Big engine question

\\Ok--here's the big question. (to me atleast!)

I have a 1,700 miles Vintage---wonderful car. Engine is ok, but gets just 20 MPG and goes about 70 at 3,800 RPM (if the damned tach would stop jumping around so I can read it.) I was told to hole the RPMs to 4,000 for engine longevity.

This car is a hobby for me. I am having a great time with it and learning a lot. But as a hobby, I don't expect to be too frugal with $$$$s.

So my question to the smart folks here is this:

I want a lot more performance but only with reliability and an engine that will go a lot of miles. ( 100,000? More? Thoughts?)

So should I :

1. Just use the 1500cc I have w/ twin Kadrons and do something in a few years?

2. Have my present engine re worked? (By who?)

3. Order another engine to replace what I have? Who to build? Thoughts on size and cost of a reliable, bulletproof engine? Who to build it? MPG, Performance?

Many thanks to all who willingly share their snarts!



----Jack

what size engine do you have? you just mentioned the manufacturer.

I'll assume you have a 1600 dual port.

so - nix the 1500cc dual kadron. less power than your dual port

if you do have a 1600DP, and it's healthy (do a compression check both wet and dry), I'd recommend using it as a core for a build. this is the easiest way.

now - size. you mentioned you want more power, but also want longevity. 100,000 is asking too much (unless you drive it like a grandma and change the oil ever few thousand kms). I'd recommend looking at the 90.5mm bore piston. these have the best size / cooling / performance ratio out of any of the bores.

next is stroke. stock stroke is 69mm making the engine size a 1776cc. nice size and would benefit from a dual kadron setup. bumping the crank stroke to longer - yields more cc's (more power)

sounds like you'll be doing a bit of homework :)

Sounds like a government SOW to getting a T4 engine. T4 found in '70-76 Porsche 914, VW 411/412, and T2 VW Vans - range from 1.7L 76Hp to 2.0L ~100Hp stock. Very strong lower end and case - only weakness is valve seats which can be addressed during rebuild. Check out Jake Raby's Massive IV site -- and save up your $$$.

Jack....I have a Pat Downs 1915cc engine, base line Beck Spyder engine. The Beck brochure stated the car was capable of 0-60mph in 5.8 sec.(or about that) I managed 6.4 sec as a best before discovering that the 5.8 sec. was obtained with a 2165cc engine.

Since then I've replaced transaxles with a Rancho street pro freeway flyer, which dropped 0-60 into the 7-7.5 sec. range......Top end is at 6200rpm in 4th....Been there only once, to BUSY to check speedo...

The car required minor rejetting and last road trip, on flat ground, running 2750-3250 rpm, (60-68mph)attained over 32 mpg.....I have since replaced the air correction jets with larger units and expect to see a slight improvement.....

Ran the Dragon's Tail recently with the "Speedstah Fellas", and milage sucked because of all the time I spent in 3rd gear....Still got about 22-24 mpg.....

I do change oil every 2500K-1500mi, as the car has no filter....Stupid mistake on my part.

Engine size verses torque....there is the fine point...As stated elsewhere, a 1915 with stock heads,cam will not do much better than a stock 1600...a 1600 with good heads, cam, exhaust, will get your attention....This is true of any engine size....Parts and assembley are the "trick" part of a powerful engine, regardless of size..

Your budget, may temper your desires.....Above all communicate with several vendors....Check their reputations....etc., etc......

Hope this helps....

Leon C.

It certainly does help.

My present engine is a 1915cc mexicrate. It is supposed to have a forged crank--so that's a plus rather than cast from what I read here. The larger cylinders have just been bolted on to a dual port 1600 to get it to 1915--I'm pretty sure. (It's a Vintage)It seems to run OK but I would like something fairly bulletproof along with more power plus some decent mileage as I'm seeing just 20mpg overall. Something ain't right--correct?

Can some name a specific engine (one of pat Downs?) that would be as reliable as they come, more power and better gas mileage?

Or should I just drive what I have because there wouldn't be all that much difference?---Jack

Check out the last several issues of Hot VWs.
They have built and tested a high mpg engine.
Many resources in these articles.

