Compression Ratio?

Heat is the great limiter. Air is a lousy coolant.

 

Any serious attempt to create modern horsepower/displacement must address the issue of how to get rid of the heat of combustion.

 

Jake Raby is an undisputed pioneer in air-cooled flat 4s. His work was/is largely with the Type 4, but the basic principles transfer over to Type 1s. To make significant power, you have to run significant compression. To run significant compression, you have to get rid of the heat, and/or have a workable strategy to deal with the heat you will make.

 

His 10 yrs ago showed his DTM cooling better than a stock VW shroud. He co-developed (along with Charles Navarro from LN Engineering) nickasil cylinders for air-cooled flat 4 applications (Type 1 and Type 4). He was the first guy I ever saw, in this corner of the automotive world, to use thermal barrier coatings in the combustion chambers. And, he and Len Hoffmann from HAM really, really refined dual-plug heads to assist in flame promulgation in each cylinder.

 

He routinely runs over 11:1 compression in Type 4s with 4" cylinders. His engines often crack the $20k barrier. Jake is understandably guarded with what he has learned, but he shares enough to let the rest of us see what works, and why (if you think about it).

 

10:1 is completely possible, if you run a big enough cam (and a Type 1 likes a big cam), and a very good cooling system. Extra oil cooling capability, a good shroud, and good, free-flowing heads are a must. There is a lot of tricks to this.

 

... or, you can just build to 8.5:1, like everybody else.

 

But, what do I know?

One point made in the Weber Manual deserves to be noted here.....   The use of one carburetor venturi / throat per cylinder actually makes it fairly easy to run a hotter cam....

You are effectively tuning 4 one cylinder engines... Each with it's own separate fuel charge supply....

 

I had a CB Perf. 1915cc 120hp / 110lb engine that I could idle down to 500 rpm ( or possibly less ) without any problems.....  This was done as a test and I normally idled at around 800rpm....

 

Just a thought... 

"In a Type 1 why do most builders that I have seen on a turnkey offering keep the ratio to 8.5/1?"

 

Because, it will run on the mediocre pump gas available in America without additives and without computer-controlled fuel injection and ignition (especially knock detectors).

 

You're also comparing the VW engine, designed in the 1930's and not really improved all that much in our versions (except for specific areas as Stan mentioned), to a water-cooled version designed in the 1990's and continuously improved since to allow that kind of horsepower with a "bullet-proof" bottom and top end of the engine.  

 

Even the type 1 is significantly weaker in design than the type 4, which was designed in the early 1970's, IIRC.

I'm running 9.8:1 with a single plug, 94mm cylinders, remote cooler, and a 911 fan. It runs with no problem on 92 octane, but I prefer 93. I attribute the fact that I can do this without blowing it up to my crankfire ignition and .050" plug gap. And the fact that Jake Raby designed and built this lump for me.......

 

Maybe I should change the C/R back to 10.1:1? It CAN be done!

Ditto what Leon says about 1 barrel per cylinder. You can idle smoothly as low as you want to go pretty much.

 

That Subaru motor is very nice, I had a 2.5 Legacy GT for a while. They are thoroughly modern and have 4 valves per cylinder, variable valve technology, and a centrally located spark plug. So I say, why are they ONLY getting 200/150?

 

Oh, and I am getting 172hp and 144 ft. lbs. out of a 2165. No EFI, just Weber 44 IDF. For the last 32,000 miles.

Danny, what type of gas mileage do you get in that thing?

 

In order to crank the compression up, what do they do?  Mill the heads right?  Or do you just buy 10/1 piston that have a different "top" surface.

 

You know like dome shaped piston for V8's.

 

So if I go to Pat Downs and ask him to give me 10/1 he would know what to do right?

 

He may ask me "why" though...i would imagine and will probably tell me there are other "better" ways to get the power I want.

