Right I've just received my new 1600 P&C kit which was supposed to tie me over till I got more money to build something bigger....

But thats never likely to happen so I'm thinking I'll aim for something with a bit more fun than stock, reliable, daily driven and realistic to build.... 1776

What I don't really know a lot about is what else should be done to make it work properly. Not changes for the sake of changes, not changes to get the last ounce of HP out of it - Changes to make the 1776 run well.

I guess cam (improve breathing), Suggestions please, I'd rather have good torque and power low down in the rev range than thrash it right out.

Full flow filter? yes / no

Counter wieghted crank? I'm not looking a reving the guts out of it, but if counter weighting makes it last longer then thats a good thing.

I've got an AS41 with 10mm head studs, should I use the 8mm studs with case savers?

Thanks heaps
Jeremy

you have just about answered your own questions,

1776 with an Engle 100 or similar, and a set of Kadrons with a good exhaust, is a very nice combo.

I would go for a filter pump, so you don't have any oil lines to worry about.

And if you can afford one, a counterweighted crank, but if your not going to thrash it, (over 4500 rpm) Don't bother, but I bet you will!.

i have a very sweet 1776 combo, its a very nice easily driven motor. w-100 cam, std but ported an polished, extractors, std crank(balanced) twin 40mm dells. its a very nice motor.

Why 1776?
For the same money you can go 1916cc!!

A W100 or a stock cam with 1.25 rockers would help it to breathe a little better. But you may want to think about your compression ratio - just whacking in the larger P&Cs will give a CR that could cause problems. Cylinder spacers are the usual way to deal with this and the size needed shouldn't cause great problems with tinware or exhaust fitment.

Thanks people

Why 1776?
I know this debate is never ending.... But I think it's a better size without having to change too much. Every time something is changed there is a chain reaction, I guess that I can get away with a lot more stock and still have fun with the 1776.

70AutoStik
Thanks for the CR note...hadn't thought about this , the art of engine building is all still fairly new.

Just found this site and it has a wealth of info for us beginner folk

http://www.nateswaterart.com/vw/engine_build/ 

So whats a good CR to aim for?

Thanks
Jeremy

Change?
The only thing different about a basic 1916cc and a 1776cc is the amount of flycutting needed to fit the heads (you have to do this anyway) and how much the case has to be cut for slightly bigger pistons (again you have to do this anyway!)
I mean go with what you want - but why not have a some more power for nothing?

question. quickbug. if your taking more away. does this make the 1916 weaker than a 1776 structually?

No, not as far as my readings go - but there has been alot of debate about it.
There is plenty of meat on vw cases to allow for 94mm barrells (which are thicker walled than any other barrell).
Case savers are a good idea however as is, of course, crack testing of the case to be used.

yeah the problem with going from 1776 to 1915 is that you cant fit 94's on a 10mm stud case.

You do remove more material away from the case and heads to fit 94's. However 94's do work and can last.

Quickbug, thank for the input... I think I'll stick conservative for the mo.

Ben, I'm guessing that is a 7:1 CR, thanks

Anyone else with any experiance in this department?

Has anyone used the Web Cam cams at all? Any recommendations here. Not trying to be different but Aircooled.net seems to have good prices and that's what they stock.
http://www.aircooled.net/new-bin/viewproductdetail.php?keyword2=ECV0001&c...

That is unless someone has a suggested place to shop with good prices

Cheers
Jeremy

I said the PISTON WALL THICKNESS Ben.
They are almost double the thickness of any other cylinder wall. You should know this - you've had both in your hands often enough.
Of course the case isnt thicker when you are cutting away more metal, that is obvious as you have stated.
But, that said, there is plenty of meat the use of 94mm barrells.
I have given my 1916cc so much grief, ran it with std cooling at 150-160km/h for hours on end, thrashed it all over sydney, driven it to work every day, driven it for periods with hardly any oil in, and its still going strong years later!

a 1776 is a good motor, the barrels are thicker then 92mm piston and barrels, so you have a cooler running engine, get your stock crank balanced along with yourflywhell and pressure plate, and conrods. you will have a longer lasting engine that way. go a mild cam, like a wade 149, or 148a. and a single 40dcn weber, twins are not neccesary, and make it a pain in the but to change spark plugs. go with a compression ratio of around 8.5:1. oil filter is a good investment to, you can get the one that comes off the oil pump. also a set of extractors will help it breath.

Personally, I think we should keep this thread away from the 1916 debate - Jeza asked about a mild engine he (or she) intends to build himself (or herself.)

As for CR, I wouldn't go above 7.8 for high octane, or 7.5 for regular. These figures will still crack stock heads ahead of time on average, but most of us won't have an engine for the maximum life intended by the designers: i.e. You'll probably be right for 60-70,00km if you don't thrash it. We used to run CRs of around 8.4 in the old days, but we had high octane leaded fuel to play with (and many said they got better performance with slightly lower CR and more advance - even then it was usual to run stock or less advance, depending on mix, vehicle weight, etc.)

Just a note: had a look at that site, Jeza (it's been around a while,) and thought I should point out an error. New lifters should always be used with a new cam.

70AutoStick, vwguru- thanks for the info

Yep the 1776 vs 1916 debate... hence my reason for not saying anything more of one vs the other.

Back to real things...

Ben - yeah regrind cam is an option, thanks for the suggestion. I think I'll email you re this and cranks.

As for Carbs I've been laying low re this as I'd like to fuel inject it. It's much more work but it's something I'd like to try for interests sake...If it doesn't work then I guess you'll see a post here asking for carb recomendations I've already been involved with other posts re the feasiblity of this.

As for filters the info I've heard says take it off the pump and plumb it back into the main oil gallery... Not back to the pump- any opinions?

Cheers
Jeremy

go higher compression, the figures ppl have given you are only for static compression. What actually matters is dynamic compression. The cam timing takes effect here.

Higher compression (to a point) increases power and efficiency. When combined with proper fuel/air mixture, ignition timing etc. you can go higher CR, make less heat than a lower CR and more power.

The reason for this is that higher compression means the engine is working more efficiently and less energy comes out as heat and more as torque.

A lower compression motor is also harder to tune.

I say go 8.5 or higher static compression !

Not trying to be rude here but are you speaking from experience or internet reading about going higher than 8.5:1?
If he's using a mild or stock cam he should have a higher dynamic compression ratio anyway?

I am running 8.5:1 with

1776
AP2 V force - mild cam
twin IDF36's
stock 040 head's with 3 angle and a little work

Goes good. Reliable. Never pings.

Next step
1.4:1 ratio rockers
bigger valved 040 worked heads