building a BIG motor.... your thoughts

Ok guys ... a couple of questions for you engine experts out there.

If building a BIG motor for a beetle, something like 2lt to 2.7lt or somewhere in between.

1. What would be the best engine case to start with?

2. would you turbo it...

3. would you use a porsche fan kit ...

4. what is better horsepower or torque ?
( the car will never be used for towing )

5. any other point you think i need to cover ?

i look forward to your replies ....😀

I'm by no means an expert, but I've put a couple together now, so I'll give you my opinion anyway. 🙂

1) VW 'big block'. ie. type 4 motor. Aluminium case rather than magnesium alloy. Better cooling (not that it matters, see point 3). I like the pushrod tube design better. Basically just a stronger motor.

2)No, I'd supercharge it, but turbos are just as good, if they're your thing.

3)Yes, they cool even better than the type four stock cooling system (I've heard).

4)Torque, but I personally don't think that it is as important in a lighter car such as a beetle as it is in something heavier like a kombi. Torque will make a good streetable motor that doesn't need to rev to make power. Power is a product of torque x revs, so more revs = more power, but more revs can also mean less drivability.

There are lots of other things. This is an endless debate, but I'm sure a type 4 motor will ultimately cost less for the same performance, more so when you start pushing the boundaries a bit. 🙂

On my very limited experience, and having done some research into buildinga 2ltr motor this is my 2 cents worth.

1. if u have the money one of the new alum cases, if not its an as case i think

2.if ur going big displacemnt probably don't need to turbo it

3.no idea,they do flow more air i think. Cost?

4.a combination of the 2. the stroker should give u more toraue while more revs and the extra displacemnt will give more power

5. what revs a larger motor normally wants lower revs while a small high rpm motor is different.

Go to Shop Talk Forum (USA),but dont forget to come back,see you in a years time,enjoy:thumb

Finn

The first question you should be asking is
How much money will the Minister of Financess allow you to spend ???

Then the next is How fast do you want to go.

You dont necessarly haveto go BIG to have speed and performance.

BIG cost BIG bucks.

But i would start with a NEW case and not go over 2.0 as every componet starts to get on its limit.

what car are you fitting this up to, have you done all the mods to the running and braking gear to support the i engine ???

I think it would be better to do the car first as it will support any engine combo.

Thanks dave,
firstly ... i am not building a big motor, i just put the question up there to get some information about BIG motors.

And your is the sort of reply i need to hear, as you can see i have much to learn & might not ask the best questions ... but my questions can only get more accruate as my own knowledge grows. so i ask them, to get a better understanding... so hopefully one day i can ask the sort of complicated TECH question .. that will be worthy of the experts......
😀
As for the car mods to a type one , to support a BIG motor, i would asume some of the following would be correct ?..

1. seam weld trailing arms & rear end for strength.
2. disc break conversion
3. suspession upgrade to improve handeling
4. some sort of reinforcing to the chassie to prevent the engine twisting it ?

and i am sure there are a couple of other things ... but i guess that is a good place to start ?

Over a certain capacity you will require a brake booster. I'm not sure of the engine size limitations, but you should visit the RTA website.

That's if you want it street-legal and all!

As for what works best, that depends on what you want the engine to do. What's your driving style (do you wring the neck out of engines or do you putt-putt?).

Type 4 vs Type 1; I was led to believe that type 4's were $ intensive for the same performance, parts are dearer, etc.

The STF is a good place to get lots more info.

Good luck

These are two sites DEFINETLEY worth investigating when wanting to learn about hi po motors.

The first is the Cal Look forum - these guys are all out show offs. Have a look at the Top 20 - then you can read what they havi in there motor. Last place is running a 12.49 @ 105mph 1/4!!
First place is 11.63 @ 115! Supposedly street registered.
Either way LOTS of information and combinations to look and learn

http://www.cal-look.com/index2.html

The other site is Air cooled net. Not as all out but John C has written some tech articles on motor building etc. Then go shopping on line and look at the different prices and get scared how much it is going to cost!! Then get REALLY scared when you realize those high prices are in US dollars!!

http://www.aircooled.net/gnrlsite/resource/articles.htm

57 Cal look wrote:4. some sort of reinforcing to the chassie to prevent the engine twisting it ?

Those pictures of 'normal' cars twisting under torque and lifting one front wheel dont apply to a VW. Because the engine and gearbox and diff are all bolted together in one unit, there is no 'equal and opposite reaction' trying to twist the car in the oposite direction to the crankshaft. Other than the initial inertia when you plant the foot, the only torque reaction you get is around the axles, which in effect loads up the suspension hard, and resists wheelspin.

