VR6 in to a 944

The 924 bell has the std VW/Audi wc 4cyl bolt pattern shared by everything from 75-today. Now the VR6 never used that bolt pattern BUT the Touareg/Cayanne/Q's all used an "Audi" trans that uses the VW/Audi 4cyl bolt pattern. They used a "factory" adapter to mate it all together:

http://advancedautomotion.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=49_57&products_id=56&osCsid=153fe8b3540186dd5f39b4a9a5ff6862

This thread has some additional relevant details as the trans type is similar:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5136680-VR6-Swap-into-a-Audi-A4-B5-Information

The big question for me with the 924 bell is how big a clutch can it take? Generally the VR6 and Audi motors would have used a bigger one. This you may need to improvise a bit.

A VR6 with a small turbo and a spark plug or two missing will make 200-250whp. I have done stock block builds over 400whp that lasted "forever" on big T3/T4's or small T4 frame turbos. Over 300whp a spacer HG and head bolts aren't a bad idea if you are on pump gas only. I would leave comp high and run E85 if it were mine. Run low boost on 93 and crank it on E85. With a proper fuel system, good ic, normal "smart" boost build practices, of course.

In reply to Paul_VR6:

The 924 NA used a smaller clutch that tends to slip around 200+hp, the 924 turbo used a larger clutch that holds much better, plus it is hydraulically actuated versus cable on the NA.

The 924 Turbo and 944 share the driveline splines which is also shared with many Chrysler V8's, so clutches for those are fairly easy to put together on the cheap (the Chebby swap forums have all sorts of info here).

However, with the adapter plate, you now have more room to use the VR6 flywheel and clutch or one of the alternatives that may be available. So the clutch isn't a big deal from what I can tell other than getting the actuation setup.

There is a thread over on pelican about VW in P 944's and this tidbit of info cam up.

I am a vr6 junkie... I measured and read hoping for better news. The oil pump would interfere with the 944 cross member. Dry sumps are available for vr6 that would resolve the major cutting but the 4cyl fits with just a custom pan and is more plentiful. The sound of the vr though... Unparalleled by flat crank 4cyl VW or Porsche. Maybe we should look at dry sump kits more closely...

I would hate to have to cut up the cross member I could make up a tubular one with out much problem but this is starting to get away from a "bolt in"

Thread link over at pelican.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-924-944-968-technical-forum/777685-w-president-944-nightmare.html

If you look at the 924 thread you'll see they raised the motor slightly and put a "bubble" in the hood. So yeah that sucks since it removes the subtlety that I tend to prefer with engine swaps.

FYI: the 944's crossmember is aluminum and the frame side mounts are slightly different from the 924's. A 3-piece aluminum crossmember is available for the 944 (makes it easier to swap rod bearings on track cars) so that might provide an option for a little fab work to solve the problem.

The 924's cross member is steel and therefore easier to modify or perhaps replace with a tube frame arrangement.

BTW, the 944 V8 swap guys have used spacers to move lower the crossmember slightly to make room for their engines (so much for decent suspension geometry, heh). So it isn't unheard of to have oil pump clearance issues to solve.

The 3 piece cross member has a well deserved reputation for cracking. I wouldn't use it.

Moving my crossmember down slightly hasn't done anything bad for my suspension geometry.

The Mk5 R32 pan bolts to the older motors and is significantly shallower than the early steel and alum pans. Bonus on the 3.6s is they all come with the shallow pan stock (at least transverse ones).

Really like how the guy used the 02A bell cut down for the swap. Pretty slick. Not sure why you'd do that for a 4cyl though...

turboswede wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Angry Corvair entered an SBC powered 944. I'd say that's the way to go. An instructor friend also instructed in one and he couldn't stop grinning after riding in it. Cheap horsepower and the guy down the street knows how to make an SBC reliable for competition. If the local PCA club won't let you track with them. berkeley'em. There are plenty of other HPDE/Track day events that are full of less pretentious snobbery.

Jeebus, reading comprehension around here is horrid. Lets make this moar clear: I CAN RUN WHATEVER berkeleyING MOTOR I WANT TO IN PCA AUTOCROSS. IF I RUN A NON-PORSCHE MOTOR I GET BUMPED UP TO RUN AGAINST SOME SERIOUS berkeleyING MACHINERY THAT I CAN'T COMPETE WITH. SO THE SOLUTION IS TO RUN A PORSCHE MOTOR. THE VR6 IS THE ONLY PORSCHE MOTOR I'M INTERESTED IN SWAPPING INTO THE 924. Flat sixes are right out and the 2.5L is a stupid swap into a 924 and the 924's 2.0L just doesn't have enough support to make it worth much development I never mentioned track days and there are plenty of clubs around here that will let you run anything you want as long as you can pay your way and pass tech, even the marque clubs (Porsche, Alfa, etc). Now, as far as the OP goes, as he said, its his car and he'll do what he wants to it for whatever reason he wants. I'm just attempting to enable him as we do here on GRM. Now take your pushrods, off the shelf kits (bought not built) and get the berkeley out of the thread and go start your own Chebby powered Porsche thread.

