356 Engine size and combinations

I love my 1915 from CB Perf.  Be advised that engine size is not the only consideration re. power and performance.  When I bought my Beck in '06 they offered two different 1915s; a normal ~90hp model and the hot ~125hp model.  I went with the latter as it also had more potential for further power increases.  I heartily recommend a CB Performance engine.

Is there a specific reason for not wanting to use dual carbs? You're kind of limiting power output, and fitting a single IDF and tall enough air cleaner (to contain fuel standoff at midrange and higher rpm's) under the engine lid without cutting the inner rain shield up is going to be a challenge. Yeah, I know they are a little more work, but the benefits are there.

The more power you have, just like a beetle (and a speedster will weigh close to the same), the more fun the car will be. You mentioned driving different VW engines before, so you already know this. That said.....

For 99% of the people here, I think the perfect Speedster engine would be 2 liters or a little over- 2007 (78x90.5), 2054 (74x94), 2074 (78x92), 2110 (82x90.5), 2165 (78x94), 2180 (82x92) or even 2276 (82x94). Yeah, I know, there are other combinations as well. The point is, displacement is your friend here; whatever you build, the bigger the engine, the bigger the torque curve will be, even in a very mild state of tune, and that provides driving fun. Ported 40x35 heads, cam/rocker combo with 1/2" valve lift (to use the porting you so dearly paid for) and the duration to rev to 5500 or 6,000rpm (244- 254' @ .050"), 40mm Webers, HPMX's or Dellorto's and a 1 1/2 or 1 5/8" exhaust, and 8.5- 9:1 compression will give 140-160 hp, be easy to maintain, a ton of fun and be economical on the highway.

You mentioned living in AZ and being leery of 92's- the new thickwall 92's (been around 10? 15 years?) are actually the thickest (and biggest heat sinks) on the market these days, even thicker than 90.5's. 94's are only a few thou thinner than the 90.5's and have proven themselves as well. Yeah, the 94's don't last quite as long, but when it's not a daily driver and you only put a couple- few thousand miles a year on the car, whether it will need rebuilding in 12 or 15 years doesn't really matter. The important thing here will be to get the tune correct; where you live, any cylinder will overheat and eventually distort if the air/fuel ratio and/or timing isn't right or the combo (heads, carbs, cam, exhaust, compression and deck height) isn't correct to begin with.

Ring and pinion choice will depend (highway speed? acceleration!) on what you're looking for (highway? acceleration!!) and with a 4 speed will be a compromise, so you'll have to decide how you're going to use the car and what's more important. Same with 3rd-4th gear spacing; all I can tell you is that I've never met anyone happy with longer than stock spacing into 4th gear in a street driven car. Berg does make a 5 speed, and it does cure all ills....

Hope this helps. Al 

ALB

I am a bit confused on your last statement about non-stock tranny final gears.

I thought many of the members are happy with the freeway flyers ( 3.88 vs. 4.12 I think ) in their cars with larger engines? The reason I ask is my project is at the point of me installing a tranny now ( have a built up 2007 ) and don't want to make any mistakes in my purchase at this time. 

Comments?

You guys are talking two different things - ALB (in his last statement) is talking about not having too large a gap between 3'rd and 4'th with a non-stock set-up, to simulate a "freeway-flyer".  All that happens with a big gap is a big "Bog" when the engine rpm's drop precipitously as you go into 4'th.

Schu is talking about a final drive ratio going from 4:12 (better acceleration, but 4K rpm at highway speeds) to a 3:88 (not quite as snappy acceleration (but still pretty quick) and 3250 at highway speeds) or a 3:44 (recommended for engines larger than 2 liters for their torque and you'll be around 2900 rpm at highway speeds).

The BERG 5-speed conversion typically does nothing to the .89/1 top gear (although some people opt for the higher .82/1 top gear) so you have the same top end, but it allows slightly tighter spacing between the 5 selected gears so you can balance out the "gaps" and still have a robust Freeway Flyer - best of all worlds, but $$$$.  Most of us just go with a 3:88 with stock gear splits and love it.

