12 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH3.4 and 3.6 block interchangeability?
Leading reported evidence
Replace on the .1
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Even though they look very similar they did do a fair number of changes on the .1 to .2 to .3 engines..
Leading evidence: 'Replace on the .1' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace on the .1' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Although technically correct, this requires us to replace the parent metal in the crankcase to support the larger sleeves, which is not cost effective.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
IE, set the crank position at 2.4mm before/after BDC ( 10-20*?
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
The 3.6 3.8 rods are 2.4mm shorter, I was talking about using them in the 3.2 3.4 blocks ( with 82.8 stroke crank) , and using a "Custom Procedure" of setting the crankshaft 2.4mm "higher" than BDC before trying to inset the wrist pins..
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
@Charles Navarro wouldn't it be possible instead of using a custom piston to align the wrist pin hole in the block to the wrist pin, to use a "Custom Procedure" ( degree BDC ) and use with the 2.4mm shorter rod to align the wrist pin and the case hole?
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Although technically correct, this requires us to replace the parent metal in the crankcase to support the larger sleeves, which is not cost effective.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
The 3.6 3.8 rods are 2.4mm shorter, I was talking about using them in the 3.2 3.4 blocks ( with 82.8 stroke crank) , and using a "Custom Procedure" of setting the crankshaft 2.4mm "higher" than BDC before trying to inset the wrist pins..
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
@Charles Navarro wouldn't it be possible instead of using a custom piston to align the wrist pin hole in the block to the wrist pin, to use a "Custom Procedure" ( degree BDC ) and use with the 2.4mm shorter rod to align the wrist pin and the case hole?
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
The 3.6 3.8 rods are 2.4mm shorter, I was talking about using them in the 3.2 3.4 blocks ( with 82.8 stroke crank) , and using a "Custom Procedure" of setting the crankshaft 2.4mm "higher" than BDC before trying to inset the wrist pins..
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
@Charles Navarro wouldn't it be possible instead of using a custom piston to align the wrist pin hole in the block to the wrist pin, to use a "Custom Procedure" ( degree BDC ) and use with the 2.4mm shorter rod to align the wrist pin and the case hole?
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Again, technically a custom piston could be made if really, really thin piston rings are used so that you can move the oil control up in the piston so that the rails do not intersect the wrist pin tool cutouts.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
@Charles Navarro wouldn't it be possible instead of using a custom piston to align the wrist pin hole in the block to the wrist pin, to use a "Custom Procedure" ( degree BDC ) and use with the 2.4mm shorter rod to align the wrist pin and the case hole?
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
12 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T011819Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I've been searching for this information, but haven't found an answer. Can one use a 3.6 engine block to build a 3.4? If not, why?
Alternatively, Can a 2.7 block be resleeved with 96mm cylinders to build a 3.4?
Far as I have heard, there is a range for each engine case..
Even though they look very similar they did do a fair number of changes on the .1 to .2 to .3 engines..
But I'k=ll be watching see what other think here..
There are lots of little variations between the engine types, but basically speaking you have 5 chain and 3 chain engines.. The 5 chain engines are used in the .1 year cars, and the 3 chain are used in the .2 year cars..
The heads are massively different between the 5 chain and the 3 chain engines so interchanging heads is not recommended..
But the 2.7L 5 chain can be increased to a 3.8L 5 chain by boring/sleeving with Nickies because it has the same crankshaft as the 3.4 5 chain...
I don't know why anyone would want to make a 3.6 into a 3.4, but they are different in that one is a 5 chain and one is a 3 chain, so would not be recommended..
Although technically correct, this requires us to replace the parent metal in the crankcase to support the larger sleeves, which is not cost effective. If wanting to build a big engine for a base 2.7 Boxster, you would be better off starting with a 3.2 Boxster S engine.
When sleeving a 2.5 or 2.7 block, the largest size we go to is 89mm.
Thanks for the information. Let me see if I have this correct:
All 5 chain blocks are compatible with 78mm stroke cranks and bearing carriers
3.2, 3.4, 3.6 readily accept 96mm+ Nickies.
All 5 chain heads will bolt up to all 5 chain blocks.
An additional question. Can 82.8mm stroke crank and carrier be installed in 3.2 and 3.4 cases?
The wrist pin location in the 3.2 and 3.4 block is incorrect for the longer 3.6/3.8 82.8 stroke crankshaft. Again, technically a custom piston could be made if really, really thin piston rings are used so that you can move the oil control up in the piston so that the rails do not intersect the wrist pin tool cutouts.
@Charles Navarro wouldn't it be possible instead of using a custom piston to align the wrist pin hole in the block to the wrist pin, to use a "Custom Procedure" ( degree BDC ) and use with the 2.4mm shorter rod to align the wrist pin and the case hole?
IE, set the crank position at 2.4mm before/after BDC ( 10-20*? before/after BDC) to align the hole, then install the wrist pin..
Just thinking outside the box a little to save from having to have a custom piston.....this should work to go from 78mm to 82.8mm stroke engines/cases, but would not work to go from 82.8mm to 78mm stroke engines/cases
The wrist pin to deck height is the same across the m96's but the rod length and hole in the case differs
Where there is a will, there is a way,. We've done it before, but it's not worth the added cost and effort.
I wouldn't want to shorten the rod length - the rod/stroke ratio is already bad enough and shortening it would make it that much worse. Also, a custom rod would also be significantly more than the cost of a set of custom pistons.
The 3.6 3.8 rods are 2.4mm shorter, I was talking about using them in the 3.2 3.4 blocks ( with 82.8 stroke crank) , and using a "Custom Procedure" of setting the crankshaft 2.4mm "higher" than BDC before trying to inset the wrist pins..
That could be done, but you still have to make sure the oil controls don't intersect the wrist pin holes when the piston travels to BDC. The oil controls end up getting damaged and will fail.
Gotcha !! That would be like a two-stroke where the rings pass by the intake and exhaust ports, the ring gaps have to be "pinned" so that no ring gap crosses a port/hole...because they tend to rotate.
Any ring that intersects with the wrist pin hole would need to be pinned so it can't rotate and have the gap pass by the hole.....
Good brainstorming !!