We get the bonus of lightweight, compactness, and traction all thrown in for free. Thats what makes em such good race cars 🙂

The good case for hi capacity is a cut down watercooled engine from a T3. Comes in 2.1 litres from factory. Nice.

Amazer, if only the front suspension links pointed forward, then you'd get no diving under brakes also 😎

Your choices would really depend on the application intended but here are some of my thoughts which you can take or leave. I am by no means an EXPERT but I feel I have gathered enough information over the years to make an informed opinion.

Engine size: Why go so BIG in engine size. Contrary to common belief, bigger is not always better. It is more a matter of finding the appropriate balance of bore to stroke that creates maximum power per cc.

How do you go about creating a 2ltr+ capacity? You would have to stroke and bore your motor.

Stroking: Not a great option. Increases torque but requires offset grinding the crank (reduced strength), requires clearance grinding in cases (reduces ribbing support) and reduces revability. Stroking effects engine geometry/dynamics in a motor too. Something I think Volksagen would have put alot of thought into when orginally designing the motor. Who are we to correct them? As Steve Irwin would say "Best not too muck with it!"

Boring: Quite a feasible option. Increases displacement and creates a bigger bang! Doesnt effect engine geometry/dynamics and creates more horse power. Boring type 1 cases out to 94mm can be achieved without structurally damaging a case and 94mm forged bore kits are great quality, but 94mm wont get you to 2ltr+.

That is why 1916cc is such a popular option. 94mm bore with the standard 69mm stroke.

Interesting facts about bore/stroke:

Motorbikes, Formula 1 and Aircraft all have one thing in common. They all have short stroke / big bore comparisons and are well known for creating excellent horspower per cc.

Tractors: They use a larger stroke comparatively to bore size. Great for pulling hoes through the ground and towing beetles out of creeks. Not too famous for winning races or smoking tires.

I dont know about you, but I know what I would prefer my motor to be like.

Doug's Type 1 case of choice:

An AD engine numbered case with stud inserts and dual pressure relief OR one of the new alloy cases if you can afford it.

The Type 4 Alternative:

You could get the 2ltr+ capacity from a Type 4 motor but you would be making a trade off on head design, weight and cost. To make a type 4 fit in your beetle you have modify your car and obtain engineering certificates *costly*. To get high performance parts for type 4 you are unfortuantely looking at fairly high prices *costly*. They are very tough, as they are built to take the flogging expected in a kombi but are typically too heavy for a beetle. The pendulam effect is bad enough as it is without making it worse. For these reasons I would proabably stick with a type 1 for a beetle. (Not to say you couldnt do a type 4 for a kombi that would go hard)

Turbo's:

I think turbo's can be a blast. You can get great power from simple motors by bolting on turbo's but it always seems to be short lived and they require high compression ratings you cant get at the pump. In this sense they are not really feasible for street. Premium and Optimax can only do so much. Yeah, it stops my wifes '88 Laser from pinging (way over due for a service) but it isnt Gods answer to the fueling needs of a high boost engine (as most street magazines would have you believe). Pinging would be inevitable if you ran any boost worth talking about. Optimax or BP Ultimate aint no methanol. Premium is really quite similar in rating to what super was many years ago (still only under 100 octane). This pinging shortens the life of your motor, causing cases to crack and more. Most peolpe who have fiited turbo's usually have an engine blow story to tell *not a good thing*. I would also suggest that turbo's are not typically a user friendly motor for your average driver.

Porsche Fan:

I would say - give it a miss.
Despite the fact it looks cool (cause they really do!) it will put extra load on your motor by having to push that massive fan around and, in turn would make your engine work harder, causing a loss in power and a gain in temperature. Therefore any cooling advantage you gained by having a bigger fan, you have lost due to the fact that the load, which is directly onto your crank *definately not good* has increased. Here is another factor to consider. Where does your induction get its air from? Same place your fan does. You figure out what effect that would have on your power.