Jack,

We are having the same thoughts about our 1915CC. To me, Mileage would be down my list and come after:

1. Reliabilty
2. Streetabilty
3. Cool Running

Whats the best size motor for this? My current 1915CC from Vintage Runs like a top but the exhaust sounds like crap atfer you get out of first gear. So, the question for me would be this. Is the extra HP and Torque from the bigger engines like night and day? If the answer to this is yes, It's worth every penny of 5K for the upgrades. Or if the answer is just maybe or slightly better, I may just upgrade my exhuast for now because the car is still fun to tool around in and it looks totally bad a_ _..

Marty

Marty--you said it a lot better than I did---yes, #1 is reliability
with me too.

On the MPG, my thought was that if all I'm getting is 20MPG then something's wrong.

I agree---if there were a "night and day" difference I'd go for a new engine right now. If it's marginally better I'd stay with what I have.

Where is the "Consumer reports" for reworked VW engines?? It would be great to see rankings for:

Reliability
Gas mileage
RPM range
Cruising and top speeds
etc.

---Jack

Jack, actually 20 MPG isn't too bad considering your car/engine combination. Incidentally, you're probably getting better mileage than you think. The speedometer is driven via the front left wheel. If you have tires that are larger than the stock VW tire that it was calibrated for, then you're traveling further than reported on your odometer and your reported speed will show lower on your speedometer than your actual speed.

Start by either driving through measured mile road signs and timing your run or use/borrow a GPS and travel at various speeds to determine just how much error is present in your speedometer/odometer.

If I were you, I just stick with your 1915 engine until it won't work anymore.

Hey Larry--good advice as always from you.

Hope you are well---Jack

Jack: A couple of thoughts......

If you're OK with the engine you have for now, then maybe you could wait until the Carlisle, Paso Robles or Knott's shows and simply ask people with known engine/transmission combinations if you can take them for a ride. We do that sort of thing all the time.

For instance, Lane Anderson has a Pat Downs 1,915 with (I believe) a stock-ratio transmission (not a "freeway flyer"). I have a 2,110 that people tell me has a lot of "gnads" and it, too, has a stock-ratio transmission. Danny Piperato has (I believe) a 2160 with even more gnads and a stock ratio transmission, and Cory Drake has his might T-4. Ride around in those and you'll get a feel for what's what. Have a few beers with us and we'll tell you what we like and dislike about our cars, too. That way, you'll have seat of the pants experience and will better know what you like before you shell out the money.

Personally, I think that a well-set-up 1915 could produce around 120 hp but, even more important, could provide decent torque in the 2,500 - 4,500 RPM range to really wake you up. That would require something like 044 heads, big valves, balanced crank and rods, 40-44 mm Webers or Dellortos, enhanced (external) cooling and a so-called "Mild race, hot street" camshaft, like an "Engle 120. If you're going that route, then the leap to a 2,110 would only be a few more bucks and I believe the reliability would be about the same (the engine should last til 100,000 miles). Going to a 2,110 should get you around 140-ish hp.

gn

You're close, Gordon. My 1915 supposedly has the ultra wedge-ported heads, as well as top shelf bits all through. Carey sells this engine as rated at 125, and Pat said it should produce 5-10 hp more due to the heads. Don't know if it does, but it feels strong to me, and it should be a little stronger once I get the better exhaust on it. As for the transaxle, I don't know the individual ratios, but it is a Rancho Pro-Street with a 3.88 R&P.

Jack & Marty: Gord and Larry are spot on. I also have a 1915 reworked Mexicrate from VS and since there were less than 6,000 miles on it, I didn't want to split the case so I just decided to swap heads (got some CB 044's and got them ported), Gene Berg rigid rocker shafts with OEM VW 1.25 ratio rockers (you can go up to 1.4 without reliability problems provided you have a stock cam) as well as Gene Berg chromoly pushrods. I then swapped the Kadrons for dual throat Dellorto carbs (dual throat Webers work just as good), installed an SVDA distributor in place of the .009 that was there and finally put the dual taipipe Tri-Mil exhaust that VS puts in their cars. The car works wonderfully well; big improvement over what came on the car originally.

