If you guys are serious about track work, scientific tests on piston sizes and horsepower figures, I would think the benchmark would have to lie with Electronic Fuel Injection + Electronic Ignition Control. (Haltech, MoTec)
I know everyone doesn't have the dollars associated with these mods, but surely you are grasping at straws comparing 1950's technology with what can be had on todays roads.
You may quibble about 5-10hp here and there, but this won't mean crap when another turbo jap car goes sailing past you on the freeway with airconditioning and cruise control.
I think its time to bring on the new wave.
Volkswagen should have persisted with the flat four thing, just look at Subaru.
I think the smartest thing anyone can do is cut their losses and implant a subaru motor with/without turbo and laugh all the way to the finish line (and the bank).
BizarreModeratorThe artist formerly known as blue74l
Yep if we were after cheap power we would have gone Wes' route and put a jap donk in.
We are interested in VW power. That is why we drive them (fast and hard). Basically keeping them stock - not some hybrid. If we were after just power a Jap grey import is the go.
We are interested in what you can do with a naturally asperated (read induction noise) flat for.
To each their own but the point of this is air cooled flat four
T25turbo (don't know your name) I think that u are in the wrong section of the forum, I believe that we have a conversion section now, u may want to go comment there. It still amazes me that people still make comments on posts when the comment is irellavant & insignificant
By the way, I've seen 4 wrx conversions in a vw & although they may be quick in a straight line, they still can't handle like a standard engined beetle
Jak
Congratulations to Ben Durie for breaking the hillclimb record at Ringwood in his stroker beetle!
Ben Durie wrote:Wes,
you are sprouting untruths again, 94's are thinner at the stud holes and the bottom, nothing like the std cylinder, and they do run hotter, Jaks test shows little gain in power, not enough to justify the crankcase mutilation needed to fit em.
what the..?
last time i checked bbq plates were made of low grade mild steel. and they warp because they're usually heated unevenly, and have no support. apples/bananas here dude. my 94's have been blasting their way around the country for more than five years. they're also about to be transplanted onto a new motor. I'll try and get some photos for the faithless. I also wouldn't like my case to be butchered to fit 94's, get a machinist to do it. criminy.
If you have a cast B'B Q plate that is too thin it warps right ?
We drive with BB Q plate material cylinders, not ideal but cheap, if you want long life the thicker the better.
You don't need to be an engineer to know that if a metal structure is thinner it has to be weaker, more prone to heat distortion etc .
for some reason my reply was left off the quote.
in short, and without the swearing and smacking of my forehead:
bbq plates warp because they're unreinforced unsupported mild steel, heated unevenly and cooled unevenly.
my 94's are being re-used in another motor in a few weeks, i'll take some photos of what they look like after five years of abuse. the motor they're in is perfectly fine, i just decided to jam some more power in the back of my dub. means new heads, and carbs and counterweighted crank, same barrels.
Hey Ben, man when are you going to wake up and smell the coffee, it is practically under your nose and you still dont get it.
As Jack and Peter said there is NOTHING wrong with the 94mm Piston and Barrell kits we have here in Australia today.
Get your head out of the sand and do some homework. Likening a 94mm barrel to a BBQ plate is like comparing apples to oranges.
I have also used both the 90.5mm barrel and the 94mm barrel on the same engine with more importantly the same static compression and quess what heres a news flash for you there was only10 degress difference in engine temp between the two. The engine is still in the car now daily driven and shows no signs of leak down or blowby.
If any one out there is looking at running a set of 94mm Pistons and Barrels with a std crank or a strocker than I would say go for it, as long as you stay realistic with the static comp and observe all the rules of properly fitting all the tinware for the late dog house style cooling you can't go wrong in my books.
Ben you just ain't keeping up with the times.😉
[Edited on 12-10-2003 by FirstName V LastName W]
Each to their own just remember what goes around come around.
Ben Durie wrote:Wes,
We are often testing , in fact I have a 94 x76 engine in my street car at the moment.
I found a crankcase with the area behind the fly-wheel cast thicker (filled in ) so I machined it for 94's on our bridge port type Mill.