Horsepower and Torque:

I would say both are equally important!😀 Bottom end pulling power (torque) is great for out of corners & roundabouts, and top end pushing power (horse power) is required to be first to the finish line. It doesnt have to be a situation of one or the other. It is more a matter of finding an appropriate balance of both through correct engine design and good cam selection.

I hope this was helpful. Keep in mind this is only my opinion and every is entitled to that.:thumb

Doug Pobjoy wrote:1. Stroking: Not a great option...
Something I think Volksagen would have put alot of thought into when orginally designing the motor. Who are we to correct them?

2. Boring: Quite a feasible option. Increases displacement. Boring type 1 cases out to 94mm can be achieved without structurally damaging a case.

3. Interesting facts about bore/stroke:
Motorbikes, Formula 1 and Aircraft all have one thing in common. They all have short stroke / big bore comparisons and are well known for creating excellent horspower per cc.

4. Tractors: They use a larger stroke comparatively to bore size. Great for pulling hoes through the ground and towing beetles out of creeks. Not too famous for winning races or smoking tires.

5. You can get great power from simple motors by bolting on turbo's but it always seems to be short lived and they require high compression ratings you cant get at the pump. In this sense they are not really feasible for street.

6. Most peolpe who have fiited turbo's usually have an engine blow story to tell. *not a good thing

7. I would also suggest that turbo's are not typically a user friendly motor for your average driver.

1. Dont you just love how people use the "volkswagen did it like this so dont muck with it" statement to shoot the other guys opinion and then go against the thory in their next paragraph!!! Nobody lives by that rule.

2. Using your own defence against you, when volkswagen wanted an engine over 1600cc did they bore the type 1 engine or did they bore a type 4 engine? If VW decided 1600 was the limit for a type 1 case who are you to argue. (I'm not saying you shouldnt, just that I listened to you in the previous paragraph)

3. More facts Motorbikes and formula 1 (dont know about aircraft) all rev a hell of a lot more than 10,000. I dont know of any people who see that. Maybe a drag car does, but most those drag cars I very much doubt are using a volkswagen case. You simply cannot take a VW case to the extreme revs like you state.
torque = force x distance
power = torque x revs.
power relies on torque.
torque increases with distance ie longer stroke.
tell me how a longer stroke can hurt?

4. Go pick up a copy of Street machine. page 82. 3000hp. from memory something like 4.25 x 4.38 inches if memory is correct. The bore stroke ratio is almost square. Certainly nowhere near the 'miss-square-ness of a 69 x 94.

5. are you sure? I have been running a turbo VW for about 8 years. I run standard unleaded mostly. Optimax for racing. 18psi is what you would call high boost?

6. Cant think of any that I know. keith, leigh, shimo, dave, ian I dont think any of us have had anything blow other than a hose. I have had 1 problem. A dropped valve seat. A common type 4 problem, I doubt turbo related.

7. Next time you are in wollongong gimme a buzz. I would suggest if my wife can drive it anyone can. Perhaps you could ask Jay, she has driven mine over long distances and didnt seem to have any trouble at all. It drives exactly like a stock kombi, only with more power.

Pleeease dont take that as a 1916 bash. It isnt and that argument has been done to death. My points about stroke go for any combination you care to put together.

By the way I've got Jays report on turbo driveability. the question I asked was what do you think of this statement..."I would also suggest that turbo's are not typically a user friendly motor for your average driver."

I would suggest that the author think about all the turbos in modern ve-hicles which are used as daily drivers (thinking wrx etc).

I'd drive a turbo >🙂

Yeah your kombi is definitely quite drivable - even for a chick 😉

Errr.. I did accidentally do 130k/h though... I reckon that makes it
MORE drivable!!

Having read the odd post re T4 engines at STF I thought the general concensus was that it isn't really much heavier than a T1 (Joe Cali mentions a figure of 25lbs in his upright conversion manual).

So the pendulum thing shouldn't be a reason to flag the T4 option.