If you stay with a Type 1 engine, Gordon is on to it and Terry mentioned a great resource to read about new developments for an old-style engine. I'd ad go to the SAMBA and consider buying a whole engine there and just swap it out. I've never been a fan of the 1915, there's just 'no there, there'...

A decent and peppy rebuild of what you have may or may not take out the Mexicrate qualities and set you back $3000-4000 if you go for tried and true performance components.

If you stay in the low rent hobby-zone, dual carbs and a decent free-flow exhaust is cheap thrills and will likely accelerate the demise of a basic Mexicrate engine IMHO.

Torque= Type4

Ya know...it just occurs to me, that most of us who are new to this - or haven't had the privilege of meeting and riding with others - are curious as to what different engine capacities and components might be like. I know I was. And to a certain extent, I still am. The best gauge for what a particular engine might be like - it was a recent question of mine - was answered best, by Gordon Nichols, when he made a comparison between his speedster and his Ford F-150. So maybe...can others provide that basis for comparison? Is a stock 1600 like a an old Beetle?...is a 1915 the equivalent of a Corolla?...etc. Hopefully, you catch my drift. Or the fact that I AM drifting? Gordon - thanks again for putting a 2110 into a perspective I could easily understand.

Wonderful information here--thanks to all.

Another thing I don't much care for is the transmission in this car---or VWs I have owner down through the years. This has the 3.88 "freeway Flyer" transmission---whatever that means.)

First gear is for getting the car rolling. What? 10-15 MPH Seems geared so very low that starting from a stop you are in first maybe 3 seconds before chsnging to second.

Second and third gears seem fine.

My fourth gear seems much too low at anything faster than 50 MPH or so. The engine is screaming compared some other cars and it seems to want a fifth gear after 50-60. My Speedie shows about 3,400 rpms in 4th for 55 mpg. My Cadillac shows maybe 1800 rpms for 50. (These figures are just guesses from memory but close.)

Thoughts? ---Jack

Jack:

Sounds like some "interesting" gearing in there, to be sure.

Just as a comparison, I have a stock-ratio transmission, with a stock ratio ring and pinion. I'm doing about 65 mph at 3,150 rpm, and somewhere around 72-75 at 3500. I know this because I watched it on the way to Lane's on both my tach and GPS so I could do some comparison testing when I switched from my 16" wheels to his 15" ones.

As far as what'll the engine take, I would run mine all day at 3500 - 4000 rpm and not worry, but I've set it up to do that. It'll run at that speed and maintain 200 - 205 F oil temp on really hot days, so I don't worry. Other engines, that run hotter, I would probably not push as much.

On the other hand, if you're running adequate fan cooling (1971 or later stock German cooling shroud, oil tower, tins and fan, or, maybe, one of Jake Raby's cooling systems) rev'ing at 3500 - 4000 rpm should provide adequate cooling to the heads.

I am too cheap and fear buying Big $$ parts too much to maintain sustained speeds much over 4,000 rpm, but that's just me.

gn

Jack,
An interesting event occurs with air cooled VW engines. The slower the engine turns at higher speeds, the hotter the engine gets. Cooling on these engines was designed for a 1600 cc engine. If your car had a 5th gear, it probably would run much hotter at higher speeds. In other words, if the engine was slowed down via an overdrive 5th gear, it wouldn't produce enough cooling air from the fan to keep the engine withing temperature specifications. The reason is the engine would be working much harder to overcome the drag of the vehicle.

Gene Berg Enterprises makes a 5 speed conversion for a stock VW transaxle however, 5th gear is the same ratio as 4th gear in a conventional 4 speed transaxle. The reason: If 5th was more of an overdrive than the stock 4th gear, the engine would overheat. This 5 speed only tightenes up the spacing between gears between stock 1st gear ratio and 5th gear which is the same ratio as your existing 4th gear.

If your tach reads roughly 4,000 at 80 MPH than you're cooling is about where it should be. That means that around 65 MPH, your tach will be reading 3200 to 3400 RPM's

Don't attempt to compare this vehicle with your daily driver. It's water cooled and engineered to operate at low RPM's due to it's high torque output.

Gordon & Larry--I get it now. I keep forgetting the design of these engines is as an aircooled engine which is a world away from a water cooled.