 

I want a 2110 or 2165 pushing about 180hp and 160tq.  Might be able to get that by just upgrading the heads and going to a different cam but still keeping the 8.5.  In order to get the torque and still get the HP I may have to go bigger on the crank.

 

I definitely want to go with an "electronic ignition" with a high output coil...like a Mallory Unilite (laser) then open the plug gap slightly...points are a joke now...no need to run points.

 

Zulu

Zulu, my 2275 has a 9.5:1 compression ratio.  It also has fuel injection, Steve Tims stage 2 heads, FK8 cam,  and a crank fired ignition.  I'm hoping for something close to 160 hp.

Up here in Canada we can purchase 94 octane gas, which is what I plan on using.

MPG in my 1915cc Spyder was max at 32.4mpg highway cruising and normally 26/27 around town....  (Small town)   Car had freeway flyer with .84 4th gear and 3.88 r/p... Tires were 24.75 inch dia....

Pistons are (for the most) flat-top and compression is controlled by deck height and combustion chamber volume; after measuring to see what you've got, increasing compression consists of milling the combustion chambers. A general rule of thumb with a stock combustion chamber is a .010" cut will remove about 1cc. A larger chamber will yield proportionally more. Deck height is the distance (at Top Dead Center) of the top of the piston to the top of the barrel; it can be played with a little bit in that .040" is minimum (and preferred for best burn) and .070" is generally considered the maximum for decent burn characterstics. More than this allows too much burn in the quench pads, transferring too much heat to both the piston and head.

 

If Mr. Downs is building you an engine, after all your conversation, listen to his advice. He's built enough to know what works. Safe compression for the gas available is dependent on a number of factors- mainly cam duration, but with carburetion, headwork and exhaust playing minor roles as well. Remember, running the maximum compression possible means that you have to be on top of the engine's tune all the time and a plugged idle jet or bad batch of gas could damage the engine if not caught immediately. I've seen the pics of a bent rod in a 2110 with 10.5:1, FK8 cam 42x37 heads and 48's from a plugged jet, and owner Gary Berg said he only heard it ping once before shutting it down. It would be better to run 1/2 point shy, not worry about the last few hp and know it will be just a little more "forgiving".

 

180hp & 160ft.lbs.- 2276 or 2332 (I'd go the bigger one) FK8 (258'@.050", anything similar with the same lift), 9.5:1, 48IDF's, 1 3/4" exhaust and enough head to make power to 6500. The thing will be a monster on the street when you hit the gas pedal, yet will idle like stock and be docile enough to jump in and disappear for a weekend. If you do an A1 sidewinder, get Tiger to step the primary tubes from 1 5/8 to 1 3/4" (an extra $60?) for even better street manners (and slightly better mileage) when you're foot's not into it.

 

Pat thinks engines in Speedster kits don't cool as well as in bugs; he's right, and that's why we put a big hole in the firewall in front of the fan entry. No matter how much you cut up the engine lid for air access, because of the shape of the car, at highway speeds (and higher) air flowing over the engine lid is at lower pressure (think the aerodynamics of a wing here) and has trouble turning the corner into the engine lid grille. Air pressure from underneath, on the other hand, is as much as 2 psi higher, and flows readily into the engine compartment (which is also a lower pressure area) and even out the grille.

 

My point is, he may initially balk at using 94mm pistons; convince him it will cool as well as (or better than) a bug. Al 

Zulu, I get 32mpg cruising between 75-80 on long trips. 3.44:1 final drive, stock gears. Around town I get around 22-25, depending on how I drive. When I first got the car running and it was pig rich I got 18 on a good day.

 

There are online compression ratio calculators, the one I found was in inches for "Murican" motors but it works. Aircooled.net used to have one but I can't find it anymore.

 

Like Al B says, listen to Pat Downs, he MAY have some experience.....

CB Perf. has one on their site....

Thanks, Leon. That may have been the one I used in the past but can't really remember!