As for cost- well I havn't priced things up but a well built 2l T4 that is vaguely modified from stock has claims of 115hp from the type 4um, and thats plenty o power for me to cause trouble 🙂 and shouldn't cost much more than a well moded T1

Any thoughts???

Jeremy

[Edited on 4-6-2003 by Jeza]

Just take ol'Jakes 115hp with a grain of salt.

One of his motors was on ebay the other day and yeah .... a bit was revealed.

It was 120 ponies - on the bench
no fan belt
advanced to hell
on race gas

A stock 2L put out 70 ponies
It would take a bit to get 115 at the wheels out of it
Jak has hit 100 at the wheels out of a T1 and that has taken a few years

In a 100hp 1000kg car every 10kgs = i pony at the wheel.
It all adds up

Not knocking the T4... i own one. Has torque from hell, just.......

type 4's are similar pricing to type 1's in terms of internal parts. The expense is in the cooling system when you put it in a beetle and the custom exhaust that u have to fabricate.

turbos are a lot of work to do properly.

as dave said, do up the rest of the car first, like brakes, suspension (replace all bushings with polyurethane), replaces balljoints, steering box etc, fitting a berg front transmission mount is a good idea to stop wheel hop. Get all that sorted first before u get an engine 🙂

i decided on a 2L t4 cos it has better power and factory reliability.
i will get it dynoed one day and tell one and all what it makes at the rear wheels.

i decided t4 cos of the need to drive daily. remember the more stress and the more mods then chances are the more tlc it will need.

and the price of a built engine was too much. i got mine second hand, zero kms and warrantied ("in the mail") to get all this in a 1916 would have cost around 6k.
i ll get mine in the car for around 4.

thanks brad🙂🙂🙂🙂
:bounce

Didn't Porsche 914's get 100hp from the type 4 motor?
What did they do? Head work cam and carbs?

I would seriously question the advice that type 4s are no more expensive to work than 1s - look at some prices. The type 4 world never really got off the ground and with the much smaller market everything costs a lot more than type 1s. Going to this sort of size will definitely shorten the life expectancy of an engine, but as you won't get it road registered, who cares? It is currently possible to build a 2910cc type 1, but you'd be wise to make it a methanol engine, as the 101.5mm cylinders will have difficulty cooling (there's just not enough space between them.) This would make for a pretty serious strip motor, however, especially if you added an Eaton Supercharger! 😀

Andy wrote:Didn't Porsche 914's get 100hp from the type 4 motor?
What did they do? Head work cam and carbs?

Yes - the euro spec 2.0L got about that
higher CR
domed pistons
different cam
better valved heads

Who came up with this 'Volkswagen never changed it so you shouldn't either' nonsense?

When VW went from the 40HP 1200 to the 1300 cc engine (1966 in Australia), they increased the stroke from 64mm to 69mm. This was a completely new crankshaft forging. You can take this further with aftermarket cranks.

When VW increased the 1800 Type 4 motor to 2000cc, they increased the stroke from 66mm to 71mm - by offset-grinding the crank journals. 2-litre cranks have 50mm big-end journals, compared with 55mm on 1700 and 1800cc engines.

There is nothing wrong with increasing the stroke of VW engines - it has been a standard way of inceasing the engine's output for more than 50 years. Guess how Porsche increased the power of the 998cc pre-war KdF engine for the 1939 Berlin-Rome race car? You guessed it, they increased the stroke.

Porsche fans on Type 4 engines - no problem. What do you think Porsche 914 engines have??!! These are run directly off the crankshaft nose, not from a pulley.

Aircraft piston engines turn SLOWLY. The typical Lycoming four-cylinder engine in Cessna 180s turns at 2200 rpm in cruise and 2400 in full-power climb. Those engines are designed for torque, not power. Similarly, Merlin V12 engines in WW2 Mustangs and Spitfires would commonly develop their maximum power - perhaps 1500 hp - at less than 3000 rpm. I leave it to you to calculate the mind-boggling torque those engines are producing.

And above all, as hot-rodders have known for years...all else being equal, the only substitute for cubic inches is MORE cubic inches. A good big engine will always beat a good little engine.

Just stroke it, u won't be dissapointed,........now where did I put that 86mm crank?..........
Jak

Easy Tiger...