I can't believe this rant got plus 3 votes. This is one of the reasons people think all us Porsche guys are shiny happy people.

And now we're calling proven combos "built not bought"...ridiculous.

Back to the original point of the thread. I have owned a couple of 944 turbos and have a love hate relationship with them, but right now I'm leaning towards love again. I'd probably sell what you have a buy a 944t, then modify that. Or slap a blower on the stock 2.5 like the one in the build thread. If your heart is set on a vr6 I'd go with a later one.

The rant was more "It was specifically stated what we were talking about, why does it keep going off topic?"

It's the number 1 annoyance of this board. This is a thread about VR6s in 944s, it's been stated exactly why the VR6 is being considered, no other options need to be discussed.

Swank Force One wrote: The rant was more "It was specifically stated what we were talking about, why does it keep going off topic?" It's the number 1 annoyance of this board. This is a thread about VR6s in 944s, it's been stated exactly why the VR6 is being considered, no other options need to be discussed.

OP also mentioned the 2.0t at one point, so it looked like it was morphing into a "Porsche/Audi family engines in a 944" thread. Regardless there are ways to go about it and you put it much better. Hopefully whatever combo he decides on he doesn't order any off the shelf parts, so it's considers a true build lol. Maybe he could forge his own hardware with parts found savaging around Stuttgart.

docwyte wrote: The 3 piece cross member has a well deserved reputation for cracking. I wouldn't use it. Moving my crossmember down slightly hasn't done anything bad for my suspension geometry.

Well, its a strut based front suspension so geometry isn't exactly its strong suit. Packaging and inexpensive to build are. Good to know that you've not noticed any geometry issues (some balljoint spacers or longer balljoints might help if one were really concerned).

Cotton wrote:

turboswede wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Angry Corvair entered an SBC powered 944. I'd say that's the way to go. An instructor friend also instructed in one and he couldn't stop grinning after riding in it. Cheap horsepower and the guy down the street knows how to make an SBC reliable for competition. If the local PCA club won't let you track with them. berkeley'em. There are plenty of other HPDE/Track day events that are full of less pretentious snobbery.

Jeebus, reading comprehension around here is horrid. Lets make this moar clear: I CAN RUN WHATEVER berkeleyING MOTOR I WANT TO IN PCA AUTOCROSS. IF I RUN A NON-PORSCHE MOTOR I GET BUMPED UP TO RUN AGAINST SOME SERIOUS berkeleyING MACHINERY THAT I CAN'T COMPETE WITH. SO THE SOLUTION IS TO RUN A PORSCHE MOTOR. THE VR6 IS THE ONLY PORSCHE MOTOR I'M INTERESTED IN SWAPPING INTO THE 924. Flat sixes are right out and the 2.5L is a stupid swap into a 924 and the 924's 2.0L just doesn't have enough support to make it worth much development I never mentioned track days and there are plenty of clubs around here that will let you run anything you want as long as you can pay your way and pass tech, even the marque clubs (Porsche, Alfa, etc). Now, as far as the OP goes, as he said, its his car and he'll do what he wants to it for whatever reason he wants. I'm just attempting to enable him as we do here on GRM. Now take your pushrods, off the shelf kits (bought not built) and get the berkeley out of the thread and go start your own Chebby powered Porsche thread.

I can't believe this rant got plus 3 votes. This is one of the reasons people think all us Porsche guys are shiny happy people. And now we're calling proven combos "built not bought"...ridiculous. Back to the original point of the thread. I have owned a couple of 944 turbos and have a love hate relationship with them, but right now I'm leaning towards love again. I'd probably sell what you have a buy a 944t, then modify that. Or slap a blower on the stock 2.5 like the one in the build thread. If your heart is set on a vr6 I'd go with a later one.

Sorry if I got a little heated, but after several posts about putting various chevy motors in, I'd just about had it. I should have gotten off the board for a little bit and cooled off or simply ignored the posts. Sorry about that.

I've done lots of research on the Chevy engine swap and nearly dove into myself, but decided against it because I want to stay in a certain class. Still the research and some of the parts provided by the engine swap fore fathers is very handy for many other engine swaps into 924/944's

I have an 88 944 Turbo S (Silver Rose) and I agree with the love/hate with it. I'm looking to sell it fairly soon since it really isn't something I want to drive on the street or on the track. I also own a 924 and I've owned a Fiat X-1/9 and many, many Turbo Dodges. I consider myself a GRM'er through and through.