If you really want to run high compression on pump gas, here's an alternative to flat top pistons but not a cheap alternative: http://vwparts.aircooled.net/A...super-squish-94b.htm

 

I ran my 2276 EFI turbo setup on these at 9.5:1 plus 15psi boost whereas most ACVW turbo setups recommend keeping CR below 8:1.

 

Just an option - ALB's recipe sounds like it will give you what you want and I know that Pat will build you whatever your pocketbook desires.

Thanks for all the input guys...I think I have made a decision...just wanted some feedback as to why I see such low compression ratios being offered on "turnkey" offerings.  I guess 8.5 isn't low...but average.

 

I want about 180hp and around 160tq...

 

I think ALB hit it right on the money!!!  I will "start" with CB's turnkey offering of the 2276 (little bit bigger crank) but smaller 92mm cylinder.  I will go with a #2295 cam (314* and 424 lift), just a tad more aggressive than the FK-8.  Then go with, #1432 044 CNC Wedge Port (42 x 37.5) 90.5/92 Bore.  Not sure if these are polished???  Dual Springs for sure and I will stay with 1.1:1 rockers...but beef them up.  I will try to stay with Weber 44 IDF's...not sure I want to go up to 48's.  I may have to to get 180HP though.

 

The 2276 starts with an 82mm crank...over the 2160's 78mm...so should help to get the torque numbers up where I want them...it is just now a matter of making the 180 HP at the higher rpm's.  The heads and cam choice should help there.  Bone stock turnkey they claim it makes 150...so I need to squeeze another 30hp out of it.  May have to cam up 1 more notch closer to a 320 duration.

 

I'll ask Pat to give me 10:1 on compression...you can run 92 octane pump gas on 10:1's.

 

The idea is to build the "internals" right 1st (Cam, Crank, Heads) because if you miss on these you will never be able to bolt on enough goodies to get you where you want to be.

 

As a side note...the 107 LCA (lobe center angle) that these cams have...tend to build torque naturally...107 is sort of low.  Average V8 centers for a "street" application are around 110-114.  107 will allow these little engines to build torque early.

 

Man I love this air-cooled stuff.

 

Zulu

Zulu-

 

92s are the worst possible cylinder to use.... unless you are running AA "thick-wall" 92s. This has to do with the thickness of the cylinder walls-- Mahle 92s are thinner than the 90.5s, and thinner even than the 94s. The thick-wall 92s fit into a 94mm bore register, and are thicker than anything else out there. An air-cooled engine will become heat soaked-- and the thicker the walls, the less distortion will occur.  Less distortion means longer life, and a better ring seal along the way. El Guapo has about 50K mi on his 92s, but he's running 8:1 compression, so he's not building much heat.

 

Static compression is a meaningless number, but it's the one everybody looks at. It's the dynamic compression (which the spark actually sees) that makes a difference. Dynamic compression is a function of a  bunch of variables-- rod ratio, and (most importantly) cam overlap among them.

 

An FK8 is a really good cam. there are guys out there running 10:1, and you can too-- but probably not with that cam. You can run pretty much any compression you'd like... as long as you re willing to put in a cam that makes power from 5000- 9000 RPM. 9.5:1 static is about the limit for a "K8", or you'll have serious pre-ignition issues in hot weather (unless you live in the mountains and never drive your car out of them). Water-cooled cars can get away with higher dynamic compression ratios, as can cars with modern combustion chambers. A Type 1 remains limited by heat, and the combustion chamber.

 

I'm building for 10.5:1 in my 2276... but I've got a bigger cam, 911 oil squirters to cool my pistons, a DTM to better cool my heads and cylinders, coated combustion chambers and piston tops, and dual plugs in the heads. I was very, very particular about head selection-- I didn't choose the casting with the absolute biggest flow numbers, I chose something built at least as much to cool well, as to flow well. I've got an oil system with 12 qts of capacity, a Type 4 cooler in the shroud, and a 96 plate cooler under the car. Maybe I could get away with another 1/2 point of static compression ratio, but I'd rather not find out that I couldn't after I did.