Firstly, I didnt shoot down any ones opinions. Scroll back and have a look. So far, it is me that has copped all the criticism. At least I anwered the question asked? Why dont you have a go?

Also, did I not say you could take it or leave it? So dont get so emotional, your a big boy, you can cope cant you?*hands a tissue to amazer*

Secondly, It would seem that I have been missunderstood as to what I meant when I made this statement:

Stroking effects engine geometry/dynamics in a motor too. Something I think Volksagen would have put alot of thought into when orginally designing the motor. Who are we to correct them? As Steve Irwin would say "Best not too muck with it!"

My reference to not correcting Volkswagen engine design was NOT to be taken as a common rule. I was only referring to the engine geometry. I believe that VW's are over engineered and therefore can take increases in performance, unlike any other motor. That is why I like em! But when it comes to engine geometry, I dont feel I know enough to mess with it. I know that when you lengthen the stroke on a motor, you will upset geometry. Load will move, angles get steeper, torque will increase but at what cost? When you prove to me how the geometry could be improved or not effected by stroking a 1600cc then I might consider it. Otherwise I would suggest it should be left alone. May I also say that "what works here MUST work there" is not fantastic logic. People who COPY and dont UNDERSTAND usually make mistakes.

And pleeeeaaassse dont expect me to accept what I read in magazines as fact. I have met too many people who THINK they know what they are talking about cause they read magazienes. I dont see mag's as a credibile source of information.

Thirdly, in regards to why VW designed a type 4 motor. I dont believe VW thought the 1600 case couldnt be bored out. I believe that they realised than one motor cant suit everything. Magnesium alloy cases were designed for a beetle... not for Kombi's. With a Kombi's extra weight (refering to later models) they required more strength, and that is why I believe the alloy case 1800 & 2ltr were designed. Not because magnesium cases were inferior, but simply not suitable for the application.

Finally, in reference to turbo's. 1 atmosphere (15psi) and up is a decent amount of boost. What type of car is it in? The kombi in your pic?

When I was talking about driveability I was reffering to the dangerously tire smoking (while the car side steps) gear changes I see when mazda's and datsun's run turbo's and fang it (street or drags), and also having to keep it up the revs to keep up the boost.

Congratulate your wife on driving the kombi and point out that new car engines with turbo's fiited have obviously been designed around it. Therefore they are not the same as bolting on a turbo to a naturally aspirated motor. Like I said, turbo's can be fun, but on a VW using road fuel, I can say I havent seen anything that amazes me, and believe me I have been to nearly every VW event since I was born. Only ever seems to be the same performance which could be achieved through proper engine mods without all the extra fuss of a turbo. Its all just more stuff that could go wrong.

But hey, everyone has their own brain. I am sure we can all figure things out for ourselves. Make your case answering the question and let everyone work out what they believe is correct. Something more than a one line suggestion would be more appropriate I think.

When I said:

"Congratulate your wife on driving the kombi AND point out that new car engines with turbo's fiited have obviously been designed around it."

I made a gramatical error. What I meant to say was:

"Congratulate your wife on driving the kombi BUT point out that new car engines with turbo's fitted have been designed around it."

I did not mean to insinuate any disrespect. I was seriously congratulating her, I would imagine boost that high could be twitchy. I could see the potential for this to be misread so I have replied immedietly to correct it. I apologise for any negative tone implied.

biiiig question, how much time (rebuilding, and tinkering) and money (replacing, buying bits, paying for machining etc) are you willing to spend? and do you want it to drive streetwise, or drive ludicrously fast for short bursts?

i reckon build a laster wot goes faster 😀
budget 7k.

this might help direct your enquiries... or maybe it won't. either way the wealth of experience here should beat magazine advertorial hands down.

With a Kombi's extra weight (refering to later models) they required more strength, and that is why I believe the alloy case 1800 & 2ltr were designed. Not because magnesium cases were inferior, but simply not suitable for the application.

If that is the case why arent they called a type 2 engine? I always thought they were designed for a type 4 and used in a kombi. In any case its no point either of us worrying because we all know we can reliably punch more out of them than what VW did. I cant even remember my own point. Think it was something to do with the 'VW wouldnt do it' thing. I wouldnt do a type 4 in a beetle myself, although I do have one in my fastback.

