Board Logo
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
[ Total Views: 1884 | Total Replies: 12 | Thread Id: 110590 ]
Author: Subject:  Prices of type 4
Memberbaghall
Custom Title Time!
Ben Hal Outlaw Bushranger
*****


Avatar


Posts: 1021
Threads: 131
Registered: January 15th, 2010
Member Is Offline

Location: Penrith NSW
Theme: UltimaBB Psyche Blue
Mood: Kids think I'm obsessed!

posted on February 20th, 2016 at 04:07 PM
Prices of type 4


Anyone tell me a rough price for a running type 4 engine (wbx) either a 1.9 or a 2.1?
TIA




68 Baja - It's a growing pain!
58 Baja ute - and the pain spreads!
85 T3 Kombi - still growing
89 T3 Kombi - parts car
Member11CAB
Compulsive Aussie Vee Dubber
If ya got it....Baja it
*******


Avatar


Posts: 4674
Threads: 321
Registered: August 30th, 2002
Member Is Offline

Location: Brisbane Northside
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue
Mood: Beach'n

posted on February 20th, 2016 at 05:55 PM



Wbx isn't type4



65 Meyers Manx
68 Country Buggy (KO 367)
68 Country Buggy (KO 669)
68 Country Buggy (KO 789)
68 Country Buggy (KO 815)
68 Baja Bug
76 Baja Kombi Twincab
Memberbaghall
Custom Title Time!
Ben Hal Outlaw Bushranger
*****


Avatar


Posts: 1021
Threads: 131
Registered: January 15th, 2010
Member Is Offline

Location: Penrith NSW
Theme: UltimaBB Psyche Blue
Mood: Kids think I'm obsessed!

posted on February 20th, 2016 at 07:38 PM



Quote:
Originally posted by 11CAB
Wbx isn't type4


I thought it stood for Waterboxer.
What i need isrough idea of price for either a 1.9 or 2.1 suitable for an '85 kombi.
Thanks




68 Baja - It's a growing pain!
58 Baja ute - and the pain spreads!
85 T3 Kombi - still growing
89 T3 Kombi - parts car
Super Administratorbarls
A.k.a.: Mr indestructible
Super Administrator
Causer of Chaos and Mayhem
*********

Rank Avatar

No Avatar


Posts: 9364
Threads: 287
Registered: June 22nd, 2004
Member Is Offline

Location: cruising in denistone east
Theme: UltimaBB Streamlined2
Mood: indestructible? and listening to the voices

posted on February 20th, 2016 at 07:44 PM



i thought the wasser boxers were the type 5. type 4 is the air-cooled 2L



“We all pay for life with death, so everything in between should be free.” Bill Hicks
the chaos project - click me

http://www.goats.com/store/images/banner_destroy.png
Memberbaghall
Custom Title Time!
Ben Hal Outlaw Bushranger
*****


Avatar


Posts: 1021
Threads: 131
Registered: January 15th, 2010
Member Is Offline

Location: Penrith NSW
Theme: UltimaBB Psyche Blue
Mood: Kids think I'm obsessed!

posted on February 20th, 2016 at 09:23 PM



Quote:
Originally posted by barls
i thought the wasser boxers were the type 5. type 4 is the air-cooled 2L


OK, maybe I should research this more. I need a watercooled motor for my '85 kombi. Also am looking up suby conversions but not sure my Haltech ECU will suit them.




68 Baja - It's a growing pain!
58 Baja ute - and the pain spreads!
85 T3 Kombi - still growing
89 T3 Kombi - parts car
Member11CAB
Compulsive Aussie Vee Dubber
If ya got it....Baja it
*******


Avatar


Posts: 4674
Threads: 321
Registered: August 30th, 2002
Member Is Offline

Location: Brisbane Northside
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue
Mood: Beach'n

posted on February 20th, 2016 at 09:36 PM



Yep type 4 was aircooled. The T3's went to the 1.9 then 2.1 water boxers which are a type1 based engine



65 Meyers Manx
68 Country Buggy (KO 367)
68 Country Buggy (KO 669)
68 Country Buggy (KO 789)
68 Country Buggy (KO 815)
68 Baja Bug
76 Baja Kombi Twincab
Memberfish26
A.k.a.: benito
Fahrvergnugen
****