 

I know you really, really want to run 10:1+ in your car. It'd be a whole lot easier and better to just choose your cam based on the power-band you wanted, and set the static compression ratio based on the dynamic compression ratio the cam dictates. Which in the case of the FK8 Al recommended is about 9.5:1, assuming you've got good heads. It'll be less if you don't.

 

But what do I know?

 

Forewarned is forearmed.

Thanks Stan...

 

Wow didn't know that those pistons suck.  Good thing I have you guys here to keep me straight.  I'll remember to ask Pat about the thick wall 92's now that you said something and let me know.  That is a sweet bit of information!!!

 

So basically you buy "thick wall" 92's but your heads and case are opened to the 94's?  Do I have this right?  Doing research now Stan...thanks!!!

 

I understand about the 9.5:1 vs the 10:1.  That is why I did step up in Cam from the FK8.  I went up 6 more degrees on duration and almost 40 notches on lift and improved head flow with 044's.

 

I don't have to have 10:1...just a target number...for sure i'll talk to pat.  From my "old school" teaching, typical "street/strip" type engines "without boost" (turbo or supercharger) should run around 10:1 maybe even 11:1...but then you are doing octane additives at 11 an higher or buying AV gas.  Remember I am an old country boy...dumb as a stump but likes to go fast!!!  Boosted engines are typical 6.5-8.5 tops depending on lbs of boost you are shoveling in.

 

Here is a good "tech article" I found for anyone interested.

 

http://www.popularhotrodding.c...pression_ratio_tech/

 

Article states that just by increasing CR from 8:1 to 10:1 you get a theoretical increase of 7.7% in HP.  So at a base HP of 150 at 8:1...increasing it to a 10:1 yields you 161hp.

 

Also please understand that when I write things on the forums...that I am not stating facts or I can't have my mind changed.  I am really just getting thoughts out of my head and onto paper no matter how dumb I sound...

 

Zulu

Zulu  --  Aside from the good advice Stan is giving you, if you are talking 2276 then you are typically going to get 94mm cylinders anyway.  I think there are some other areas in your build list that might need more thought if you have a chance to meet your hp/torque objective.

 

My suggestion: 

Tell CB you want "about 180hp and around 160tq" streetable reliability on pump gas.  They already know how to get there, let them fill in all the blanks, don't question their build list (my guess is they will be at 2332 and use none of the components on your list except maybe the Weber 44s).

 

As a novice like yourself, I built my own maximum hp engine.  And then I've "tried it again" three or four times now.  As a matter of being a learning platform for what doesn't work, it has been excellent.  As a matter of getting to where I wanted to go with some economical justification, it has been an expensive joke.  I could have bought that 180+hp engine from CB more than twice for less money than I have spent "learning".  And even at this point I wish I had done some things different.

 

Looking back, if someone had told me to just tell CB what I wanted to see on the dyno and write the check, I probably wouldn't have taken that advice.  But I know now that I wish I would have.

 

^ x2. These engines have been around a long time, and some very smart guys have spent a lot of time and money figuring out what works and what does not. Tried-and-true combinations are tried-and-true because they work.

I wish that I would've just believed that 10 years ago, but then I wouldn't be me.

It's hard, but sometimes the best thing you can do is to unlearn everything you've learned in the V8 world. I hate to sound like a broken record, but the heat thing really does change all of the rules of thumb.

Heed ye well the words of RS-60.....  Thats the best way to get the most bang for your buck....

Yeah you guys are right...what am I thinking...trying to "out think" a guy like Pat who has been building 1000's of these things...and what I have built maybe...let's say ZERO.

 

Like you guys said, i'll just tell Pat what I would like and then listen to him...

 

Really I am not even sure if I need 180hp in a speedster...I mean I am not going to be racing anyone...

