Higher Compression in 2.0 i.e.: Does flattening of head make sense?

Moderator: Huib

Post Reply
FJB

Higher Compression in 2.0 i.e.: Does flattening of head make sense?

Post by FJB » 06 Dec 2004, 17:48

Hi Lanciafriends!

Had to buy myself a new Thema, for I'd crashed mine on a stone wall because of ice.
Lucky me and due to the soft structure of the Thema-body, I did not get hurt at all.

I instantly wanted to have the uncharged 2.0-version again because I think it has the best fuel-, speed- and tax-efficiency.
My new '95-2.0-i.e.-Thema ist very beautiful, but its engine cannot compete with the one of the old '92-2.0.ie.
While the old one easily made 205 kmph, the new one only performed the 193 promised by Lancia as topspeed so far.
The old one made 80 in the third gear up a steep hill of 3%. Not yet tried the new one there, but I estimate the old one must have had 15-20 hp more than normal.

And, FUEL EFFICIENCY!:
I never ever needed more than 9.6 litres with the old 2.0, not even when I constantly nailed down the accelerator to the ground in town, but I wasted 13.4 litres with the new one on a long distance lead-foot-drive through Germany.

And meanwhile, I think it is not only a pitty but a real nuisance that the tank of the III-series has 5 litres less volume than of the II-series.
Does anybody know here what prompted the Lancia technicians to downsize the volume of the tank?? Was it because they needed room for the ABS or because of bad fuel ventilation in the I- and II-series?
Would the II-series tank of a '92 fit into a '95-Thema??

Now, important QUESTION:
Can I raise compression, performance, fuel efficiency and thereby action radius by flattening the head of the uncharged 834-DOHC-engine a little bit?
Maybe I will have to use 98 octane fuel instead of 95, I know.

FAQ:
HOW MUCH CAN THE HEAD of the 834 BE FLATTENED EASILY AND WITHOUT ANY MECHANICAL RISKS OR TROUBLES ON THIS WONDERFUL ENGINE?

Please, if anybody knows preciseley, TELL ME!! +

FJB.

kassus

Re: Higher Compression in 2.0 i.e.: Does flattening of head make sense?

Post by kassus » 07 Dec 2004, 17:12

hi

first of all, the fuel tank is the same for all versions 70 l with 9 of reserve. your car must be dated on 1994 being a serie 3 8 v with catalytic conversor, the last one build of all series.

this model has 117 hp at 5600 rpm and 16.8 mkg at 4000.

the 8 v non vat (your old model) has 17 mkg at 3300and 120hp at 5250 so must be more powerfull and responsive specially at low rev.

althought none of them are specially fast cars because they had the worsth engine (1300 kg) so the strongest one. i fell the same "poor punch" with 16v atmosferic and i changed to turbo version and im very impressive for the dynamic and powerfull engine unit faster than audis, bmw and similar

regards

FJB

Auf Deutsch: Erhöhung der Verdichtung beim 2.0 i.e.: Macht Kopfplanung Sinn?

Post by FJB » 07 Dec 2004, 17:17

Liebe Lanciafreunde!!

Ich mußte mir jetzt gerade einen neuen Thema kaufen, weil ich meinen 92er an einer Steinmauer, vor der Glatteis lag, leider totalramponiert habe.
Glücklicherweise und dank der weichen Structur der Themakorosserie habe ich mir überhaupt nicht wehgetan, es war gerade wie ein kleiner Rempler auf der GoKart Bahn.

Aber ich wollte sofort wieder eine Saugversion des 2.0 haben, weil das in meinen Augen das beste Auto der Welt ist, wenn es um Verbrauchsverhalten, Leistungsvermögen und Besteuerung geht.
Mein neuer 95er 2.0 i.e. ist sehr schön: Erstbesitz, Checkheft, aber sein Motor kann es nicht mit dem des alten 92er aufnehmen.
Während der alte leicht 205 km/h machte, ließ es der neue bei der von Lancia angegebenen Topspeed von ca. 193 km/h bewenden.
Der alte machte 80 km/h in der Dritten auf einer starken Steigung von 3%, den neuen habe ich dort noch nicht ausprobiert, aber ich glaube, daß die alte Maschine 15 bis 20 PS nach oben gestreut hat.
Ist ein so starkes Streuverhalten in der Leistung beim 2.0 i.e. eigentlich bekannt??

Na, und, was soll ich sagen: VERBRAUCHSVERHALTEN!!:
Mit dem alten brauchte ich niemals mehr als 9.6 Liter/100 km, auch nicht, wenn ich ständig und in der Stadt das Gaspedal auf den Boden nagelte, aber ich benötigte sage und schreibe 13.4 Liter /100 kmauf einem Langstrecken-Bleifußtrip durch Deutschland.

Und mittlerweile denke ich nicht nur, daß es schade, sondern daß es geradezu ärgerlich ist, daß der Tank der Serie III 5 Liter weniger Volumen hat als jener der Serie II.
Hat hier irgendjemand eine Ahnung, was die Lanciatechniker seinerzeit dazu bewog, das Volumen des Benzintanks zu reduzieren?
War das, weil sie Platz für das ABS schaffen mußten oder, um die schelchte Tankentlüftung bei der Serie II zu beseitigen?
Würde der Benzintank eines 92er Thema ohne ABS in einen 95er mit ABS passen??

