Here's Your Chance - Solicited Advice

[EricF]

I would find out why you leaned out before spending any time day dreaming about how you are going to improve your setup. Sounds like a fuel pump or fuel pressure regulator problem. There is no reason on this earth you would go that lean at that boost level with that setup, other than a seriously malfunctioning component in the fuel system.

Once you have that figured out, I agree with most of what everyone else is saying. If you are rebuilding the engine and have the opportunity to do some cheap insurance, you will be well served moving up in turbo size a little. I would suggest 19T or GT2871 maybe. Any bigger than that and you will sacrifice a lot of responsiveness with the auto.

Stock crank, stock pistons should be good enough for those turbos, and some H-beam or X-beam rods would be a nice idea. NA cams and a little head work would be a good way to spend the money you thought you might spend on other parts of the rotating assembly.

[850wagonT5]

As for my goals, I believe the auto trans with fresh fluid and well-cooled can take 325/340 hp.

I assume you're talking crank numbers? Mine is currently taking about 345hp/390tq (crank). This is at 15psi, and the car has seen as high as 24psi - so rest assured it's seen above 400 lb/ft of torque.

But you aren't going to be anywhere near that on a 15G/16T.

[Jardim]

16T will definetly scrape 300 hp to the crank on a LPT, @ 17 psi with FMIC, NA TB, etc.... But thats being really optimistic.

[georgeleedom]

I appreciate the input. My thread was intended to gather info from drivers with experience building engines and which internals - rods, pistons, cams - were more successful than others. Especially considering a rebuild is going to change the geometry, ie gudeon pins, VVT, etc.

I get the message y'all consider the gateway to paradise is in the size of your turbo. And based on your responses, I intend to investgate that aspect - maybe leaning toward a garrett GT3071R.

I am careful in these forums. I do my best to separate the posters with asphalt experience to the magazine readers. Over the years I've seen a lot of heated arguments between people who's cowboy boots ain't seen nothing but carpet. As for Lucky/ARD - I have a great deal of respect for Lucky, but don't think he's a god. He admittedly has very little exerience with tuning anything newer than a '98. I believe he drives an 850 with an 18t. While larger companies may be "behind the curve", Lucky has blown-up a lot of motors and more than a few transmissions. That being said, I've talked with him by phone a few times about my car and enjoy the fact that his blowing up other cars makes him less apt to blow up mine.

So again, I invite food for thought about what's worked for you and what hasn't. Who's gotten their 0-100 down to 12 or less? How did you do it? If you had it to do again would you go RN or build an old 2.4? I'm genuinely interested in advice based on experience. I am in the enviable position of starting from scratch with a reasonably large budget. And am looking to take advantage of those who have honestly tried things for better or worse.

Again, the caveat I refuse to go manual - that doesn't mean, however, I'm not willing to go with a different transmission.

Looking forward to your opinions.

[Burn-E]

That's a good perspective and approach. How extensively have you read through the build threads? And when you describe your 0-100 is that a 12.5 second quarter mile your discussing? If not, what is your best quarter mile?

This is my engine build with 2007 prices when it was done the previous owner did the build but it was done by a Volvo Master Tech. It's a T5M engine tranny setup but I can tell you that even though it has a 16T on it (long story, the S70 daily driver threw a tensioner and bent 10 valves literally 3 months after I acquired the coupe) the car is substantially more powerful than a stock T5 with 16T. So that took up all of my play money and I've been gradually piecing together parts to make a K24 or 18T a reality. I could go larger given the build but I'm not out to build the ultimate power beast from this car.

SPM forged titanium connecting rods-$850

Venolia forged pistons-$850

New bearings-$140

Custom Inconel exhaust valves- $370

Custom Stainless intake valves-$260

3 angle competition valve job-$220

Ported cylinder head-$250

Ported N/A intake manifold-$150

Ported turbo manifold-$85

New intake valve guides-$120

balancing of rotating assembly-$145

resurfacing of cylinder head-$65

N/A throttle body(larger)-$100

EST Reverse intercooler kit-$370

Samco radiator hoses-$100

[850wagonT5]

So again, I invite food for thought about what's worked for you and what hasn't. Who's gotten their 0-100 down to 12 or less? How did you do it? If you had it to do again would you go RN or build an old 2.4? I'm genuinely interested in advice based on experience. I am in the enviable position of starting from scratch with a reasonably large budget. And am looking to take advantage of those who have honestly tried things for better or worse.

15psi on a tired 1994 2.3L with 120psi cylinder compression warm. Stock head/block, unknown miles. You should see it at 21-22psi, it's quite a bit more entertaining than this...but I happened to record this earlier today and thought it was fitting. Walked a 2011 Shelby GT500 last night...owner said it had exhaust only, and he had trouble hooking up. We rolled on from 0-80 and I had him by 3/4 of a car when we had to brake. He wondered "wtf I had in that Volvo". They are said to run 12.9 @ 114, 540hp/500tq I think...3940 lbs curb weight. I can normally walk cars that trap about 110-111 when my boost is up (~20+psi)...I think the only reason I caught this guy was that he wasn't that great at launching. Still, he had until 80mph to get by me...FWIW. Just gives you an idea of 1/4 and, therefore, 0-100 performance. Anyway....vid:

...gonna be significantly tougher to get that kind of top end with an 18T, the hot side is just small.

[Jardim]

lovin that flutter marty!

I appreciate the input. My thread was intended to gather info from drivers with experience building engines and which internals - rods, pistons, cams - were more successful than others. Especially considering a rebuild is going to change the geometry, ie gudeon pins, VVT, etc.

I get the message y'all consider the gateway to paradise is in the size of your turbo. And based on your responses, I intend to investgate that aspect - maybe leaning toward a garrett GT3071R.

