2.3L NG conversion in my 84 4KQ

Wed Jul 18 10:13:18 EDT 2001

Javad,

I understood that the higher compression comes from the Head on the NG
setup, not the Block.  The high compression is largely what buys the
additional Torque and HP across the RPM spectrum.  Someone correct me if I'm
wrong.  I seriously doubt that the VW/AUDI engineers went through all the
trouble to modify the 4 and 5 cyl. setups with these changes for such a
limited return.

Data Point:  this is similar to two 4 cyl swaps I did on Type 1 Scirocco:
1) used 1.8l '85 Scirocco/GTI setup with lower compression and CIS with oxy
and no knock sensor.
2) used 1.8l '88 Jetta GLI engine with Motronic setup(I broke out portions
of the systems to support CIS with oxy) and included the knock
sensor/ignition portion from the '88 Jetta setup.

The '85 1.8 8:1 was good.  The '88 1.8 10:1 and knock sensor blew the '85
setup away.  A 268 cam and Gillette exhaust and header was later installed
to sweeten it up even more.  

I had considered putting in a turbo engine and did not for a few reasons:
1) The NG motor was available for low cost, and I could have just plopped
the thing in.
2) The Turbo setup requires more retrofitting than just a wiring harness
swap, including fitting of the Intercooler, and turbo oiling and cooling
lines, etc.  It was just beyond the scope of what I wanted to do for a
street car and my very limited time and budget.

Maybe someday, if my wife doesn't kill me, I'll take on a turbo swap, but it
will probably be in a newer car.

Anyway, this is just to clarify and verify my sanity that what I am doing is
in order, and that certainly the 2.3 swap you guys did was also.

Happy Quattroing!

Ben

-----Original Message-----
From: JShadzi at aol.com [mailto:JShadzi at aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 6:11 PM
To: BSWANN at arinc.com; mdg3369 at altavista.com
Cc: quattro at audifans.com; red4000quattro at aol.com
Subject: Re: 2.3L NG conversion in my 84 4KQ

Ben, don't worry, you are not raining on the parade, let me explain where
the extra power is coming from in a 2.3 swap:  the NG/NF is rated at 130hp,
the JT is rated at 115hp, both use high flow down pipes, the only real
differences are:

1) 40mm valve vs 38mm valve
2) 2.3 vs 2.2
3) 10:1 vs 8.5:1

Ben, the majority of that 15hp increase is from the higher compression, and
a little from the disp. increase.  The 40mm vavles surely help increase flow
at higher RPM, but a properly ported head with 38mm valves (with 1.5mm
removed from the ID of the valve seat) will flow just as well, if not better
than a 40mm head stock.

Theoretically, I suppose a swap using the NG head/ induction and CIS-3
*could* be worth another 5 hp at the top end, MY argument is that the effort
required to fit the harness and components is not worth 5 hp, when a turbo
conversion is not far off from that level of effort.

Though the NG conversion is nice, and results in a good, torquey motor that
also revs, it is still a SLOW car.  IMHO, it is not worth spending too much
time building a 145 hp over a 140 hp that is 1/5th the effort.  The NA I5
just does not offer that much potential...

Not to rain on your parade, Ben, but for the amount of work you are putting
into these swaps, you could almost have done a turbo conversion that would
result in close to 240hp, a more worthwhile venture IMO.  

