000 a built motor costs when all you want is 500whp.

Ultimately I'm trying to say that his motor is capable of producing over 450whp without much modification or cost. With an ultimate desire of around 500whp (horsepower is simply torque and rpm), there's no reason to build a car that can rev to 8000rpm and spool big huge GT28's. Give up 500rpm of spool and save your $10,000 for something else. Otherwise, if you are going all out, then utilize a turbo that can take advantage of it.

To each his own, but the OP is asking for advice. That's my advice. I don't think 500rpm of spool and 50 ft/lbs of torque in the early powerband is worth $10,000 when you won't even have any reason to rev past 6500rpm.

PS. Were not talking 2.8L to 3.0L, we are talking stock motor to a "built to the hilt 3.0L"

god damn... does it really cost $10,000 to build a motor like that? i always thought it would be $8,000 at MOST..

an amount like that makes me want an evo...

[britishturbo]

To the OP, I'm not sure how to answer your question because I'm really not sure what your goals are.
What I do see though is opposing goals...

You mention that your current turbos are "laggy"... well unless you go with larger "more laggy" turbos you aren't going to get more power unless you do one of the following:

1) Increase displacement
2) Rev higher
3) Increase engine VE - i.e. Intake / Heads / Cams

Also how much power are you really shooting for?

Just trying to get a feel for what you really want before I throw you mya dvice...

[britishturbo]

As for blow by... it is usually caused by tolerances that are left too loose or because of bores that aren't honed to a true round size.
Many of my customers chase every last tenth when it comes to honing a round bore... many shops only chase it to within 5 tenths... Ring seal is everything...
Another factor is for sure piston design though... Many of the forged pistons require such a large piston to wall clearance that problems can start there, again its all about tolerances.

But... how many people have problems with stock 2.7 pistons and blow by?
Now ask yourself who makes the stock pistons... isn't it Mahle? Just saying ;-)

[PovGRide742]

well there ya go.. more displacement it is - assuming you want low end torque/power

That I do.

This is the route I'd go if I were building a motor, but stick with my F4H's for now. More grinning in the rpm range that I spend my time driving.

Haha, we'll see after I sort my problem it out. Maybe I'll be content again and talk myself out of investing a down payment on a house's worth of money into an engine.

The reason why smallest size is 81.5 is so that 0.5mm overbore is forced to even our old blocks that see wear, tear and ovalization

Ah... yeah I guess that'd make sense.

I am looking to do basically this same build with rs6x turbos over the winter. I will be curious as to what you decide on. Subscribed!

Right now it's kind of a fantasy build. After I sort out my current engine I want to finish the car up with suspension and a few other small what-nots. But we'll see...

hp to $ ratio is very bad if you decide to stroke it.. esp if you goal is acceleration and decide to stick to ko4 size turbos... also you are opening yourself to all the potential problems that come with building a block..

I would go meth and e85 and a retune to satisfy your need for speed.. enjoy the car.. and save your money for another platform or when things go wrong with the s4.

my 2 cents

I would not be sticking to K04s... probably RS6-Rs or TiAL 605s. I understand it's a lot of money, but it's the potential problems that I do indeed worry about, as it is quite a bit of money to abandon ship on. Appreciate your opinion sir.

http://www.loba-motorsport.com/en/pr...tons-mahle-124 would be the only piston I run if going 3.0.

Lowering the compression enables one to run much better timing besides the potential for more boost.

Mmm... LOBA. Out of my range though.

[QUOTE=UkuRiSh;8187164]This pistons over price $ 2000 JE Pistons is good price and quality .[QUOTE]
I'd be happy with JE pistons if I could fine a stroked 2.7T build utilizing JE pistons without burning oil. Not blaming this on the quality, just the ring spacing.

Just 'bout shit myself, Cap'n.

$2100 (before shipping) on pistons, rings, and wrist pins? You could get JE pistons and send them to Swain Tech for a full coat treatment and still have at least $500 left over.
http://www.ctsturbo.com/cart/product...-2566-265.html
Overbuilding is one thing, overspending is just a bad move.

I got a quote from Integrated Engineering for custom pistons with both coatings and upgrade wrist pins... regardless of specifications, they'd be $1424.94 ($1424.99 self-calculated using formula he gave me).