Much has been written on here about final drive ratios - a search would be beneficial - and the general consensus is stock, VW gear ratios for gears 1 - 4 with a 3:88 or 3:44 final ratio seem to work just fine.

Gordon, you hit it pretty good, but I'll add- 

Gearing a 4 speed transaxle for either competition or the street are generally 2 completely different things; what makes a good street trans (taller r&p, depending on engine size and power output, and evenly spaced gears) doesn't usually do well in competition, where tightly spaced gears and a shorter r&p make for the best acceleration. This is why I said earlier that it's a compromise. You menioned using a close ratio 3rd, and while that's great for keeping the engine in the powerband for whatever competition, using a stock 4th instead of a closer ratio aftermarket gear as well creates this big hole between 3rd and 4th. You can end up with a 5 or 7mph zone where the engine is revving too low in 4th to cool itself properly (especially if it is 1600-1800cc's) and it's revving a little too high to be comfortable for long periods in 3rd. This is why Berg built the VW 5 speed trans- to have the best of both worlds (and would have built a 6 speed if the torsion tube hadn't been in the way.

My street car for several years through my late teens to mid/late 20's (it's all a fog now; I think I drank far too much beer when I was younger) was a Cal Look beetle with a 1750 with 40x35 ported heads and 44IDF's that revved to 6500 with power and a 4.375 r&p, 1.48 and 1.12 geared trans that ran mid 14 et's. Fun and quick, yes, but 3000 in 4th was at 48 or 50mph and 60 didn't happen until 3800rpm. I drove that thing every where; many highway trips, including once or twice from Vancouver to Los Angeles and many times to Oregon, and I can tell you that it took forever to get any where. With this gearing I was going through the lights in the quarter mile at about 87-88 mph, just part way through 4th gear. I could have shortened 4th to 1.21 for even better times, but cruising speeds would have dropped another 5-6mph.

Check out the link for 2 gearbox examples- the first competition, the 2nd would go great in a  big engine'd Speedster. Click on any of the boxes to change ratios and see what happens-

http://www.teammfactory.com/ge...Transmission+1+%26+2

Btw- An assembled Berg 5 speed will run 4,000 or 4500 to $5500 or so. Not cheap, but anyone who has one would never trade back to a 4 speed...

Always wanted the Berg 5, but I've always liked the newer stock gear ratios with the 3:88 and with 3:44.  Got to say that I liked both but possibly the 3:88's a tiny bit more?  I hate to agree with Gordon. 

JB - FWIW, on my previous '95 VS I went for economy-minded performance improvements.

> 1835cc with thick-wall jugs.

> Dual 40mm Kadrons

> 1.25 rockers

> 009 Dizzy

> Full-flowed case for external oil-cool with thermostat fan (mounted on bulkhead ahead of engine) and spin-off oil filter (mounted just below cooler)

> A-1 Sidewinder with Magnaflow muffler & single exhaust tip.

> Stock trans with 3:88 Freeway Flyer

> Empi 3/4" front sway bar

> Empi rear sway-bar

> 185x60 tires (whatever was on sale)

This car was my daily driver. Drove that sucker ALL over the Western U.S (CA, NV, AZ, WA, OR, UT, CO), crossing the desert, slogged through a few downpours, logged 100,000 trouble-free miles, no issues with heating, altitude, maintaining freeway speeds of 70-75mph for extended periods, peppy acceleration, combined mileage 28 mpg.

NEVER messed with the Kadrons between tune-ups/oil-change (5,000 miles with whatever oil was on sale at Pep Boys). It started EVERYTIME on the first crank.

I'm just saying...

I agree, for a street use 4 speed, stock VW 1st through 4th gearing works really well, and what r&p you go with depends on a number of things- what you have already, budget, engine size, how fast you want to be able to travel, and??? I realize a lot of people can't justify the cost of a Berg 5, but the op mentioned track days and street driving and an extra gear does make your car that much more versatile..

I've got a freeway flyer and I'm not happy with it. First gear reminds me of the granny low in a 58 Chevy 3/4 ton 6 cylinder pickup and fourth on the interstate makes me feel like I'm in my old 68 396 Chevelle with 4.88 gears. I talked to the guy at Rancho and he said I could exchange my transaxle with a 3.44 geared one fairly reasonably and he said it would make first gear feel a little better. He thought the 2110 would pull the 3.44 easily. I'm going to do it if I have to pull the engine for any reason.