I am careful in these forums. I do my best to separate the posters with asphalt experience to the magazine readers. Over the years I've seen a lot of heated arguments between people who's cowboy boots ain't seen nothing but carpet. As for Lucky/ARD - I have a great deal of respect for Lucky, but don't think he's a god. He admittedly has very little exerience with tuning anything newer than a '98. I believe he drives an 850 with an 18t. While larger companies may be "behind the curve", Lucky has blown-up a lot of motors and more than a few transmissions. That being said, I've talked with him by phone a few times about my car and enjoy the fact that his blowing up other cars makes him less apt to blow up mine.

So again, I invite food for thought about what's worked for you and what hasn't. Who's gotten their 0-100 down to 12 or less? How did you do it? If you had it to do again would you go RN or build an old 2.4? I'm genuinely interested in advice based on experience. I am in the enviable position of starting from scratch with a reasonably large budget. And am looking to take advantage of those who have honestly tried things for better or worse.

Again, the caveat I refuse to go manual - that doesn't mean, however, I'm not willing to go with a different transmission.

Looking forward to your opinions.

You have an RN motor already man.

[andyb5]

While ^ technically correct, a 99 RN motor doesn't have the lighter crank, stronger rods and more efficient head that an 02+ RN motor does. If I were building a motor, there is no way I'd be using a pre -02 motor. There are simply too many advantages to the newer motors.

[850wagonT5]

IIRC, the jury is still out on stronger rods...according to that huge RN thread. It's a lot of guessing and assuming, but nobody posted definitive information...ie, photos of a 2000 and a 2004 rod side by side. I went with a 2005 motor because supposedly (and also according to people guessing) the '05+ engines had stronger rods yet.

Still, my 1994 motor has seen 24psi and my rods aren't poking out of the block in the last year of racing it. I know the rods on the early cars aren't known for being super strong...but it seems to me they aren't quite as weak as people make them sound, either. Depending on tune, fuel, boost pressure, and how its abused of course. But driven remotely responsible, with good boost control so the onset isn't so harsh, the early rods don't do too bad.

[mdlimy]

the rods are only weak when they see torque, ie a fast spooling turbo, your lag monster is the reason your rods are still alive.

and i have a set of rods out of an 00 v70r motor i will take some pictures of, but in my opinion the strength of the rods in an rn motor is hardly a reason anyone should want one, they should be replaced with h beams if making any decent numbers, im in it for the head flow characteristics, that plays a big part in these motors making good numbers safely, alot of people dont understand that how well a motor breathes plays a big part in how it holds up to high hp.

besides, your using e85, your playing a whole different game than 99.99% of the people on this forum, i wish i had e85 around here =[

[850wagonT5]

I haven't seen hard and fast head flow data, either...I'm just hoping it's true and I'm hoping it makes a difference at high boost levels. Because at 1 bar of boost on stock cams with no VVT control, I wonder what it's worth switching heads - if anything at all.

[Jardim]

While ^ technically correct, a 99 RN motor doesn't have the lighter crank, stronger rods and more efficient head that an 02+ RN motor does. If I were building a motor, there is no way I'd be using a pre -02 motor. There are simply too many advantages to the newer motors.

Dont quote me on this but i've heard somewhere around here lurking through threads that the 99 head has solid lifters which is great for high RPM.....

Someone correct me if im wrong.

[EricF]

Not to try to enable derailment, but if you are staying with the stock automatic transmission with the stock stall converter speed, you would thank me for pushing you toward a GT2871R instead of a GT3071R. There are certain limitations on what sort of powerband and torque curve are ideal with the limitations of the stock gears and stall speed, and I think the 3071 is pushing it a little. The GT2871 has the same compressor wheel and a smaller turbine side.

Just an extra Sunday evening quarterback comment ;)

[andyb5]

IIRC, the jury is still out on stronger rods...according to that huge RN thread. It's a lot of guessing and assuming, but nobody posted definitive information...ie, photos of a 2000 and a 2004 rod side by side. I went with a 2005 motor because supposedly (and also according to people guessing) the '05+ engines had stronger rods yet.

The 02+ RN engines got 147mm rods, as opposed to the 139mm rods on the older engines. This means that, without changing material composition, the rods are stronger due to an improved rod/stroke ratio.

Dont quote me on this but i've heard somewhere around here lurking through threads that the 99 head has solid lifters which is great for high RPM.....

Someone correct me if im wrong.

I quoted you

You are correct, the solid lifters are the major advantage, but only some 99 heads have solid lifters, others have the older hydraulic lifters. There is a VIN break that will determine this.

The other advantage of the later RN heads is the switch in valve stem size from 7mm to 6mm, which means more airflow. That changeover occurred prior to 02, so by using an 02+ motor, you are guaranteed to have the most efficient head design, the lighter crankshaft and longer 147mm rods, all of which combine to create a more capable engine, even in stock form.

Once you add H-beam rods, you are in a very good place

EDIT: D'oh, messed up my rod lengths. Fixed, thanks wizzard_al :tup:

[wizzard_al]

The '02 RN engine had 147 mm rods, not 143 mm. The 143 mm rods came when the '03 RN engine went to 93.2 mm crank.

Rod lengths=

90mm crank 139.5 or 147 mm rods, changing in 2002

93.2 mm crank 143 mm rods.

Solid lifters came in in 1999, starting with engine 1817653. This was a transition during the mid year sometime. At the same time, Volvo went from 7 mm valve stem thickness, to 6 mm stem thickness.

Cranks seemed to be lightned with firs the 147 mm rods, and then again with the longer stroke and 143 mm rods. I have a 90mm crank, with 139.5 mm rods, and a 93.2 mm crank, and the longer stroke crank is definitely lighter, but I haven't weighted it yet.