Na, und jetzt, meine WICHTIGE FRAGE:
Kann ich gleichermaßen Verdichtung, Leistung, Verbrauchsverhalten und damit den Aktionsradius vergrößern, indem ich den Zylinderkopf der Zweiliter-Saugmaschine etwas abflachen lasse?
Ich werde möglicherweise Benzin mit 98 anstatt 95 Oktan verwenden müssen, ich weiß schon.

FRAGE:
UM WIEVIEL ZEHNTEL CM KANN MAN DEN KOPF EINES 834 ABSCHLEIFEN OHNE DAMIT MECHANISCHE RISKEN ODER SONSTIGE PROBLEME (Zahnriemenspannung) AN DIESER WUNDERVOLLEN MASCHINE ZU BEKOMMEN?

Bitte, wenn es irgendjemand schon gemacht hat und es mir genau sagen kann, sagt es mir!!
Wahrscheinlich noch niemand, weil die Leistungshungrigen sicher alle Turbo fahren - aber den kann man ja auch abschleifen - hat DAS schon einer gemacht? Der Turbomotor dürfte dann vor allem unten herum viel besser ansprechen.

Danke, FJB.

FJB

Thanks 4 ure reply. Both of my versions have catalytic conversor, the '92 and the '95 as well.

Post by FJB » 07 Dec 2004, 17:53

Dear Kassus,

My '95 officially is a 2/95, but you might be right that the body was built and assembled in 94 already.
While the fuelmeter of the '92 said "70", the one of the '95 only says "4/4", and when I looked it up in the booklet, I read that the latest petrol versions had only 65 litres, the diesel versions 68 litres.
I remember having filled in 68 litres in my '92, when I was quite empty once.
I think I will drive the whole tank of the '95 down and then see how much fuel I can fill in.

Surely, the uncharged 2.0 has not so much punch in spontaneous acceleration, and of course the turbo has got more torque. My 3.5 litre BMW has also got more punch, but I like the 2.0 i.e. for its highest performance in his class. When you compare it to any other car of the same size and performance (BMW 5-series, Volvo 7- and 9-series, Citroen CX, XM, Renault 25, Laguna, Opel Rekord, Omega, Mercedes W124, E, whatever), the uncharged Thema with the small engine still is supreme - it is the same as with your comparison of the Turbo to the products of other carmakers.
The 2.0 i.e. can even beat cars above its class - I remember losing a BMW Z4 3.0 i that was trying to follow me once last summer, or overtaking an Audi A6 Avant 2.5 TDI in the outer lane of two up a steep hill this summer.
If you are looking for a 116 hp car that could match with the 2.0 i.e.-Thema, you will have to take something light and small like a VW Golf I GTI, or an old BMW E21-320 or E30-318i, maybe the Mercedes 190 E could also match with it, but not the 1.8, and the 2.0 has got more hp than the 2.0 i.e.

But, as I wrote, I guess that the engine of my '92 was extraordinarily remarkable in performance.
I still have it. Maybe I will transplant it into my new '95 Thema once.
It had not quite the 17 mkg at 3300 and 120hp at 5250 that you wrote, but 160 nm at 3300 and 116 hp, but it HAD a cat-conv..
I have not yet looked up the data of the '95, but your data sound pretty much the same, only that I dislike the numbers "4000" and "5600".
If that is true, I guess I WILL flatten the head of the new machine, for I in no case would want it to be weaker or less fuel efficient than the older one.
13.4 litres/100 km would be OK on my BMW, but with the 2.0 i.e it is totally inacceptable to me. I loved the old Thema because of its low fuel consumption. It always went like hell and used only between 7.7 and 9.6 litres.
Regards, FJB.


FJB

Re: Higher Compression in 2.0 i.e.: Does flattening of head make sense?

Post by FJB » 15 Dec 2004, 21:34

The fuel tank has got only 65 litres, not 70.
And I found out that this must be due to the fuel-recycling-unit consisting of an active carbon filter.
Secondly, my car is definitely the last one build of all series. It says '95, but maybe you're right and it was built in 94.
When was the stop of Thema?
wasn't it in 95?
FJB.

Gabriele Ahrens-Adler

Lancia Thema günstig abzugeben

Post by Gabriele Ahrens-Adler » 06 Jan 2007, 12:41

Guten Tag FJB,

ich habe einen alten Lancia Thema den ich günstig abgeben möchte. Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass im Lancia Club vielleicht Mitglieder sind, die Interesse haben.

Lancia Thema, Bj 02/1990, gesamte Fahrleistung 257.000, ATM 122.000 (2 Liter Maschine aus Croma), TÜV 04/2007, AHK.

Der Wagen ist noch angemeldet.

Kontakt:
Gabriele Ahrens-Adler
Groß-Buchholzer Kirchweg 41
30655 Hannover

Tel: 0511/547 64 42
Mobile: 0173 2 173 478
eMail: gahrensadler@yahoo.de

Mit freundlichen Grüßen und vielen Dank
Gabriele Ahrens-Adler

Post Reply

Return to “51 Thema”