So far it seems to make similar power to the 90.5 x75.5 engine that was in the car till a recent problem keeping the fly-wheel on.
Oh yeh it does make more heat.
So what your saying is a larger capacity motor runs hotter than a smaller one. You need to compare apples with apples. Again I am not stirring you, I just want to see some accurate scientific data.
Wes admit you are wrong 94s are thinner than 90.5s all bar the top bit.
When did I say 94's are a thick as 90.5's all the way down? What I said was
Lee, 94's are not thin walled. They are thick walled cylinders just like stockies.
Which was in response to what I thought was Lee confusing a 94 with a 92. I didn't mean to imply they are exactly the same thickness everywhere. It was a very general comment. But you have agreed that the top part of the cylinder where all the heat goes through is the same thickness.
Ben Durie wrote:hi Jak,
In my opinion 4hp is not worth the machining of a larger hole to fit the barrels, removal of precious crankcase material weakens the weak spots.
Ben, I have the greatest respect for u , but I'm surprised at your comments, maybe u havn't had a real good look at the graphs on the front page??
regards
Jak
PS do u have any dyno figures for your 94x76? Pauls got 93.7@ the wheels
Congratulations to Ben Durie for breaking the hillclimb record at Ringwood in his stroker beetle!
Craig Torrens6 times Australian, 7 times State Hillclimb Class Champion
Ben Durie wrote:hi Jak,
In my opinion 4hp is not worth the machining of a larger hole to fit the barrels, removal of precious crankcase material weakens the weak spots.
Wes,
We are often testing , in fact I have a 94 x76 engine in my street car at the moment.
I found a crankcase with the area behind the fly-wheel cast thicker (filled in ) so I machined it for 94's on our bridge port type Mill.
So far it seems to make similar power to the 90.5 x75.5 engine that was in the car till a recent problem keeping the fly-wheel on.
Oh yeh it does make more heat.
Wes admit you are wrong 94s are thinner than 90.5s all bar the top bit.
Turbo Guy,
I beat several WRX cars at King Edward Park on the weekend , and I don't have 4wd or a turbo .
the rest don't require an answer.
regards
Ben
[Edited on 10-12-2002 by Ben Durie]
You don't believe in 94's, yet you built a motor with them just to try !!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this because you're only just doing the reseach ??
Maybe if you start 8 dowelling your flywheels they won't come loose.......oops you don't believe it that do you😀
CONGRATS to Colin, for yet again another 94mm (1916) powered VW winning the state hillclimb series, now 8 years in a row a 1916 has won:thumb
Leak down tests are easy. I filled my kombi up with 4.5 litres of oil, ran 100kms and had it all blown out the breather into the air cleaner. Still motored along at the speed limits though. I love VW engineering.
hehehe when is a leakdown test successful, when you find you have plenty?
[Edited on 14-10-2003 by amazer]
Chris.... kombi pilot, oval dreamer... finisher #26971 2005 city to surf
Ben, I must take issue with you: Please don't ever call Wes "scientific." He's an engineer, not a scientist, never could be - his ego would never allow him to learn anything. One day I'd love to find out what kind of engineering he does, because it obviously has nothing to to with engines.
At least you finally got him to admit that reducing the cooling surface area will not increase cooling efficiency - i.e. an increase in energy throughput will result in higher temperatures. You'll never get him to understand that oil and head temperatures are not necessarily going to reflect piston and cylinder temperatures accurately. I have seen tests done with a laser surface temp guage demonstrating the increase in surface temprature, but the important issue here is the eveidence seen in the effects on the pistons and cylinders themselves.
I do not know of a highly experienced builder who does not say that the 94s run hotter and therefore should not be used on type 2s and 3s. As has already been pointed out, Wes does not build, or even run, VW engines...
It seems there are a lot of situations where 94s can be run quite effectively and reliably, it's just a shame there are people jumping to conclusions and telling everyone that they therefore don't have any issues.
70AutoStik wrote:Ben, I must take issue with you: Please don't ever call Wes "scientific." He's an engineer, not a scientist, never could be - his ego would never allow him to learn anything.