Gordon, could you please check your ratios in you above para number 2 ?   4,000 rpm with a 4.125 ratio does not translate to 2,900 with a 3.44 r&p.   It'll be more like 3339 with a 3.44...no ?  And more like 3,766 with the 3:88 if I'm doing the math right. Quite possibly I'm doing something backwards . ( could be the red wine or the optical inclusion at my end...)

It was simply an example and is all relative.  Lower numerical final ratios will give you lower engine RPM at the same vehicle speed over land, all other things being equal.  That's all I was trying to get across.  I didn't much care about the precise numbers involved. Besides....you have to make allowances for different interpretations of "highway speed".  YOU may think that's about 70mph, but if you're traveling on I-95 between Daytona and West Palm Beach, Florida, and are doing 80mph, you WILL be passed by any number of white-haired-driving Cadillacs hugging the far left lane, so one has to adjust your perception.  

I didn't know I was gonna be "math-checked" or I would have used a ratio-calculating web site instead of giving hypothetical examples off the top of my head to make a point, which was; "using stock VW gear ratios for gears 1-4 along with a 3:88 or 3:44 rear is OK".

Potential New Transaxle buyers:  Do not use my numbers provided in the paragraph above.  Go out and crank your own numbers for the driving you expect to do and use those.  If they happen to be the same, it's not my fault.

Frank- Freeway flyer was a name a now defunct company (Transform) gave to their longer geared transaxles, and has been tossed around by the hobby/industry ever since- 30 years, now? It has no definitive meaning. At one time they ran full page color ads in Hot VW's magazine every month. Your 2110 will be fine with the 3.44 and will lengthen the 1st (a bit) as well. There are aftermarket 1st/2nd gear sets (they come together because the mainshaft has both gears on it) by Weddle with various combinations if you want a truly longer 1st gear, but they are expensive; I believe they run about $1,000 a set. If you click on the gear ratio calculator link in one of my above posts you could set both transaxles up with stock gears (3.78, 2.06, 1.26, 0.89) but use a 3.88 r&p for one and 3.44 for the other and see how much change you'll end up with (I'm assuming there's a 3.88 in your trans now). 

Al, it's supposed to be a 3.88 at least that is what I paid for and the tach vs speed seems to bear that out. It also could be a 4.12/.82 combination, without taking it apart I won't know. I know I'm used to modern super hi geared cars but it makes me feel like I am abusing the almost 3.5" stroke engine running down the highway at 3500. The engine doesn't seem strained at all but I'm just uncomfortable with it and that's why I looked into the 3.44. Some of you guys that have driven the cars for years and long distances please let me know if I'm being a worry wart. If so, maybe I'll relax a little bit and just run the hell out of it!

If the engine isn't overheating, 3500rpm for long stretches is fine (you may find that on hot summer days you have to back off the throttle a bit, as oil temps will climb with higher rpm's). I've ran as high as 4-4200rpm at times (remember the short gearing in my bug I talked about earlier on the page?), when the weather was cool enough. Most low hp cars are geared quite similarly; the 2 Toyota 4wheel trucks I've owned ('86 pickup with 4 cylinder and present '94 V6 4Runner) will run for hours at 3500 and even 4,000rpm. Even our almost new (2012) Mazda 5's (2.5 liters, and really not all that peppy) top gear is similar.

I'm surprised tire size (height/circumference specifically) is not coming up in this thread.  So many go with short sidewalls vs "Stock" and probably have to have taller gears to just get back to where they started as VWs.

Frank, with the quality of parts rapidly diminishing, all is often not what it seems.

I ordered and paid for a 3.88 r&p on my 2013 VS. The tranny case even had '388' painted on the outside and inside the bell housing. But, from day one, highway speeds just didn't seem right.

We finally pulled it and, sure enough, the r&p was a 4.12. Worse, fourth wasn't the stock .89, but a .93, so I had the equivalent of a 4.37 bus r&p in top gear. At 3500 rpm, I was doing only 65 mph (although the Chinese speedo said '72').