Finally, in reference to turbo's. 1 atmosphere (15psi) and up is a decent amount of boost. What type of car is it in? The kombi in your pic?

The kombi in that pic was running 18psi on standard unleaded. When I raced it I added 30% toluene to premium @ 22psi. It audibly pinged at 25, so backed it off a bit. The one I am running now (in a kombi) is just under 10psi boost on standard. I think that is reasonable. I'd like to run more but need to work on carburettion a bit more. I bought the whole car for $400. Its an 1800 (at least by engine number). Just replaced the solexes with a DMTT weber, bolted on a very crude exhaust I was given with a used Audi turbo. Hardly hi tech and no ball tearer but its cheap. was running an intercooler until my subaru water pump died. Something I must fix.

When I was talking about driveability I was reffering to the dangerously tire smoking (while the car side steps) gear changes I see when mazda's and datsun's run turbo's and fang it (street or drags), and also having to keep it up the revs to keep up the boost.

Do you see the turbo VW's at the drags stepping dangerously sideways? While it is true that my car wont make full boost or power at 3000, i'm positive that a normally aspirated engine, even with only mild cam wont either.

But hey, everyone has their own brain. I am sure we can all figure things out for ourselves. Make your case answering the question and let everyone work out what they believe is correct.

I dont care if someone goes 2180 NA, 1916, 1776 turbo, 3litre type 4, 2.5 litre subaru. Its no skin off my nose. I just have a need to correct misinformation. Your statements on turbo charging are just plain wrong in my opinion. If you were to say that turbo charging is a hassle finding room for a turbo, plumbing exhaust and intake, intercooling, then I would agree (although you could copy what has already been done) but there are no problems with fuel or driveability in a properly set up system.

I didnt offer 'the answer' because there is no answer. It depends on budget, application, inclination, time, even probably your age.

I supose if I had enough funds and inclination to do a beetle I would build a 2.1 cut down wasserboxer. They are aluminium. There's plenty of meat in the main bearing areas. very solid lifter bores. Deep sump cast in. And I would probably go normally aspirated quad throttle body fuel injection. Wouldnt mind hearing some induction roar for a while.

PS yes I do get upset easily :cry
and just so there's no confusion later, Jay isnt my wife, she's my best mate.

56astro wrote:Over a certain capacity you will require a brake booster.....That's if you want it street-legal and all!

Astro, this is not correct. A brake booster will do absolutely nothing to increase the braking performance of a car. It will however stop girls with weak legs complaining of a stiff brake pedal. A brake booster is not a legal requirement.

Over a certain size you may be asked to install rear disc brakes (and front) at the engineers disgretion. I run 4 wheel discs with no brake booster and my pedal pressure if fine. Installing a brake booster would just lose the brake feel and make them lock easy. Don't believe the "drums are self energising" and don't need boosters, but discs aren't so do, because it's crap. Tell me how many road bikes have brake boosters.

For RTA restrictions on size and the mods you have to do, check here http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi06.pdf

While I am here, 1 atmosphere is actually 14.7psi not 15, but close enough I guess.

The "VW must have done it for a reason, don't change it" arguement is completely ridiculous. VW were out to make a very cheap, very fuel efficient long life motor. If this is what you want, then don't change what VW did.

If you want high HP, don't mind crap economy then obviously you will have to change what VW did. VW didn't do anything for performance. Therefore if you want performance, you'll have to change just about everything VW did.

Listen to Amazer, he's been there and done that. I have seen his type 3 getting the crap flogged out of it at Valla, and it was very impressive. And anyone that can get a kombi into the 14's down the 1/4 must be doing something right.

Seriously guys, this arguement has been done to death in so many forms & so many times, I personally know of people that have left the forum & say they aren't coming back, this crap has got to stop.
At the end of the day, as far as I'm concerned, as long as there are hot VW's running around in one form or another beating up other makes, not each other, then thats what it's all about to me.
It's so easy for one person to have a faster VW than the other, most of the time it's the size of the wallet, but who cares?
Lets all enjoy going quick in vW's, period.
regards
Jak

[Edited on 8-6-2003 by jakriz]

thank goodness some one has said that.