Cotton wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: The rant was more "It was specifically stated what we were talking about, why does it keep going off topic?" It's the number 1 annoyance of this board. This is a thread about VR6s in 944s, it's been stated exactly why the VR6 is being considered, no other options need to be discussed.

OP also mentioned the 2.0t at one point, so it looked like it was morphing into a "Porsche/Audi family engines in a 944" thread. Regardless there are ways to go about it and you put it much better. Hopefully whatever combo he decides on he doesn't order any off the shelf parts, so it's considers a true build lol. Maybe he could forge his own hardware with parts found savaging around Stuttgart.

Fair enough, but GM engines aren't porsche/audi engines.

Initially this thread was about the VR6 but branching out in to something similar is part of why I posted up. The V8 swap is just not what I want (saying this for the 4th time now??) So ya any audi, porsch, VW is on the table. The point being is to try and make it as bolt in as possible.

Re the 951. I have had one of those. Great cars, I had a 928s4. Great cars. But for some reason the simplicity of a NA with its "reasonable" power level and rowing through the gears briskly is where I am at in life now. This is a project not a DD. This is not something that needs to be justified. IT is strictly "because I can". I have 5 cars to choose from every morning and 9 out of 10 times I take the underpowered small cars not the 6l LS powered monster.

Probably the closest thing from the Porsche factory in the 944 family that interests me is the 944S2. But what fun is it to just go spend money. At my age it is about the journey as much as it is about the destination. Putting a different motor in my 924s is the journey driving it when it is done is the destination.

Re the 2.0l Audi motors. The only reference to them was the use of there bell housing from a turbo 924 to adapt an audi/vw motor to the 944 torque tube. I would not want one of them in my 924s.

In reply to dean1484:

I have one of those Audi 2.0's in NA form and you're right you don't want one except as a basis for a major swap project. Most were 95hp lumps of CIS-encrusted cast iron with more NLA parts than you can shake a stick at.

Still they didn't do too badly when warmed up with lots of turbo, but that's beside the point.

Luckily that 2.0L lump is the fore-bearer of the Audi I5 and I6 motors, so the bellhousing is compatible allowing some interesting swap possibilities within the VAG family.

There's a guy in the Netherlands? that has a 924 with an Audi 20-valve non-turbo swapped in (170hp or so, same as the stock 924 turbo) and from the videos he shared it looked like a great solution for that car. No huge issues with excessive heat or parts cost, etc. Sort of like swapping a 1.6 for a 1.8 in an NA Miata. Not a huge difference, just enough to keep it fun.

http://www.944-20v.nl/

Unfortunately, the 1.8T doesn't use the same bellhousing pattern as the VR6. There have been 1.8T swaps performed, but they merely hacked the bellhousing off a VW transaxle and machined a plug to weld in place that allowed it to bolt up to the torque tube.

http://www.motorgeek.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=48558

http://forums.tipec.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=15551

In reply to turboswede:

Sorry for the threadjack, but if you weren't completely across the country I might be interested in that turbo s. I've never had an S and would like too. Hell I might be interested anyway....I'll keep an eye out for a for sale thread if you do decide to sell.

I needed a moment alone when I saw this.

In reply to Cotton:

There's a build thread about it here, feel free to check it out. I haven't updated it in a while though (mostly because I've been a lazy azz about finishing the work on it).

In reply to dean1484:

Yeah. That looks just right to me.

turboswede wrote: In reply to Cotton: There's a build thread about it here, feel free to check it out. I haven't updated it in a while though (mostly because I've been a lazy azz about finishing the work on it). In reply to dean1484: Yeah. That looks just right to me.

I actually followed that build thread and could relate a lot, believe me. These cars seem to enjoy torturing their owners. I look forward to an update...I think the last I saw it had a headgasket issue.

Cotton wrote:

turboswede wrote: In reply to Cotton: There's a build thread about it here, feel free to check it out. I haven't updated it in a while though (mostly because I've been a lazy azz about finishing the work on it). In reply to dean1484: Yeah. That looks just right to me.

I actually followed that build thread and could relate a lot, believe me. These cars seem to enjoy torturing their owners. I look forward to an update...I think the last I saw it had a headgasket issue.

Yeah, HG is fixed. Went to pull it out of the garage and steering rack puked all over the ground. Had to rebuild the steering rack and replace the outer tie-rods (passenger side was fused to the upright I had to grind it out). Now I'm working on getting the balance shafts timed properly as I didn't get them correct the first pass around (what a stupid, stupid design!). Kinda hate to see it go, but I'm not looking forward to working on it anymore either.

At least the money from selling it would go towards the 924 and an Answer in the driveway for a DD :)

In reply to turboswede:

oh I know the feeling. I hate that design. I almost sold the car the first time I did a wp and t-belt job. I used the arnnworx kit, which is okay, but there may be better tools available now since this was several years ago.