What an education I'm getting--thanks for all the lessons.

I did add a 1 1/2 qt sump to my engine and I can't believe the difference in cooling. The indicator used to be just slightly to the right of straight up and now it barely moves off the stop. I feel good about how cool it does run. I was worried about TOO cool and got a dipstick to see---it was just 205 after extended high speed driving on a 85 degree day.

I appreciate the info. If more folks could benefit from the smart people on this site less cars with 500-600 miles would appear for sale on ebay. I have fixed a dozed problems from knowledge gained here. And made one hell of a problem all by my self---right Larry?

Jack

Great info. shared by the great folks here, as always...Another thing: Jack; didn't your car have the "Chinese jumpy tach syndrome"? If that's the case forget about tach readings, they're probably as inaccurate as can be. Get it refurbished at North Hollywood Speedometer and forget about the problem. I did.

Larry!

You should come to Carlisle......bring your Spyder (you'll not be alone....we'll at least have Danny P with HIS Spyser, too!)

I'll buy you a beer or two.....

As a "plus", you can meet the guys from the 'real' Ontario ;>)

Gordon
One of the "Speedstah Guys" from all over the East Coast

As to transmissions the last 2 cars I have "built" I have used freeway flyer approaches with large engines. Specifically, the last car built I have used 3.44 r/p with a
2.58 first
1.86 second
1.26 third
0.93 forth

Normally a stock transmission is about 3.80:1 first. This gearing (2.58:1)allows 1st to be useful going from about 0-50 in first or 0-60 if I go to the red line. With a very light car (under 1400 pounds) a 3.80 first is not worth anything...hence the 2.58 first.

This gearing gives me rpm's of 2815 at 65 miles per hour. I have 2 oil temp gauges, one stock and one more accurate VDO, as well as a head temp gauge. My engine is a bit over 200 hp. Even on a very hot day, and that can be over 100 degrees, cyl head temps stay under 300 degrees, about 290 consistantly, oil temps are controlled by a 96 pass cooler, filter, 7+ quart capacity. I am using a high flow oil pump (36 mm)

I have run the engine with a power saver pulley with no overheating, but am not using that at the moment as I have moved to a flat belt drive for the alternator. Fan housing is a DTM. Fan is a high flow late fan, balanced and welded.

I did in fact plan the engine and transmission builds to complement each other, and it works well for me. My engine produces a lot or torque with 5.7" rods, a high deck case, and a large number of other enhancements. This is my 9th VW style engined car, so I got to where I am at by making a few mistakes....if I were to do it again I would go for 3.88 r/p and put in an LSD too....

Gordon, thanks for the offer however, I sold my Spyder and the the only Spyders and Speedsters I have are the ones that are brought to me for repairs or modifications.

I do however have a 1973 911 that is a real kick to drive.

Jack, give me a call 561 301 7885, I can make your car go a lot faster! Ask me how!

I have to address the 100,000 mile issue. There is not an aircooled T1 engine that will go 100,000 miles without a head job. And anyone can argue with my next statement if they wish, but a T1 will also need the bottom end rebuilt at or shortly before that 100,000 mark along with the second top end (head) job. Great engine design, but it requires mechanical work along the way.

About the 1914 motors. I have an opinion here too. I did go to a 1914, with 120 cam and balanced crank. I went with a nice set of big valve 041 heads, ported here by a local porter, and dual Weber 044s and a merged exhaust. We put a oval baffled exhaust tip on that merged exhaust, and it is only about 6 inches long. Looks cool like a box3er, and has a blue flame glow at night. Anyway, it's a good, strong, tested and refined combination that does deliver the mail. It can be a bit scarry, and yes, I know I can break it if I stay in it. It does have a high powerband, but these cars are light. This combination seems to stand out a bit in value and performance and is being run by more and more of us around Dallas. We have a pretty large gang called AirCoolers across Texas.

Jack is right. As per the manual these motors need a valve job/change (more than likely exhaust valves) at around the 65K to 70K mark. You don't want your engine to eat an exhaust valve and become really expensive.