Whew, thats a releif Ben, I thought all the stroker comments were for me.
I'll sleep now.
Jak

guys, no names were mentioned, dont let this get personal again.

Has anyone seen those bumper stickers- "Want more inches? Stroke it!"

Guy next door had a V8 monaro with "only milk and jiuice come in 2 litres". I suspect he got the flogging he deserved cos his next car was a 2 litre subaru.

I like this one

bumper stickers- "Want more inches? Stroke it!"

But it aint made my engine grow.

As long as something grew who cares? :]

hehe there is also the "only cheap wine comes in 5L"

I think cheap wine is worse than milk.

If you are really serious about building a big engine and have a realistic budget! Let me know as i have enough parts to build 2 or 3.

Scatt, Autocraft, ARPM, Webber, DELLS, Hilbourne etc...

Just remember - There is no such thing as a lack of power, only a lack of traction.

amazer wrote:Guy next door had a V8 monaro with "only milk and jiuice come in 2 litres". I suspect he got the flogging he deserved cos his next car was a 2 litre subaru.

Even though its bagging out 2 litre motors, you have to admit.... its pretty clever. Good one!

amazer wrote:Guy next door had a V8 monaro with "only milk and jiuice come in 2 litres". I suspect he got the flogging he deserved cos his next car was a 2 litre subaru.

Sorry guys, but I love this quote. You just can't beat cubic inches. Turbos are a whip for engines, if you whip them hard enough they will break. A big cubic inch engine is built very strong to handle the horse power that it will produce. A VW engine would never have been designed to handle hugh horse power as it didn't need to be when it was first designed, but this does mean that you can't get more out of it safely. You need to find that balance between how physically strong the engine is and how much more power you want out of it. If you get the balence right WOW. I also think that the issue of engine geometry is valid. When you change lengths and angle of forces within the engine, the engine could experiance different forces and pressures. Again get it right and you don't over do it then WOW.

Baja Wes wrote:VW were out to make a very cheap, very fuel efficient long life motor. If this is what you want, then don't change what VW did.

My little 1600 is a stock as they come, and in a buggy I'm more concerned with it running and runnin and running. I'll do without some performance to get more reliability and life from my engine, and that's my choise as I am very conservative.

These are just my thought as I am not a mechanic and I have never had a turbo charge car, but I will admit to owning a 5.2L Valiant Hardtop. One thing that I will say is that you can't beat the sound of a thumping V8, no turbo can.

😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

I believe this forum and I got off on the wrong foot. I cant say I know who you all are? or what you are all like? but I can say I generally believe most people are alright, and I didnt join this forum to make enemies. Im sorry if I got a little defensive in this thread earlier but as some of you may have noticed, my name seems to develop an instant love/hate relationship with most. As a result I have been a little on edge. I am proud of my name and dont wish to hide it, but it seems to draw a fair bit of unwanted attention (good or bad). I am just another guy who loves VW's, and likes to see them go. I have grown up with them, my first car was one. I have owned two station wagons, a beetle and a fast back, and I am only 22! But, I am not Stan Pobjoy, and dont claim to be, (nor am I one of his puppets thank you Ben). By NO means do I know as much as my father and I hope people would not expect such from me. When I post a message, I do not speak on my fathers behalf! What I say is what I think and thats it. As far as I know, my father might completely disagree with what I say. How would I know? He lives in Coffs Harbor and I live in Sydney. I have no political motives here. I am happy for people to ignore my posts or even point out if I make a mistake (as long as they can back it up), but dont give me shit just because I am a POBJOY! I dont take to kindly too it. 😎

Doug,

Don't let these guys get to you. Say what you think, after all isn't that what everone else is doing. As with all groups of people you will get extremes at either side with the truth usually somewhere down in the middle.

this forum is starting to really piss me off. This is a forum for discussion. so if u ask a question u will get opinions from different people. A opinion is not an order or a law on what to do and what not to do, u can take it on board or completely ignore it. But every body is entilted to his/her opinion and that is fine some people may have 50yrs experience on vw's, other's may think a beetle is front engined, but every body can have THEIR say. so lets just stop being personal and talk about what we are all here for, that is VW'S, and as far as MY OPINION goes the more fast VW's out there the better!!!!!!!!!!!

manxed69 wrote:Sorry guys, but I love this quote. You just can't beat cubic inches. Turbos are a whip for engines, if you whip them hard enough they will break.

