The 1600 rod is (IIRC) 125.25mm and the 1300 is 111mm (ish). And NO - you cannot use 1300 rods in a 1600 block, unless you want a compression ratio of 2/3rds of bugger all.
They're also MUCH weaker...
so wot's the Q?
been trying to work out why a 1600 crossflow block is 30 mm tallller than a 1300 but its stroke is only 15 mm longer.
initial thought was the crank is higher up so that the same sump can be used with longer throw crank but that would be expensive to do as well as
requiring a different timing change.
so it dawned on me .... longer con rods in the 1600.!! agree?
can 1300 rods be fitted to 1600 engine or will the bores/piston/something else get in the way?
[Edited on 14/1/08 by 02GF74]
You're right!
The 1600 rod is (IIRC) 125.25mm and the 1300 is 111mm (ish). And NO - you cannot use 1300 rods in a 1600 block, unless you want a compression ratio of
2/3rds of bugger all.
They're also MUCH weaker...
Its to do with the angle of the rod due to the longer stroke and is to reduce the acceleration of the rod.
I have heard of a competition engine with normal flat type pistons, 1300 rods and a standard flat head being built with a drastically skimmed 1600
block and 1600 crank. his gave an engine with no valve shrouding but also no squish but did produce good power in a rally car with a hot camshaft.
Paul
quote:
Originally posted by paulf
I have heard of a competition engine with normal flat type pistons, 1300 rods and a standard flat head being built with a drastically skimmed 1600 block and 1600 crank. his gave an engine with no valve shrouding but also no squish but did produce good power in a rally car with a hot camshaft.
Paul