Lowering compression is a mixed bag of goodies:

Pros:
- lowered temps and less knock at the same boost level and timing between low CR and high CR engine
- due to the above, you can cram more charge than on high CR engine and have the same timing. Ofc that's not the goal so you just cram as much as the engine can take with knock being limiting factor.
- Now, here is the kicker granted you tune your car properly: overall higher timing possible ANYWHERE before knock is detectable, not only in boost!!!, so you can extract lost torque with higher timing in normal "Economy" mode. Fuel dependent ofc as I am not sure if this tactic would work all that well with E85 and higher as they already allow for crazy timing. No low CR needed for that fuel.

Cons:
- lowered thermal efficiency, economy suffers, but might be regained with adjusting timing for low-med load conditions.
- due to the above, lowered torque. 9.3 to 9.0 would be almost not perceivable, we are talking 1-2% loss of torque.

I have 8.5 on my 2.9L but I can't really tell you what the difference between 2.7 and 2.9 is, since in the process I also changed transmission on my AR from super short POS one to TDI and my gear ratios completely changed. FWIW with my much longer 2-3 gears and 2.9L stroker it feels about the same as pre-changes so it tells me that I indeed have much more torque than before. But I will be only able to tell in about 2-3 weeks once the engine is broken in.

If you're not looking for all out build, stick with stock block, but if you're already in there.... why not. Perhaps a set of rods and stock pistons are sure fire way to go with lessened risk of issues.

Hmm... at say 605s on straight 93 octane, would you say there is much to gain with small offset dropping all the way down to 8.5:1?

I am willing to bet that CTSturbo could get you those pistons without the LOBA tax. A standard Mahle piston set is just shy of 900 I doubt these pistons cost too much more than that. Having said the mahle or wiseco are the only pistons I would use have used wiseco more than once before with good results.

Another confirmation of success with Wiseco... think I've chosen my piston.

To the OP, you mentioned wanting a specific powerband, and you suggested 605's, but say you don't want to deal with 770s? I'm confused by this statement considering 770s spool the same as 605s. A 3.0L with high compression and good gas on 770s will spool below 4000rpm.

I think you are expecting beyond the capability of your setup. 3.0L adds a LOT of money and while it will add +50ft/lbs of torque under the curve and help spool, if you are running K04 or RS6 based turbos you are losing out on a lot of powerband with such limited exhaust flow.

Shifting the powerband over doesn't make you any slower, it just requires be conscious of the powerband. If you love to floor it from 2000rpm, then you should be in a V8.

For example, why would you spend all that money on a 3.0L to gain a small amount of power early in the powerband, when all the money you spent on a 3.0L can support a huge amount more power in the higher rpms? RPM's don't have anything to do with high speeds.

3.0L RS6 cars are an absolute blast. The Giggles B5 S4 race car runs a 3.0L built by us with genuine RS6 turbos and the powerband is huge. But 3.0L on 770's isn't far off and has a lot more peak potential. If you have never been in a 770 car, I recommend it. Even with 2.8L, the car has a lot of power under the curve and down low.

Keep in mind I will only be going 2.9L, as I do not want to take that much material away from the block. I won't lose sleep over .1L of displacement knowing there is a HUGE safety net while the engine sustains a beating over the course of an extended drive (track).

Maybe I should clarify, I'm not expecting there to be no lag with this potential build. I know the lag will be more than that of the FTs on my 2.7T. Also, I'm more focused on RS6-Rs at this point, and for two reasons. JHM's 10 second pass, and 034's 'Giggles' S4. (Yes, I know Jay has the advantage of being a fantastic driver, and 'Giggles' is a tuned, race car). However, I want more power, on AND off-boost without adding a lot of lag. I guess I'd have to take a ride in a 770 car to justify my arguments against it. Just trying to stay from a highway warrior... think backroads with lots of turns, if that paints a canvas.

...and the can got opened.

Ahhh shiiit...

To the OP, I'm not sure how to answer your question because I'm really not sure what your goals are.
What I do see though is opposing goals...