 

It was just a number i pulled out of my rear...a "like to have" number.

 

Zulu

160/180 tq/hp will rock your world.

 

I think a lot of turnkey's are set up at 8 1/2:1 because it's a good mid-point; it's about right for a W110 (247' @.050" dur), which is a pretty popular cam. If you spec a W100 (236' @.050") it's not too hard to get the compression down to 8 1/4 or 8:1 and if you go the other way to a W120 (253') or W125 (262'), again, it's usually not too hard to get it up to 9 or 9 1/2.

 

An 82mm crankshaft coupled with 92mm pistons and cylinders is 2180cc's; to go bigger (which I think you should do so you're not reaching your target power at such a high rpm point) you'll have to either increase the stroke or the piston size (or both!                         ). 84x92 is 2234cc's and 86x92= 2287. These crankshafts are harder to fit, so expect to pay more for someone else building it. Again, cut a hole in the firewall (you could even duct air into the hole from a scoop attached to the torsion bar housing) and you'll have no problem running 94's- 82x94=2276, 84x94=2332 and 86x94 is almost 2400cc's (2386). Displacement is your friend here; 180hp in a 2 liter or 2110 happens around the 6500-7000 mark; the same hp in an engine 2-300cc's bigger happens 500-1,000 rpm lower, with a much more street-

 

In my earlier post with the engine combo recommendation I suggested the FK8 (with 1.4 rockers) because it will allow the rpm and have the valve lift to make the power you're looking for, but still be docile enough to drive everyday (or every nice day), jump into it for a weekend trip at a moment's notice and not require a lot of maintenance. The CB2295 has 270' @.050" (I keep on quoting the dur @0.050" figures because they are more indicative of a cam's potential; some aftermarket VW cams have as much as 50' or as little as 25' difference between the advertised and @. 050" duration figures) which means it has the ability to go with power to well over 7,000rpm (as long as the rest of the engine is right) and if you use that a fair bit (and who wouldn't!), valve springs won't last as long, the heads will need to come off for maintenance more often and the beginning of the powerband will be moved up enough that the engine will be more of a "Saturday night bullet" than a fast, go anywhere cruiser. Also, to get enough valve lift (.530-.550") to make the heads live up to anywhere near their potential, the engine will need at least 1.25 rockers with the 2295. The use of higher ratio rocker than specced will add a few more degrees to the dur @.050" number as well, and at 273-275' @.050' this is now a 7500rpm watch winder. It would be easier on parts to use a cam designed for 1.4 rockers so there's less lift at the cam and the rockers provide more of the final valve lift. You'll be able to run 10- 10 1/2:1 with this combo, but now you'll have created a 200-210hp monster that doesn't like the highway at all.

 

Again, talk to Pat about your head and valve size choice (as well as all the components);you want to make sure that the head(s) will deliver the power you're looking for on the engine you want to build. Don't worry about intake ports being highly polished; it's been that a slightly textured surface is better for fuel/air atomization and power. VW's are a little different than V8's in that most cams are ground on107- 108 lobe centers for a pretty good balance of lower and upper end power.

 

I guess my point is to watch out what you wish for. The couple guys I know with really fast bugs (one is a '67, 2442 with 86C cam and is scary fast) don't actually drive them all that much. You'll get much more enjoyment out of something just a little more "tame"

Hope this helps. Al

 

PS- Don't get me wrong; if what you want is something that's faster than almost everything on the road, great. I just want you to know what it entails. And 160 or 180hp in a 17-1800lb. car is WICKEDLY FAST!!!

And keep in touch; I want to know what you build and how it turns out.

Zulu, here is another recommendation:  Buy all the hp you can afford, as long as it is streetably reliable (that means it runs on pump gas, doesn't run hot, and you can maintain it within your own mechanical abilities).

