Board Logo
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
[ Total Views: 1572 | Total Replies: 7 | Thread Id: 28076 ]
Author: Subject: Formula Vee engines
MemberZimblewinder
Seriously Crusin Dubber
**


Avatar


Posts: 109
Threads: 23
Registered: February 4th, 2004
Member Is Offline

Location: Geelong
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )

buggy.gif posted on August 30th, 2004 at 08:42 PM
Formula Vee engines


Ive got a 1958 1200 in my splitbus and want to pick up some extra herbs for safer road life. I would like a stock appearance engine so a bigger unit is out except up to a 1500. Im not really concerned about high speeds but acceleration would be nice. People are not so happy with cars that dont keep up with the traffic. I was wondering how livable a 1200 Formula vee engine would be on the road in a bus? Anyone ever tried to live with one of these on the road? Any of the parts well woth it in a classic rebuild? Comments please. Cheers
MemberCam
Custom Title Time!
*****


Avatar


Posts: 1535
Threads: 187
Registered: August 27th, 2002
Member Is Offline

Location: Melbourne
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
Mood: addicted

posted on September 1st, 2004 at 11:37 AM


I think the power would be the same as a 1500, probably even with less pull. You could always go for a 1500 single port and get some slide in 1640 barrels and pistons, from there some head work and overall balancing should make a nice stock looking meatier engine.... and this way you could dry store your original motor instead of slowly wearing it out.
MemberDoug Sweetman
Veteran Volks Folk
Nil Bastardo Carborundum
*****


Avatar


Posts: 2128
Threads: 58
Registered: September 23rd, 2002
Member Is Offline

Location: Perth, W.A
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
Mood: sweeeeet :)

posted on September 1st, 2004 at 01:02 PM


Depending on your budget, I'd possibly even put bigger barrels on it - I assume you can flycut 1500 single port heads up to 94mm same as 1600 TP ? 94mm would give you 1915cc.

I realise it would never be a barnstormer, but if you rejetted a 34 pict carby I imagine it would be quite torquey and happy for a kombi ?
MemberZimblewinder
Seriously Crusin Dubber
**


Avatar


Posts: 109
Threads: 23
Registered: February 4th, 2004
Member Is Offline

Location: Geelong
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )

posted on September 1st, 2004 at 09:44 PM


Thanks fellas a 1500 looks the go at the moment so we'll see what happens. Cheers
Memberpete wood
A.k.a.: figure itout
23 Windows of Awesome
********


Avatar


Posts: 6828
Threads: 389
Registered: January 15th, 2004
Member Is Offline

Location: Nth Nth StMarys, Sydney
Theme: UltimaBB Pro White
Mood: upgrades = jackstands

posted on September 2nd, 2004 at 07:16 PM


I had a single port 1640 with 1300 heads on it. It was actually more torquey than my dual port 1640.



"stoopid is stronger than axles"
http://drivingnotpolishing.blogspot.com.au/ 
Membertassupervee
A.k.a.: Knob Jockey
Custom Title Time!
That really hurts doesnt it!
*****


Avatar


Posts: 1171
Threads: 25
Registered: September 21st, 2003
Member Is Offline

Location: Huon Valley SouthernTasmania
Theme: UltimaBB Psyche Blue
Mood: Moody!

posted on September 2nd, 2004 at 10:18 PM


Hey
I didnt see this post.
FV engines are largely bone stock apart from some port work and (now) 38cc heads. (previously 43cc)
The camshaft is supplied by Wade but is a stock 1200 cam ground off an approved profile.

The Vee engines are usually set up with wide bearing clearances to allow them to rev a bit.
Up until the introduction of a new controlled inlet manifold, best horsepower from a $5000 second hand engine is about 44 Hp a. t. w's.
This power is up in the 4 to 4500 rev range which is useless for a road wagon.

Dont waste your time M8 with a FV engine as the horsepower you need is simply not there and you will pay a real shitload for a decent engine with significantly less power than you could achieve with some intelligent frigging around with your stock clobber.

L8tr
E




Im not a complete idiot, quite a few parts are missing....
Memberoval TOFU
Son of Jim - Creator of Good
Bitte, ein Bit!
******


Avatar


Posts: 2946
Threads: 234
Registered: July 10th, 2003
Member Is Offline

Location: Pt Cookie, Melburg
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Grey
Mood: :booM

posted on September 3rd, 2004 at 10:13 AM


Quote:
Originally posted by pete wood
I had a single port 1640 with 1300 heads on it. It was actually more torquey than my dual port 1640.


Why's that? (sorry. this should be in the tech section)




...and Robert's ya father's brother...
MemberAnthiron
A.k.a.: Nicko McKay
Compulsive Aussie Vee Dubber
The Baja Rejuvenation Begins
*******


Avatar


Posts: 4936
Threads: 310
Registered: October 1st, 2003
Member Is Offline

Location: Buderim QLD
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
Mood: Hell hath no fury like a womans scorn for sega.

posted on September 3rd, 2004 at 10:34 AM


because of the single port heads........my single port 1600 on my baja is way more torquey than my 1600 twin port engine in the super bug.



62/60 model bug eye baja bug, (Full Build in Progress)
1974 Chevrolet Luv
1970 MK2 Ford Cortina GT
1979 Yamaha RX125 Two Stroke tracker project.
2004 Harley Davidson Sportster XL Custom
Memberoval TOFU
Son of Jim - Creator of Good
Bitte, ein Bit!
******


Avatar


Posts: 2946
Threads: 234
Registered: July 10th, 2003
Member Is Offline

Location: Pt Cookie, Melburg
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Grey
Mood: :booM

posted on September 3rd, 2004 at 11:00 PM


So why does the restriction of the induction (and exhaust - so I've read) make for better torque? (at the expense of top end I presume)



...and Robert's ya father's brother...
MemberAdam_C
Custom Title Time!
*****


No Avatar


Posts: 1180
Threads: 164
Registered: May 22nd, 2003
Member Is Offline

Location: Bargo, 1hr south of syd
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
Mood: could be lower

posted on September 5th, 2004 at 07:28 PM


I believe its something to do with the intake velocity......



Adam
Adzslick@iprimus.com.au


  Go To Top


Powered by GaiaBB, © 2011 The GaiaBB Group
(C) 2001-2024 Aussieveedubbers

[ Queries: 40 ] [ PHP: 16.7% - SQL: 83.3% ]