You mention that your current turbos are "laggy"... well unless you go with larger "more laggy" turbos you aren't going to get more power unless you do one of the following:

1) Increase displacement
2) Rev higher
3) Increase engine VE - i.e. Intake / Heads / Cams

Also how much power are you really shooting for?

Just trying to get a feel for what you really want before I throw you mya dvice...

No, I didn't mean I wanted or had the intention of reducing the lag. I know stepping up a size, even with the specifications outlined, isn't gonna reduce the lag. What I meant I was I already notice the lag around town. I am rarely on the highway, and rarely at speeds above 70 unless I'm doing a quick pull, which even then I don't stay up there long. So I'm building more for lower speed with acceleration in mind that I can still romp on the highway and get joy out of it... all while knowing that if I beat the shit out of it's gonna hold up.

[FlyboyS4]

My primary job is not sales, and my point was to emphasize that you need to be realistic. You can't have 500whp with power from 2000rpm with a 3.0L V6 motor... Its reality, I'm not trying to tell the customer to buy another car. I've also spoken extensively with this customer in the past, so I'm pretty sure he knows what I mean.

Is a 3.0L with 605 or RS6 turbos awesome? Yes. Is it worth building a whole motor to the brink to run 500whp? Not in my opinion. Is 50 ft/lbs torque a lot? Not for the $10,000 a built motor costs when all you want is 500whp.

Ultimately I'm trying to say that his motor is capable of producing over 450whp without much modification or cost. With an ultimate desire of around 500whp (horsepower is simply torque and rpm), there's no reason to build a car that can rev to 8000rpm and spool big huge GT28's. Give up 500rpm of spool and save your $10,000 for something else. Otherwise, if you are going all out, then utilize a turbo that can take advantage of it.

To each his own, but the OP is asking for advice. That's my advice. I don't think 500rpm of spool and 50 ft/lbs of torque in the early powerband is worth $10,000 when you won't even have any reason to rev past 6500rpm.

PS. Were not talking 2.8L to 3.0L, we are talking stock motor to a "built to the hilt 3.0L"

You refer to building the motor to the brink and spending $10,000 to build it to the hilt. I wasn't getting the impression the OP was looking to go bonkers with the build, just adding a 3L crankshaft, rods, and appropriate pistons. I realize that doesn't happen cheaply, you have the miscellaneous parts to replace when you open the motor up, but 10 grand? What is driving that figure?

For example, I can go to the RAI website and their Engine Assembly configurator gives costs of:

Complete engine assembly kit - $1100
3L Crankshaft - $400
IE Rods - $850
RAI Machine Work and Full Assembly - $1500

from elsewhere

JE Pistons - $1000 (Approx)

Which is up to $5010. I get it that there's some other stuff to do and will push the cost a bit higher, but what is the other $5,000 going toward? The OP didn't seem to indicate an upgraded valvetrain was part of the plans.

As an aside, with an upgraded valvetrain is 8000 rpm a safe upper limit with the 3L crankshaft?

One other question, any idea what the maximum boost level is to operate with a margin of safety when utilizing a 9.3 CR and 93 octane?

[ravensB5S4]

605s - 3000 or RS6-Rs 2100. DPs - 800-1000. 2.8L Heads - 400. ICs - 700-1200. Fueling. Clutch - 2000-3000.

Pretty close to 10g's.

[julex]

I don't know what rev limiter on stock 3.0 engine is but I know that it makes its maximum power at 6,300rpms so I imagine they let it spin a bit faster than that. That's already at or over what APB engine does in stock form. Valvetrain was always the limit so assuming you upgrade that, you can spin it faster than 8k without worry.

[Matador]

@ Issam - All the blowby issues I've seen (outside of the VW/Audi community) or at least the majority were caused by shadetree mechanics working on domestic vehicles thinking they could get away with eyeballing measurements and using things like nail clippers or dykes to fit piston rings.
Anyone that I've seen pay attention to what one of the definitions of "tolerance" is hasn't had a problem. But also as stated, there's a difference between "daily commuter" tolerance and "big swinging dick track beast" tolerance.

[FlyboyS4]

605s - 3000 or RS6-Rs 2100. DPs - 800-1000. 2.8L Heads - 400. ICs - 700-1200. Fueling. Clutch - 2000-3000.