Javad
www.80tq.com

In a message dated Tue, 17 Jul 2001  4:54:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
"Swann, Benjamin R.  (BSWANN)" <BSWANN at arinc.com> writes:

> Fellow Quattro Swapaholics,
> 
> Regarding the below, I beg to differ that it made little difference
swapping
> in the NG head and CISEIII components.  That is really what gives you the
> extra power, or so as I understand.  You may have gained a tad with the
> extra .1 litre, and the porting and the cam, surely helped.  Exhaust also?
> If you decked the head, the higher compression would also be helping.  All
> of these incremental gains, plus the fact it is refreshed has surely given
> the car a rejuvinated feel.  
> 
> I certainly don't want to rain on the parade, as what you did was good.
> Indeed, I have had notable gains in the first iteration of upgrades to
> 4000Q#1: 264 cam, new lifters, Stebro exhaust, advanced timing - all good
> quick upgrades that I did to tide me over while I got around to prepping
the
> 2.3NG.
> 
> On 4000Q#2 I am doing the entire conversion, and am putting a lot of extra
> time up front porting and polishing the head and matching the manifolds,
272
> CAM, new lifters, autotech springs.  Ultimately this will be coupled to
> Stebro exhaust, and the lighter 200Q flywheel assembly.
> 
> It surely would have been a simple matter to install the extra 2.3l bottom
> end I have (refreshed of course) to the existing head and be done with it.
> Otherwise, I have been wasting my time.
> 
> I just felt I had to comment as I can't wait to get around to my own
engine
> swapping parties.
> 
> Salud,
> 
> Ben
> '85 4Kcsq(s) - Project(s) GTQ - more pics coming:
> http://www.homestead.com/Ben_Swann/files/GTQswap.txt
> '87 5kcstqw
> http://www.homestead.com/Ben_Swann/myaudi.html
> 
> p.s. Have the extra 2.3 bottom end and complete 2.2 engine if anyone wants
> them.
> 
> [[> Hey Listers!
> > 
> > Last weekend was a glorious weekend for my 1986 4KQ!  Friday night my
> brother, Javad (80tq.com), and I set out to drop in a 2.3L NG bottom end
> with my 4KQ ported head and a 270degree cam shaft in my tired old Audi.
> After a few trips back and forth to our local hardware store, we pulled
out
> the old 2.2L and carefully dropped in the beautiful new engine.  The
engine
> had come off Javad's 80 with 80,000 miles on it, so we replaced the seals,
> lifters, valve springs, and gaskets.  I just wanted to drop you all a
quick
> email telling you how cool of an experience it was and what a great feel
the
> car has after the swap.  Thanks to Huw's and many other lister's websites
> that showed us great pointers and tips.  And if you ever see a loud,
bright
> red Audi putting around in the Bay Area, feel free to throw a hand and
wave!
> > 
> > Peymon
> > 1986 4KQ 2.3L 
> 
> >BTW-we only swapped in the bottom end, but left the JT >inductions system
> as is, the best way to do it I 
> >belive, no real advantage to swapping in all the NG 
> >head stuff too.
> 
> [Its an '86 BTW bro!
> 
> Yup, it was a good swap and a good time, a 2 day engine conversion
> hurricane!  Thank God for the pizza and lemonade that nourished us!
BTW-we
> only swapped in the bottom end, but left the JT inductions system as is,
the
> best way to do it I belive, no real advantage to swapping in all the NG
head
> stuff too.
> 
> For others who  are also considering this swap, a few pointers to make it
> easier for now, and the future:
> 
> -Pull the battery tray and move the battery to the trunk, makes accessing
> the downpipe, tranny bolts, and even CIS airbox much easier.
> -We cut out the upper support, but left the lower support intact, the
engine
> easily raises out the top with the lower core suppport in place.  I
modifed
> the cut out piece to neatly, and strongly bolt back into place, maybe
Peymon
> will take some pics??
> 
> -We pulled the AC, raised the front of the car over 1" so now we will put
in
> coilovers to even things out.  You may NEED the AC in other climates, but
in
> Ca its not too bad, and its a pleasure to work on the car without
> condensors, compressors, and lines getting in the way.
> 
> Javad]
> 
> The NG has the bigger intake valves 40mm vs. 38. Is the JT head good
enough?
> I am thinking of swapping a 2.3 into my sisters car but still deciding
> between the whole thing w/ CIS-EIII or just the short or long block.
Anybody
> with any comments?
> Thanks
> Mike]]