Quote:
While I can't remember all the details, I do remember that the dynamics of the piston at times of critical valve events are more favourable to performance engines with longer rods for a given stroke. Obviously only within a certain range, but I seem to recall that many many years ago race engine builders aimed at 2:1 rod to stroke ratios, but I think a figure around 1.8 is more flexible and realistic. Rod lengths under 1.6 were though of as poor according to my memory. And your rod to stroke ratio comes out to about 1.57:1, but I used less than 100% accurate rod length figures in that calculation, but it shouldn't affect the results to the quoted accuracy.
spot on.
the L16 / L24 have a 1.8:1 rod/stroke ratio, which is, according to many an expert, the "perfect" rod / stroke ratio for a powerful NA engine that not only revs hard, but produces useable torque in the midrange.
1.57:1 is a very short ratio indeed, and i think overall driveability will be compromised unless it's cammed & carbed up to make up for poor cylinder filling otherwise. and engine like this would CERTAINLY respond well to boost though.
HOWEVER
i can see Dodgeman's point. not wanting to cut the car for originality leaves you with few options for more power.
but i'm with L18_B110 here. similar situation is when i think to myself "why put an L18 crank, rods and pistons in a +2.0mm L16 block?" when you you could just use an L18 to start with. sure, if you wanted to keep a 1600 in immaculate condition with original numbers then yeah, go for it. otherwise, anyone else would just swap in an L18.
this thread has gotten all too technical for me.