Don't you fix photocopiers for a living?
One day I'd love to find out what kind of engineering he does, because it obviously has nothing to to with engines.
A lot of my work involves finite element analysis. A bit of stress analysis and thermal analysis of large industrial equipment, furnaces, rotary coolers. But hey I will never know as much as someone with your experience....
As has already been pointed out, Wes does not build, or even run, VW engines...
I ran 1776, 1835, 1915's so I think I have some idea.
That's about all I have to say. The rest of the arguing on this thread is retarded. The 94's run hotter arguement is demented, since it is a larger engine with more power. I mean an engine with dual carbs will run hotter than one with single carbs if they are both driven flat out, so does that mean everyone should run single carbs? Get real. 94's have an extensive track performance with many reputable engine builders. If people want to stick their heads in the sand and not use 94's, so be it. It's not my loss.
Jakriz, I can see why you wanted to retain your 'baseline' intake setup for test consistency - but your thinking is, unfortunately, flawed. Let's face it, not changing your tune (either jetting or ECU) with an engine hardware alteration is something that - with respect - would get you laughed off any LS1, WRX or Mustang forum.
As for 94s, I laugh and laugh and laugh at people who want to throw away high-quality VW componentry and big $$ to risk the unknowns of aftermarket cranks and/or the evils of chopping out the reinforcing inside a VW case.
The use of 94s with a stock stroke has several benfits imo: Firstly, it doesn't upset what ios a reasonably successful stroke/rod length ratio (ie: doesn't put extra side load on the piston skirts/rods); The bigger bore allows the potential unshrouding of valves for better breathing, and they create higher peak airflow through the ports earlier in the rev range (good for throttle response and torque with carbs). The 'heat' myth is, to my mind, Berg propaganda from the 1960s. And thin walls around the base of the barrel? Der, so what? No heat load down there - it's below BDC. If you know what you're doing, you shouldn't be dropping the barrels on concrete anyway. The old 'making teh holes too big' argument, too, is halloween. The static and dynamic loads of the piston/barrel combo are in fact spread over a larger base... 'too much metal being removed'; is like claiming a larger poached egg ring is weaker than a small one...
Apart from routine care with over-boring of cast-iron V8s to prevent dropping into water jackets etc, no other engine, to my knowledge, has any discussion/argument such as this, based purely on arbitrary numbers relating to size of bore...:P
VWCOOL wrote:And thin walls around the base of the barrel? Der, so what? No heat load down there - it's below BDC.
To prove your point for you, I have some interesting images for you. Unlike some people who come here to mouth off, I didn't read these in a book or copy them from elsewhere. I actually cut up some barrels to see the difference in wall thicknesses. How many people can say they've done that.
And here's a shot of a 92mm cyl at BDC. You can see that the lower fins will not see much of the engines heat load.
I was investigating the effects of the combustion heat flux on the cylinder wall and fin temperature distribution. Alot of people will not realise that a cylinder wall can be too thin, but it can also be too thick. Thick barrels don't cool as well (before people mouth off at me, the chief engineer of Tatra agrees with me). And thin barrels are subject to distortion, not from being thin and weak, but because they are more subceptable to even cylinder temperatures around the barrel circumference.
I agree 92's are too thin, but I do not think 94's are being too thin. But hey, everyone can listen to who-ever they want to listen to.
VWCool ( I wish people would put their f%$#king names), we are not on any other make Forum, so lets stop making that comparison, & besides, how many WRX's do u know that have changed their bore size?
Right from the start I've never made claim to knowing anything more than I've stated or then I have actually done. This 2027cc is only the 7th engine that I've done, so I'm no expert & I'm learning more & more everytime.
As for the erellavant comments on the rods & crank, my 73mm crank is actually a Sabaduzi crank that has been offset ground for the Cevy journals that then makes the 73mm stroke. U do know offset grinding is don't u?? & my rods are actually 5.7 inches long, a standard rod is about 5.394 or sometihng like that, so my side loads on the barrells are better than standard ( u obviously didn't know my engine combo before making this reply). I also didn't have to remove one iota of material to get the crank & rods in the case, & just as another example, my good friend Paul who also races with me didn't have to remmove any material to get his 76mm crank in either................