Avatar


Posts: 903
Threads: 38
Registered: July 13th, 2007
Member Is Offline

Location: sydney
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Grey
Mood: Ken awesome

posted on February 20th, 2016 at 10:36 PM



Cheaper to go Subi than a rebuild



bitten by the bug..........several times
Memberbaghall
Custom Title Time!
Ben Hal Outlaw Bushranger
*****


Avatar


Posts: 1021
Threads: 131
Registered: January 15th, 2010
Member Is Offline

Location: Penrith NSW
Theme: UltimaBB Psyche Blue
Mood: Kids think I'm obsessed!

posted on February 21st, 2016 at 10:14 AM



Quote:
Originally posted by fish26
Cheaper to go Subi than a rebuild


Yeah i am thinking that might be the case but do prefer the sound of a VW engine.




68 Baja - It's a growing pain!
58 Baja ute - and the pain spreads!
85 T3 Kombi - still growing
89 T3 Kombi - parts car
Memberkombiwhisperer
Seriously Crusin Dubber
**


No Avatar


Posts: 119
Threads: 56
Registered: May 24th, 2012
Member Is Offline

Location: tiaro queensland
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
Mood: daily changing

posted on March 16th, 2016 at 10:12 AM



Last couple I have rebuilt properly have been 7-8g with new heads and bigbore kits, head studs are a drama and expensive!!!
MemberPhil74Camper
Son of Jim - Creator of Good
Head in the Clouds
******


Avatar


Posts: 2703
Threads: 193
Registered: August 28th, 2002
Member Is Offline

Location: Sydney
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )

posted on March 16th, 2016 at 01:08 PM



This is what happens when non-VW slang from forums around the world becomes 'accepted' - it only causes confusion.

'Type 4' refers to the big-block air-cooled 1.7 and 1.8-litre engines originally designed for the VW 411 and 412 sedans (not sold here). That's why they are called Type 4 engines - they were for the Type 4 range of sedans and wagons. The 1.8 was also used in the VW-Porsche 914, and was later bored and stroked to 2.0. The 411-412 never used the 2.0-litre version.

Detuned low compression versions of the 1.7, 1.8 and 2.0 were used in the T2 Transporter. In Australia you had a choice of 1600 Type 1 or 1700 Type 4 engnes in 1973, then 1600 or 1800 in 1974-75. In 1976 the 1600 was dropped and the 2000cc engine was the only option until the T2 Kombi was discontinued in 1979.

The T3 Transporter also initally used the 2000cc Type 4 engine from its release here in 1982, but it was an improved version with fuel injection, hydraulic tappets and different exhaust ports. This engine was discontinued in 1984 when it was replaced by the 1.9-litre Wasserboxer (Wbx) engine. This was not based on the Type 4, but on the Type 1 long block! This was later enlarged to 2.1 litres. In Europe they got more choice of different specs for these motors than we got here (eg they also got a 1600 Wasserboxer!)

VW model 'Types' come from the chassis number and after 1980, the VIN. Beetle chassis numbers start with a 1, for Type 1. Kombis start with a 2, for Type 2. The 411 starts with a - you've guessed it, 4. That's the vehicle model, not the engine. A Kombi with a Type 4 engine is still a VW Type 2, as the code refers to the whole vehicle. On the more modern VIN, the VW model code is the 7th and 8th digit of the VIN. So a T3 Kombi is a model type 25, while a T3 pickup is a model type 24. A T4 Transporter is a model type 70 (so it's no longer a 'Type 2'). A T5 Transporter is a model type 7H. But the Crafter is a 2E and the Amarok is a 2H, so technically they are still VW 'Type 2s'.

'Type 5' has nothing to do with Kombis of any generation. The only Type 5 VWs have been the Scirocco (model type 53); Corrado (model type 50); the Golf/Jetta Mk6 (5K); the Golf Plus (5M); and the Tiguan (5N). The Brazilian-made Fox is a 5Z.