 

You may hear some folks say it isn't necessary to have lots of hp/torque, and they are right, it isn't "necessary".  On the other hand, you will never hear anyone with a high performance fire-breather say they have too much!

Yoda, the only thing I understood was the last paragraph. Trying to learn that language I am.

Don't worry Al; any time you've got a question, I (or others) will help you out. Al

 

ALB...after this last paragraph...I forgot everything else prior!!!  That scary fast comment made me do a Cheshire cat impression...I love scary fast!!!

 

 

 

But back to reality...so sort of what you are saying is I should look for a cam that has lets say 310-320 duration but less lift...around 380 or so...and then have the 1.25 or 1.4 rocker arms to do the lifting???  How is that on push rod binding/stress...changes rocker geometry...

 

Anyway...thanks for the pointer guys.

 

When I get this thing built...I am going to make a show plaque to put next to the car and list all your names on it.  I will list me as the Owner/builder, VS as the chassis designer, Pat Downs as the engine builder and put down all you guys as "support engineers"!!!  For Sure!!!

 

Zulu

I originally did this for Carl Berry, but it applies here, too: 

 

 

 

 

Zulu:  Don't forget.......These cars are only running about 1,700 pounds.  160hp in a 1,700 pound car is motorcycle-like acceleration.  180hp in that same car is getting scary and above 200hp approaches Ludicrous Speed (no joking, there.)  While you can buy your way out of tight spots with excess horsepower, it's not always a welcomed entity.....

Six or seven years ago, just after selling my IM, I attended the Friday night drags at Mission Raceway.  It was VW night (Great Canadian VW Show weekend).  i no longer had an air cooled VW, so I brought my 1990 V8 powered Miata instead.

An old speedster.com forum member, with a 2332cc Intermeccanica, (approximately 170 hp) did 14.1 seconds on his first run (ever).  He did a few more runs, but couldn't better his time.  His biggest problem was getting a decent launch.  Too little rpm and he bogged and too much rpm and he spent too much time spinning his tires.  With a bit more practice I sure he would have been able to lower his times into the high 13s.

Still, 14.1 seconds is fast.  As Al and Gordon mentioned, these are light cars and they fly with 150+ hp.

As a side note, I decided to run my monster Miata.  I got a great launch (second gear, 2000 rpm) and everything was going fine until I shifted into 3rd.  When I released the clutch I heard a horrendous bang and my tach needle bounced off the end of the dial.

I had snapped a drive shaft 'U' joint just before the halfway point and was finished for the evening.  I coasted through the traps at a 15.4, which is pretty good, considering I went over half the distance without power.

 

 

Nice pic...I love it!!  HAHAHAH  That is the beauty of our hobby...the joy...followed by the pain.  After a while it is like crak!!!

 

If we want to talk about 1/4 mile times...I would like to break 10 seconds.  That is how fast I would like to go.

 

Back inn the 90's Chevy used to have a drag curcuit...we used to go to Pomona and race.  Had a 1962 Chevy Nova with a 350 in it, tubed, ladder bars, Currie ford 9' rear with 4.56:1 R&P with a detroit locker... I broke 11 one time 11:58...best run.

 

Oh...how I miss those days.  Maybe that is where my head is at and possibly I need to get rid of these thoughts for a "porsche street racer"'  Just not the same.

 

I would like to pull up next to an $110,000.00 SL500 and rip his doors off though.

 

Anyway...time to move on to a new thread...we can pick this back up when I lay down the payment to CB and Vintage.

 

Zulu

Zulu. I'm an old Nova guy too & so I know how you feel. I read the thread and I may be wrong, but don't think anyone has priced your 180 horses yet.

 

They will cost you $10,000, give or take $1000.

 

With the right tires, suspension mods and assuming your transaxle holds together you'll be in the mid 12s.

 

Last I checked, you'll be needing a full cage for your second run.