I personally don

IMHO a T4 could go 90k miles if left near stock. (Had a '72 914 that went 98k before I redid it - mainly to go frome EFI to carbs). When you bore a T1 for 94mm jugs and clearance the case for 74+ increased bore there isn't much metal left in that tired old case. Be cureious to compare the 5 spd 914 901 trans radios to those in a T1. Can't recall that I was turning over that many RPMs at speed with the old 914. Shame there are so few t4 (compared to T1) cores --- and, hence, parts are so rare and costly.

Jim --you are amazing. I wish I understood all you wrote !!

You certainly know engines, my friend.---Jack

Jack,

Here's what Jim wrote in a nut shell

"Horsepower and engine longevity don't necessarily go hand in hand and, Horsepower with reasonable engine longevity will cost you BIG MONEY"

You're welcome to copy this and repeat it, any time you feel it's necessary

Jack hit the nail on the head. I too am along time fan of a the 1915 cc motor. They are are inexpensive to build, run cool, very reliable with plenty of spirited go power for the highway.

These engines are not rocket science. I would encourage anyone to dig in and study them. They are pretty easy to understand, disassemble and reassemble. They are not a forgiving engine when it comes to properly fitting parts and torquing things properly. (high performance ehgines) The biggest single problem I have had has to do with oil leaks...and it seems like they can always find a new place to leak oil. I swear that both Volkswagen and Porsche in the litteral language of the fatherland means "leaks oil fluently".

The various coatings and metal treatments I described can be studied at length on various sites, L&N Engineering (http://www.lnengineering.com/) has a lot of information of interest, for example. NASCAR engine builders use all the steps spelled out, so do F1 builders. Most of the things I advocate are fairly cheap...the cryo treatments, extreme balancing, ceramic coatings, Polydyne treatments, and Oil Shed treatments cost about $800 for my engine. I am running 9.5:1 compression on pump gas at 28-30 degrees advance. I am also running Nickasil cylinders w JE pistons, which is one of the reasons my engine runs cool, as well as ceramic lifters. It runs well and the bottom end should run an easy 100k. Not so certain about the heads, they are Competition Eliminators and are not really recommended for street use. I have about 7k miles on the engine (2332) and it runs very very well.....and yes, I built it myself... I didn't build it to do 100k, I wanted it to hold together at 8000 rpm on the street if need be and develop a huge amount of torque. It does....

Rocket science?? Now you are talking my language. But what say we keep these rascals on the ground. There is some very good info here on how one does a motor right. I am paying very close attention. Thanks.

Rocket Science... all thrust and no vector is not a good thing. 8)
to find you vector I suggest you build a compatible, proven combination.

Jack and Dennis, you're both welcome to drive my car at Carlisle in '08. So is anybody else who wants to.

Dennis, to make a comparison, it's the difference between putting a Microbus' torque-laden engine in a go-kart and putting the Beetle's mid-range reliability into ... a Beetle. The right gearbox makes ALL the difference in bridging the gap for your personal needs and longevity requirements.
A Type IV engine has down sides. I've had both, and if I had let concerned neglect dine on the Type IV the way it was eating up my 1600, it'd have died a long, long time ago. I had half of the passenger's side head flapping and making helicopter noises before I had to pull the Type I. If I did that now, I think I'd probably never be able to afford to replace the engine without dipping into my retirement.
Since it's kinda built, it needs a maintenance program involving care and attention at every other fill-up. And it eats oil.
The up side is I haven't yet seen a Type I-powered Speedster that can touch it from 0-120. You're welcome to try it out if that's the kind of usefulness you're considering in an engine. It's completely impractical. There are some pictures below with the engine after the 2.0 to 2.3 conversion, and there are plenty more with the 2.4 upgrade since. See picture three for the torque question ...

Jack, if I remember correctly Michael Morris is not too far away from you (Katy, Texas) and I think he's got a T-4 or two lying around from a 359 project.
I believe he ultimately went rotary, and the Type IVs are surplus to his needs -- if he still has them.

Hey Corey...is that Gordon N. behind the Hoopty??? and a Mounty beside the two of you???? OK, which one got the ticket???

Say "BYE"...

That's the day Hoopty pulled the pickup truck with Hoopty on the trailer down the highway all at the same time !