Explain to me how this is so?

Are you telling me that 100 horsepower from a turbocharged engine is going to twist the crank until it breaks but 100 horsepower from a normally aspirated is something different? What is heavier? a kilo of lead or a kilo of feathers?

These are just my thought as I am not a mechanic and I have never had a turbo charge car, but I will admit to owning a 5.2L Valiant Hardtop.

Well what more qualifications do you need! One thing puzzling me though is, since theres no substitute for cubic inches, and theres no substitute for the sound of a V8, why arent you still in your Val and why are you in a 1600 volkswagen? Dont get me wrong, I love those ideals. That is one of the best things I like about the VW scene. I copped plenty of stick at work for playing with VW's from one guy in particular. But I got the last laugh after my shitbox kombi beat his new clubsport commodore at the drags.

Fortunately there is a substitute, and you will find it in nearly every different makes showroom. (probably every single one but I'm playing safe) Its called forced induction. Check it out someday. You'll like it.

Amaser

All I was trying to say is that the VW engine wasn't designed with turbos in mind, that doesn't mean that you can't get more out of them. All I was trying to say was there is a limit. What that limit is I don't know, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one. The V8 engines are built tougher as the horse power that they produce was always going to be more, but yes they too will have a limit.

As for driving a 1600, well a V8 isn't suitable in a Manx as it's just too darn heavy. It's just horses for courses.

it was never designed for 1600 either.
anyway, im done whinging.

but I reckon a chopped baja'd valiant would be a real head turner! If only for all the wrong reasons.

manxed69 wrote:As for driving a 1600, well a V8 isn't suitable in a Manx as it's just too darn heavy.

You know all alloy V6's are a lot lighter than V8's 😀



[Edited on 10-6-2003 by Baja Wes]

I personally would love to put a Lexus quad-cam V8 in buggy, preferably WITH a turbo - imagine the 1/4 mile times!! * KruizinKombi drools *

Now, what were we talking about?

I still maintain that I would use a type IV as a starting point for a BIG motor, which is what this post is (was) about. Does anybody have any figures for what it would cost to place all the type IV advantages in a type 1? How much do those aluminium type 1 cases cost? How much to improve the cooling to the same standard?

hehe firstly the advantages of the type 4 as a base engine:

-Through Bolts that hold the case halves together instead of studs

-Aluminium case material, stronger case, thicker webs (no more cracking at #3 cylinder in the bellhousing)

-flanged crankshaft to flywheel bolted connection (no more stupid dowels!)

-lifters and pushrod tubes that can be removed without taking off the head (aftermarket stuff not counted)

-built in oil filter

-cross flow heads

-larger finnage area on heads

-built to be 2L and put out 100hp stock!

Other than the all out race cases that dont have any provisions for tinware or cooling, there is only one type 1 style case that has through bolts, aluminium, and a chunky design. It's called the TF-1 and costs about 3000USD or thereabouts.

The WBX engine has a lot of the type 4 advantages although i dont think it has through bolts (someone correct me)

Unfortunately the execution of the cross flow head leads a lot to be desired. I see in the US you can get type 1 style heads for them. Big $$$ of course.

Yes the WBX case has studs too.

deep sump, full flow filter

thicker case walls, wider mating faces, stronger in the lifter area.

[Edited on 10-6-2003 by amazer]

completish engine. Fits in the same hole as a type 1 engine. cant go wrong mate!

Amazer

this a project of yours??

Where is the oil cooler on the WBX?
Cant see the holes on the previous top shot?

WBX doesnt have a cooler at all.
Need to run an external.

Not my project. Its an old hellbug project.

so what about tin and the like?
U have to make it like a T4 conversion?

Same with genny stand - it looks like a t1 would fit, no?

its type 1 tinware. Probably needs a little massaging.
Yes the generator bolts on like an original type 1.
As far as I can tell you could make it in either type 1 or 3 configurations. Its been done a few times in type 1 style.