Pretty close to 10g's.

The starting point is a Stg3 car and why do 2.8L heads if the goal is quick spool? The $10,000 was quoted in reference to building the motor. I'm not saying it isn't possible to cost $10,000 I'm just trying to understand where the other $5000 that I can't account for is being spent.

[UkuRiSh]

The starting point is a Stg3 car and why do 2.8L heads if the goal is quick spool? The $10,000 was quoted in reference to building the motor. I'm not saying it isn't possible to cost $10,000 I'm just trying to understand where the other $5000 that I can't account for is being spent.

Machine shop work balancing , bore block e.t.c , 2.8 head rebuild , valvetrain e.t.c it's it's over $5000 already

[julex]

just parts for a decent engine build will run you 5k...


pistons 1k+
rods $800+
valvetrain $1500+
studs/head bolts $200-$300
3.0 crank $300
timing kit - $300
2.8 heads (they make sense when swapping valvetrain) - $400+

This only lists core engine stuff to get long block style of engine, no accessories, intake etc bolted on ye. Add fueling, clutch, catch can set up (you'll need that!), RS4 upgrade goodies to realize full power, ICs, downpipes... list goes on.

[034Motorsport]

You refer to building the motor to the brink and spending $10,000 to build it to the hilt. I wasn't getting the impression the OP was looking to go bonkers with the build, just adding a 3L crankshaft, rods, and appropriate pistons. I realize that doesn't happen cheaply, you have the miscellaneous parts to replace when you open the motor up, but 10 grand? What is driving that figure?

For example, I can go to the RAI website and their Engine Assembly configurator gives costs of:

Complete engine assembly kit - $1100
3L Crankshaft - $400
IE Rods - $850
RAI Machine Work and Full Assembly - $1500

from elsewhere

JE Pistons - $1000 (Approx)

Which is up to $5010. I get it that there's some other stuff to do and will push the cost a bit higher, but what is the other $5,000 going toward? The OP didn't seem to indicate an upgraded valvetrain was part of the plans.

As an aside, with an upgraded valvetrain is 8000 rpm a safe upper limit with the 3L crankshaft?

One other question, any idea what the maximum boost level is to operate with a margin of safety when utilizing a 9.3 CR and 93 octane?

Until you've had a motor fully built from the ground up, you'll never fully appreciate the total cost. There are virtually thousands of dollars in small incidentals, and the primary issue is the classic "well you've done this, so you better do this." For example, you aren't going to do rods/pistons/3L crank and leave the heads stock.

Your pricing represents someone who hasn't fully thought out the cost of an entire motor build, and you also are basing labor charges off of one specific place. Labor rates range dramatically across the United States and California is a heckuva lot more expensive then say Detroit or other places. The labor alone for a short block assembly, full head job, and the long block assembly is over $3000 alone if you want good work.

You are forgetting tons of necessary (or highly recommended items) such as a new oil pump. So sure, an oil pump is only a couple hundred bucks. But it doesn't include the chain, or the guides, etc. Then you need a head gasket kit, that's almost $300 right there. Then main seal, then new hardware, main stud kit, head stud kit, timing belt kit, etc etc etc. What about bearings? Thrust washers?

And then you've got valvetrain, which even from us with a package discount is over $1600 with guides and seals.

I can simply show you endless amounts of invoices from past builds, including my own. Sure you can cut corners or find some cheaper labor, but its not going to be much different in the end. Sure you can reuse your 150,000 mile oil pump. Sure you can run stock head bolts. Sure you can run stock heads. But you're still well over $5000 by then and you'll never make more then 550whp for long with stock 2 piece valves, etc.

Whether or not the OP indicated he wanted valvetrain, I'm trying to show you that it doesn't generally make sense to half ass it. Why go through the cost and trouble to go 3.0L if you can't even rev past 7000rpm? Hell, you won't even be able to rev to 7000rpm if you are pushing 30psi, the combustion pressures will be quite high.

The OP also specifically wants to keep meat between the cylinders; why? A stock old valvetrain will die far before there is distortion in the cylinder walls. Even at 82.5mm cylinder diameter, there is a sizeable amount of material.

PS. Here are 82.5mm cylinders