Subject: 1970 Beetle - Possible engine replacement
vinsueball
Commited Dubber
Posts: 60
Threads: 22
Registered: April 25th, 2012
Member Is Offline
Location: Brisbane
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
posted on January 26th, 2013 at 08:57 PM
1970 Beetle - Possible engine replacement
Hey All,
Some expert guidence. I'm about 3/4 through a resto on a 1970 VW Beetle 1300. All of the work has been done on body, internal refurb and suspension.
The current mileage is reading about 25,000 miles and I'm trying to work out whether this is the original motor and we've gone around the clock or
if a replacement was put into it 25,000 mile ago ! Any clues on how I might be able to do that ? Unfortunately, the previous owner passed away about a
month ago so I can't ask him !
Secondly, if I decided to replace it, what would others suggest I do ? Not interested in going water cooled but would be appreciative of everybodies
thoughts about replacing like with like or giving the old girl a boost with a bigger motor. What are the pit-falls of going larger ?
Would also like to get an idea from those who have done this as to what $$$ were involved ??
V
barls
A.k.a.: Mr indestructible
Super Administrator
Causer of Chaos and Mayhem
Posts: 9470
Threads: 296
Registered: June 22nd, 2004
Member Is Offline
Location: cruising in denistone east
Theme: UltimaBB Streamlined2
Mood: indestructible? and listening to the voices
posted on January 26th, 2013 at 09:10 PM
the pit falls are the other items you will have to upgrade as well. a bigger engine, depending on what your after will always need better brakes and
possibly a stronger gearbox.
you will also need an engineers certificate for the car to be road legal once you go over the 15% increase in engine size.
personally i believe that the 2L kombi motor is the best option but can be more expensive.
Posts: 2703
Threads: 193
Registered: August 28th, 2002
Member Is Offline
Location: Sydney
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
posted on January 27th, 2013 at 12:08 PM
The 1300 Beetle of the 1970s was the 'budget' or 'cheapie' model, at a time when VWA was selling the 1500 (and the next year the 1600 Superbug) as
the more expensive model. So it won't have the disc brakes that the 1500 and 1600s had.
Hard to imagine a 1970 VW with just 25,000 miles, so it's probably 125,000 - or 225,000! The engine could have been replaced at any time, maybe more
than once. A compression check would give some indication of its condition; also the crank end play.
Most VW shops would probably replace it with a 1600, as parts for these are much more common (in fact you can buy a complete brand new long block).
Youl would also need all the 1600 ancilliaries like carb, manifolds, oil cooler and tinware, as they are different. This would give you more than
enough power to keep up with traffic and cruise at 100 km/h.
The 2-litre Kombi engine is a completely different design and would be a major and expensive exercise to fit to your Beetle. It would be easier and
less expensive to build a bored/stroked Type 1 engine if you want more power. Talk to your local VW shop or one of the advertisers and see what you
can buy for what you are prepared to pay.
barls
A.k.a.: Mr indestructible
Super Administrator
Causer of Chaos and Mayhem
Posts: 9470
Threads: 296
Registered: June 22nd, 2004
Member Is Offline
Location: cruising in denistone east
Theme: UltimaBB Streamlined2
Mood: indestructible? and listening to the voices
posted on January 27th, 2013 at 02:07 PM
phil the 2L bolts up to the same gearbox patten, you just need the 1800 flywheel to fit it. although the gear box bell housing may need to be
clearanced but it will for a 1600 as well.
bored and stroked t1s can be cheaper but dont have the same longevity as the t4.
its all about percentage of modification. to take the 1600 block to 1916 its a 20% modification in size. where as the the t4 is still bone stock at
that point.
ive seen figures on this forum discussing what it costs for each version and the t4 isnt that much more. i did mine for about 4 grand in total and
thats including engineers certificates and other safety mods.
the current engine is now 8 years old and has many miles on it and still runs like the day we put it back in.
the best thing you can do is do some reading on the subject and make the decision your self on just how big you want to go.
Posts: 978
Threads: 50
Registered: March 17th, 2011
Member Is Offline
Location: Midwest, Westoz.