First, check your tach to see if it's accurate, then check your highway speeds in various gears with a GPS. Compare them with the online graphing chart Al mentions and you can check if you've got the gearing you think you should have.

Here's a link to the gear calculator web site:

http://tinyurl.com/ox8fn3y

I found the chart predicted exactly the actual gearing I had in my tranny, and when I had a real 3.88 built, the speeds I got with that matched the chart, too. Be sure to enter your tire size, too, as that can make a significant difference.

The problem with a 3.44 r&p and a four-speed box is what happens when you come to a steep hill on an interstate or high-speed highway. As the grade steepens, at some point you'll have to downshift, and then the fun begins. To do 65mph in 3rd in my car, I've got to spin 4500 rpm. Aha, you say, that's why I want a 3.44 - which would only be doing 4000 in 3rd at that speed.

But that's only half the story. The lower geared 3.88 means you can pull fourth up much steeper grades and not have to downshift nearly as often as you would with a 3.44. My 2026 stroker probably has nearly the torque of your 2110, and it lets me pull fourth up most highway grades.

I've been hanging out here for a few years now, and the consensus (well, what passes for consensus here) seems to be that a 3.44 should be hooked to really serious motors - like a 2600 or a Raby type 4.

Many have tried a 3.44 with motors like you and I have and have been disappointed.

If there's a lack of consensus here, I'm guessing you'll start hearing it pretty soon now.

Ltl (first name please?)- You are right, tire diameter does play into the equation. I assumed (in my part of the discussion) that people would be running something close to stock height, as this crowd (for the most part) wouldn't be running anything too short (on the back, anyways). In the gear calculator link I used a 185/70-15 (25.2"diameter) and a 205/60-15 (24.68"), as most here would be running something similar.

Mitch- As usual, great observations! Bummer when you don't get what you pay for! Was that from a VW place, trans shop or from Vintage? And you're right, a lot of guys, even with 2 liter+ engines, would be better off with the 3.88. 

David- What are you looking for your gearing to do? What cruising speeds and at what rpm's? And just so we're talking about the same thing, this is with the subaru engine? Hp? Tire diameter?

Mitch- That's the same gear chart I used. Love the way you can compare 2 different gearsets side by side! Did you ever ask Vintage about not getting the gearing you paid for?

I had an IM 2210cc with 3:44 final drive and I would cruise very nicely at 3000rpm about 120kph~75mph, nice cruiser. Ray

Giday, Al. That gear calculator is pretty handy. I just measured a tire on a wheel with no weight on it and it's 24" dia. No one knows what hp I have as it's a non stock setup which would be 137 hp stock with EFI but I put a Weber 32/36 on it for simplicity and the engine has about 100 K miles on it.

With that in mind, take a look at the nice torque curve attached here for a stock engine. Early torque and fairly flat. It seems to drive that way too. With the stock tranny I have in now, I can drive around a 90 degree corner in the neighborhood in fourth gear if I want to and just motor away without downshifting.

I don't drive fast. Most of the commutes around here are on 50 mph roads. When we travel, we normally do between 65 and 70 mph on the highway. With a 3.88 r&p, 50 mph seems to be 2,300 rpm and 60 mph seems to be 2,800 rpm. 70 mph = 3,266. These three rpms seem well within my comfort zone re: wear and tear, noise etc. I was thinking earlier about going to a 3.44 but now the 3.88 looks like a good compromise.

I have a 2110 and went with the 3:44 setup with a stock .89 4th. It works well for me. I go up the Grapevine on I-5 in 4th at 3000-3200 RPMs.

I'm with LongTimeLurker and ALB in that you MUST consider tire size and rim diameter when dealing with transmission ratios.  Ever see a dune buggy with big 31" diameter tires and a stock engine - it can hardly get moving and has a hard time pulling top gear even on flat ground.  OEM diameter tires like the 165/80x15 are harder to get now - the popular 185/65x15 - that's a 1" difference in diameter and 30 revs per mile (check http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html). 