For a good rebuilt or exchange Type 4 long block, standard or modified, contact Garry Williams at VW Classic Kirrawee.

http://www.veedubclassic.com.au/ 
Memberrocknrob
A.k.a.: Rob
Insano Dub Head
****


Avatar


Posts: 844
Threads: 90
Registered: December 18th, 2003
Member Is Offline

Location: Gold Coast
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Black
Mood: mystic

posted on March 16th, 2016 at 06:43 PM



Very Good and detailed post Phil, Vw seemed desparate to save money and not let go of the original opposed four and add water cooling(poorly) and yet Subaru managed it magnificently! Go VWaru
MemberPhil74Camper
Son of Jim - Creator of Good
Head in the Clouds
******


Avatar


Posts: 2703
Threads: 193
Registered: August 28th, 2002
Member Is Offline

Location: Sydney
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )

posted on March 17th, 2016 at 07:04 AM



It's an interesting story. Car wise, VW was losing money hand over fist in the early '70s as Beetle sales started to drop. The 411/412 range was a sales failure, the Type 3's sales were disappointing and the new Porsche small car prototypes were too expensive to build. Attempts to build the NSU K70 as a VW were also unsuccessful. VW had been overtaken by Fiat and Renault and was even threatened by Opel in Germany. Their future was looking bleak.

So they turned to their Audi (Auto Union) division, which they had bought in 1965 from Mercedes. With only a little tweaking, they were able to turn the Audi 80 sedan into the Passat and a new range was born. It was an instant success and turned VW's fortunes around. This design was also the basis of the Scirocco and Golf. The Polo was originally an Audi too, but a separate model family from the Golf/Passat.

The Type 4 motor certainly extended the T2 Transporter's life, as the old 1600 was inadequate by the 1970s. There was speculation at the time about a Golf-based front drive replacement, which would have been logical, so when the T3 was revealed in 1979 as still flat-four rear-engined, most reports of the time expressed surprise. I have one report that was titled, "VW Still Believes." But the bigger surprise was in 1984, when the wasserboxer motor appeared. Everyone expected it to be based on the existing big block Type 4 - but it wasn't! It was based on the Type 1. I don't know why they did this - the air-cooled Type 1 engine hadn't been built in Germany since 1978. The other strange thing was that, whether it was good or otherwise, the wasserboxer engine had no application in any other VW model. The Golf engine could be used in anything, so it was cost effective, but the Wasserboxer was not used in anything except the Transporter. Ultimately, it was an expensive design dead end.

Sure enough the T4 Transporter in 1992 reverted to the Golf-based front drive arrangement. Cost and production efficiency would have been major reasons, but market demand was another. All the competition vans had flat load floors front to back, and choices of different wheelbases. The T3 was only one wheelbase, and had the engine hump at the rear that made rear-loading less practical. Pallets could not be rear-loaded, for example. The T4 was designed to meet these market demands, and it and the later T5 and T6 have been very successful in Europe. Even here, the T5/T6 is the third best-selling van after the Hiace and iLoad. VW's larger van, the LT, appeared in 1976 and was front engine-rear drive, co designed by MAN. It later evolved into the Crafter, but even then it showed how the Transporter would eventually end up.

As for Subaru, well they are part of Fuji Heavy Industries so car making is only one part of their business. They've flirted with in-line engines in some models (Sherpa, anyone?), but comparitively they are a niche maker compared with VW, which is many times larger and has a much greater turnover. They've never made anything like the range of vehicles that VW has, so amortising design costs across a large range has not been so crucial. Subaru have never made a Transporter-like delivery van, for example. VW did experiment with bring back boxer engines in the small Up range, but found that costs were prohibitive.
MemberAndy
Son of Jim - Creator of Good
Andy's Adventures
******


Avatar


Posts: 2799
Threads: 180
Registered: November 5th, 2002
Member Is Offline

Location: Brisbane
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
Mood: Happy Man

posted on July 6th, 2016 at 11:09 PM



Always the fountain of knowledge Phil, always a great read :)
The 411/412 sold ~3-400,000 cars world wide. Maybe not a stunner in VW terms, but for many manufacturers of the time was big numbers for one model type.
The 2L used in the T3 other than a number of external updates was the same as used in the '79 T2 (same heads, hyd tappets etc)

Use of the type 1 style motor for the WBX is not that strange, try getting a decent sized exhaust outlet between the push rods of a type 4 motor? The case itself I think is more a hybrid of type 1/type 4. VW's biggest error on the WBX was to stick with push rods and not pay more attention to water sealing.

Ditching the rear engine was a big plus in load space and most likely cost savings, but did nothing for vehicle balance and handling.


  Go To Top


Powered by GaiaBB, © 2011 The GaiaBB Group


[ Queries: 40 ] [ PHP: 35.6% - SQL: 64.4% ]