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue
Mood: Old School Volksies!
posted on January 27th, 2013 at 02:43 PM
If you have a 1300 engine, THINK TWICE before throwing in any old barrels and pistons.
The 1300 motor 77mm barrels are as thick as a Kombi engine, which means excellent strength, heat capacity and long life, even the stock 1600 barrels
are thin by comparison.
A 1300 motor with just good exhaust, nice valves seats and mild blending (and you have to pull the heads to check anyway), throw on some 1.4:1 rockers
on the stock cam, and it will make the same or more power than a 1600 anyway. 50rwhp will do 110kph all day easily with a roofrack and a 3ft tall old
esky on top, and still get 12-13km/L.
If that isn't enough grunt, and you need more, then consider a bigger crank throw instead. If you don't have the 77mm bore coz someone has already
played in there, try the stock 83mm 1500 bore or the 88mm barrels, they have more meat than stock 1600.
Stock drums all round work well, you still won't have enough power to snap axles, You can leave it all stock or however you want, but just have
1453cc (77mm bore and 78mm stroke) of torque to get the thing around.
I can't think of a downside apart from the cost of parts up front, after that is past it's all good.
Als1967Type1
Casual Dubber
Posts: 31
Threads: 6
Registered: November 8th, 2011
Member Is Offline
Location: Bittern, VIC
Theme: UltimaBB Psyche Blue
posted on January 27th, 2013 at 04:27 PM
Having been down the engineering path in the past, I would do whatever I could to avoid it in the future. It is costly and frustrating and I'm
involved in VWs because they are cheap and fun, so why head in that direction. As mentioned previously, an upgrade in engine size means upgrading many
other things, this means more work, more money and potential problems. If however, you want more power then of course bigger is better. Really it
comes down to what you want to do....cruise / more useable power / drag.
vinsueball
Commited Dubber
Posts: 60
Threads: 22
Registered: April 25th, 2012
Member Is Offline
Location: Brisbane
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
posted on January 27th, 2013 at 07:50 PM
Hey Guys, thanks for your help. My plans are really just to have a good looking, safe and hopefully reliable little VW. With that in mind I've
already had the front drums converted to disc brakes and rear drums fully reconditioned, replacement master cylinder and brake lines etc. The main use
will be week-end cruising and the occasional daily drive to work. I may also look at pulling a small camper with it at some stage into the future.
The current motor appears to be in pretty good condition at the moment and my own mechanice is pretty happy with it. My main thought re the engine is
when I have any major drama's with it ( and I'm sure I will at some stage !!), whether I have the existing motor re-conditioned or replaced. Maybe
trying to pull a little more power from the existing motor may be the way to go.
Thanks
Joel
Scirocco Rare
Now containing 100% E-Wang
Posts: 9368
Threads: 211
Registered: February 14th, 2006
Member Is Offline
Originally
posted by modnrod
the 88mm barrels, they have more meat than stock 1600.
Believe me they don't, 88s and 92s are like coke cans, you can see through the walls they are that thin compared to 85.5s
modnrod
Fahrvergnugen
Posts: 978
Threads: 50
Registered: March 17th, 2011
Member Is Offline
Location: Midwest, Westoz.
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue
Mood: Old School Volksies!
posted on January 28th, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally
posted by Joel
Quote:
Originally
posted by modnrod
the 88mm barrels, they have more meat than stock 1600.
Believe me they don't, 88s and 92s are like coke cans, you can see through the walls they are that thin compared to 85.5s
I'm not talking about the old-style "slip-in" 88s, they really are crap.
I meant the "machine-in" 88s, or even easier is the slip-in "thick-wall" 88s. They slip into the cases (1500/1600 barrel spigot diameter), but
have the same head diameter as the 90.5s/92s, so the head needs opening up to take them, fairly simple machining to be done when getting them flat
anyway. The thick wall 88s are .210" thick, stock 83s are .217" thick, while the stock 85.5s are only .167" thick (the stock 1300 barrels are
.225" thick). The thicker the better, all round, with greater service life and better sealing.