Even with the 3:44 I would like a taller 1st and 2nd. I think that would require changing out the mainshaft as well as the gears. I was quoted $3000 for that. It cost me $600 to change out the r&p and swap the .82 for the .89 4th. I did not like the massive drop in rpms from 3rd to 4th. I'm happy with it and I saved $2400 bucks.

If $$$ were not an issue... then I would have this built:

3:44 R&P

1st - 3.11

2nd - 1.93

3rd - 1.26

4th - .89 (a .82 would take you well over the speed limit to get to safe, cooling rpms)

This setup would require a 2110 motor or bigger - you would need the torque.

When I owned my original 59coupe(not replica) 1600Ncc the 1st and 2nd gear were quite long I remember compared to a normal 1969 vw 1600cc tranny combo that I also owned for awhile before hand, when I didn't have white hair. The Porsche tranny had a very nice long gearing set up and TO duplicate that set up would be a nice combo on an air-cooled unit. Ray

4.86 R&P

1st - 2.90

2nd - 1.86

3rd - 1.14

4th - .82

I think this would be close but a $4000.00 setup.

Rusty, thanks for this, do you know or could you put in the standard vw type one ratios for comparison. Ray 

A common bug setup was:

4:12 or 4:37 depending on year R&P

1st - 3.80

2nd - 2.06

3rd - 1.32 or 1.26 depending on year

4th - .89

The earlier ratios were for a 40hp motor that's why they feel like you're in 4 wheel drive low (granny gear) today on a bigger motor. You just have to go with much taller ratios IMO on the bigger motors today else you feel like you are driving something that belongs in the sand.

No offense taken, Dave - too old for that sort of thing, anyway.

I went back and got this from my long transaxle thread regarding my rebuilt transaxle with a new final gearing.  The selected gears are stock VW sedan ratios:

-  The 3:88 rear (versus the 4:12 that I had) makes it slightly more interesting to cruise around town in 3'rd gear - I used to sit around 3K rpm and now I have to sit around 2,500 or so to stay within the same speed limits.  They may just have to raise their silly, way-too-low, New England speed limits so I can optimize my fan speeds.

-  3,500 engine rpm yields about 115 kph (71 mph) while a quick blast up to 4,500 rpm shows an indicated 145 kph (90 mph).  This is with 16" rims so I'll have to go out and measure the distance from the floor to the center of the axle for you, but I remember it being about the same as a stock VW sedan tire.

-  The new final gearing doesn't seem to alter the acceleration rate - I know this is impossible, but it's been 8 months since I've been whipping around in her so I'll delude myself with this notion.  Even with a 3:88 rear, she's still pretty quick.  

I'm pretty happy with the end result of going to a 3:88.  Brought my cruising RPM's down a bit, but I'm still reving above 3K on the highway and the oil temp has not changed (I do not monitor CHT).

I usually shift around 4K so I'm very OK with the stock 1'st and 2'nd ratios and while a close-ratio 5-speed would be ideal, my current 4-speed is fine.  I just have to compromise with 3'rd and 4'th sometimes.

gn

David- If you're happy with the cruising rpm's at the speeds you quoted and without someone stepping forward and saying (with experience) that your engine will work well with the taller r&p, don't change anything. The 3.44 (in a 4speed) is really only for serious running at 75 mph and above (with a bigger aircooled VW engine).

The short 1st gear was VW's answer to get it's underpowered people's car moving fairly quickly from a standstill. When you're looking for maximum acceleration (especially with a slightly bigger hotrodded engine) it works extremely well; you'll beat most "pony/muscle" cars easily across the intersection, and into 2nd and 3rd gear (and was the reason I used a 4.375 r&p in my bug). Most of us, though are now at an age where we don't drive that way and are looking for higher cruising speeds, and a taller r&p (faster 4th gear cruising) is much more practical. A substantially taller 1st gear would be great, but as was mentioned before, is pretty expensive.

Rusty- I like your choices to more duplicate an original 356 trans with one exception; I would use a 4.375 r&p, as it's closer to the 4.4? Porsche unit and it's also stronger than the 4.86, which has a really small pinion head (teeth are weaker) and aren't generally considered high mileage units.