Just as a general note, how many engines have u built, high hp ones that is.
I only made this post as I love talking big hp engines with other vw people & I was tired of being on the yank forums talking to people with a 1776 & kadrons that makes 300hp. I thought that me posting the dyno graphs would let people know that I wasn't just talking out of my asre & show them some real dyno figures.
I just want to talk shop, not shiitt
regards
Jak
Congratulations to Ben Durie for breaking the hillclimb record at Ringwood in his stroker beetle!
You and Autostik like to take everything I say as out of context as possible.
The main idea of what I have been saying is all the crap people dribble about the theoretical side of which cylinders is crap, and most of them don't know enough to even justify what they are saying. I've looked into the theoretical side in great depth, but prefer not to bore the forum people with the details.
As anyone that knows anything about engine develop knows, the theory is a great base for somewhere to start, but it is rigorous testing that proves if something works or not. That's what we should listen to.
That's why I listen to what Jak has to say. He has unbias test data from his own car.
I also listen to what you (Ben) have to say, because you have built more engines than I ever will, and have a lot of experience. The problem I have is I think you are a little biased at times, so I am sceptical of what you say. That's why I ask for facts not opinions.
Everyone here should look at the track record of various engine combo's and make their judgements from there. It doesn't take much to see 94's have an extensive track record with some very respectable engine builders.
Ben, stop getting so offended by everything. Why does it effect you whether people want to run 94's or not.
jakriz wrote:I only made this post as I love talking big hp engines with other vw people & I was tired of being on the yank forums talking to people with a 1776 & kadrons that makes 300hp. I thought that me posting the dyno graphs would let people know that I wasn't just talking out of my asre & show them some real dyno figures.
I just want to talk shop, not shiitt
regards
Jak
*ROTFLMAO* Oh that's sooo painfully true!
All these drop a "scooby motor in" people amaze me. I don't see the fun in that. This way you're developing, building and testing your own engine. Flow benches, dynos, etc... Are so much fun and really add to the racing experience (well I feel like a V8 supercar engineer when around this gear anyway😀)
Wes is probably the biggest conversion head around and has he started preaching? NO!!!
Forget Rex motors unless you want a quick power fix and some quiet driving. Plus I personally think these engines are past their prime when it comes to club use. I see heaps of them with big $$$ upgrades at club events here and they're not that special. So why would I drop a heavy water cooled motor into the arse of a sprint beetle? Sure, it would give a bigger power increase in a lighter car. But comparing a WRX (complete vehicle) to Jak's car and saying a WRX will "go flying past" it is BS. Lets look at a WRX simple 1/4 mile times. They're what? 15's high 14's on a good day. Jak could do that (IMHO) with his eyes shut.
God! when will people realise sprouting numbers is a pissing contest. People take some figures from motor magazine (which have been quoted by the manufacturer about their original concept development engine of an o/s model, prior to EM control crap, etc...) and figure thats what their VW is going to pump out at the rear treads... Gimme a break! It all comes down to what happens at the track. I saw a 425KW (at the rear wheels) Soarer, caged, on slicks, etc... at phillip island not too long ago. It was useless. Finished up tailing the cars it went out with by a large margin. The thing had no power band, if he had of stepped on it the thing would have just turned around. And what's the point of that?!?!? The same thing happens whenever any punk takes some hightech street/drag motor equipped track car out for a circuit day. It's pathetic really. You need as flat powerband as you can get. Unless ofcourse you have mass amounts of downforce, big slicks and can afford to take track data from each track and set-up 6 close ratio gears and full suspension set-up accordingly each time you go out.
I would love to see a WRX equipped beetle at the next dyno day, see the power increase over something like Jak's. I guarantee there won't be any pointing and laughing. I'm yet to be convinced about a/market conversions in anything other than something like a late model kombi for something like off roading and/or towing.