The 4.375 r&p was used with the 1200 and 1300cc cars. IIrc, the 4.125 was mated to 1500 and earlier 1600cc engines, and all used the same 1st through 4th gearing, with VW changing 3rd slightly somewhere I'm not sure when not sure when. With the later 1600 cars with the 3.88, 1st changed from 3.80 to 3.78 (stronger, and exactly when I'm not sure) and 4th changed from .89 to .93, as the engine wasn't powerful enough in a beetle to push the taller 4th.

Gordon- the r&p change will make the car about 3/4 second slower in the quarter mile, so not a huge difference. And it's not going to hurt a bigger engine to sit at 2500rpm's, as long as it's only at part throttle and not creating a lot of heat. Glad to hear you like the change!

Since (almost) nobody here is drag-racing, the stock beetle 1st gear is useless-- unless you've got a 1600 hitting on 3. For most people, the longer first/second mainshaft is worth the money. A 3.88 is stronger than the standard 4.21 and not as strong as the 3.44.

Stan- What are your gear ratios? IIrc, you've gone with the long 1st?

1st: 3.10

2nd: 2.07

3rd: 1.30

4th: .93

3:44 R/P, 195/60R15 (24.2")

This gearset isn't for everybody-- 1st is pretty long, and you'd better have the motor to pull it, but for where I live (flatlands), and what I do (drive pretty fast across long distances) it works very nearly as well as a 5 speed for a lot less money. If I lived in the mountains, I'd get a 901 or 915.

I had the same first-third with a .89 fourth and a 3.88, which was quite nearly perfect for everything but 1000 mi days. Incidentally, it's the same gearset Rich D. put in the red-rocket. In the end (for me), 79 mph at 3500 RPM (and 90 mph at 4000) won out over impressive holeshots.

It works for me. If I was recommending for anybody else (like I did with Rich), it'd be my "second to last" iteration. 

"If I lived in the mountains, I'd get a 901 or 915."

I have to say I really like my five speed transmission in my IM.  The first gear really is short, but get into third and fourth and the car just pulls. Then it's into fifth for cruising.

So, Stan....based on what I described my driving like in a post above....and I do some long trips too, would you think that I might be well served by the ratios that

Rich put in his car ? The 3.10, 2.07, 1.30, .89 x 3.88 with a 24.2" tire ? Also considering that I may be dealing with about 125 hp with a good torque profile.

In other words, swap out the existing 3.80 1st gear for a 3.10, change out the r&p from 4.125 to 3.88 ? Have I got it right ? What do you think ?

Is it a big deal to swap out that first gear at a decent shop ? Tks.

David,

I'd think it would be perfect. 

David- Changing any gears requires a complete teardown (the nose cone and sideplate(s) come off,  differential has to come out and gears have to be pressed off the pinion and mainshats, and then re-assembled and adjusted), so be sure what you want. As mentioned before, aftermarket mainshafts (and the matching 1st and 2nd gears) are expensive! Stan's gears- 3.10 1st, 2.07 2nd, 1.30 3rd, .97 4th- will give you a longer 1st, shorter than stock spacing into 2nd, stock spacing into 3rd (2nd and 3rd are stock ratios, or very close) and shorter spacing into 4th. 

Compare Stan's custom geared transaxle with a 3.88 r&p and stock gears- 

http://www.teammfactory.com/ge...Transmission+1+%26+2

Actually... looking at it again, a 3.11/1.93 mainshaft would be a better solution than mine.

Nuts.

Gah! Dave Stroud: You and i have the same engine. The 3.44 with stock VW gears to the .92 4th is just about optimal. The Soob likes to turn slow, remember. There's no fan on it trying to cool it with air. In the Legacy or whatever it came out of, it was turning 2700 RPM at 65 mph and hauling 3000 lbs up hills that way. 

The 3.88 will work just fine, but you'll be revving her a little more than you need to on the highway. If I were building a Sooby Speedster for auto-x I'd go with the 3.88. For driving from Ottawa to Key West and back to Carlisle, PA (as you are known to do), it's the 3.44 all day, every day. Maybe even with the .89 4th gear, which at 3000 rpm will get you 75 mph instead of 70.