 

Oh, but you want 10s? You're talking boost now. You're talking about 270 horse, maybe a bit more. Talk to Kevin Zagar. Open up the wallet. He doesn't throw prices around the board much, and people here say he's right reasonable, but that is a relative term.

 

You will open your wallet.

 

Now making a 300-horse VW bug-based street car is not at all impossible. This knucklehead did it--all VW parts, he says, and in his own garage. But look closely at that mill. Not quite a Type 1, is it? Or a Type 4.

 

You want to live your dream on a Nova guy's budget, it can be done. Look for the "turbo soob" thread down in the fore sale section. And hope you get lucky.

 

Or you could revert to form. 

 

All this to say: your idea is not a bad idea. It's not the wrong idea. But it is not the kind of thinking that even the high-speed guys on this forum usually do. ALB and Stan are elites here, with many decades of hard-won knowledge, and with very fast, well-balanced--and (correct me if I'm wrong) quite pricey--machinery under their beltlines. Re-read their posts and think hard. Open your wallet and think some more. And if you are still thinking "10 seconds," then call Kevin. He is certifiably insane, and he will make you go absolutely as fast as you think you want to go.

 

But don't say no one warned you.

Yup, 10 second cars cost a LOT of dough. But that is a very purpose built motor and car, suspension, tires, etc. are all biased to the strip. Not really what these cars are about.

 

These cars are twisty road cars, scenery cars, open air cars. They are not supercars. They can be made to do many things in an average manner, or one thing well and everything else, not. 

 

About power: My 172 hp and 147 ft. lbs. is just right for my 1500 or so pounds. Any more power and I wouldn't be able to put it down. There are times when it is too much for the chassis, but I know the car and have adapted my driving to it. Of course this is when I push it hard, not when I am cruising. About 180-190 hp in a Speedster would be perfect, just be ready for that heavy rear weight bias to bite you. And it will bite you, hard! Mine comes around sometimes, but I am prepared for it, many miles of hard driving does that. I don't really want more power as that would make my car more dangerous than it already is and ruin the fun. It would take it over the razor edge that I have it on now. That would not be fun at all!

Yeah...now that I have heard from the experts maybe I should tone it down a bit.

 

1.  I really dont want to spend 10,000.00 on the engine

 

2.  The car wont see the drag track...maybe it might see Willow Springs...or a rally track.  But only for fun, to do lap runs to see what it can do.

 

3.  Insurance and tickets are no fun

 

Maybe tone it down to 160hp and 150tq...much more manageable.  CB has a 2332 ready to go and still uses 44IDF's.

 

So much easier this way and it will do everything I want!!!

 

Zulu

With a 2332 from CB your car will be fast and reliable.

Well... I had a whole spiel prepared as a last effort to try to convince you to abandon the high strung bullet madness; I stop to feed the kids breakfast, get them off to school and then this happens. I guess it's a good thing but a lot of the great stuff I wrote is wasted...

 

As it is, you're going to have to work to get enough tire on the back to have any hope of holding this thing down, but it can be done. Is the car a standard or flared body? Rear suspension- swingaxle or Independent Rear Suspension (irs)? I'm asking about the rear because irs will handle better and can be narrowed 1- 1 1/4" per side (fairly easily) to fit a little wider tire/rim under even the standard bodywork. And the more I think about it, an FK10 (310 adv, 266 @.050", .385" cam lift so .539" at the valve) is what you're looking for; not too radical, will go to close to 7,000rpm with power, with enough head/carb/exhaust power will be very linear, it will like closer to 10:1... Yoda out

Sorry ALB...

 

Had a chance to sleep on it and take in everyone's great advice and pretty much came to my senses.  Sorry to disappoint...I actually love reading everyone's comments.  Helps break up my day and I learn something.

 

The car I am going to buy (future tense...don't even have car yet) is a WIDEBODY.  So I can stuff some fairly big tires in it.  Since I dont have the roller yet, I can still chose the type of axle since I don't have the car...I think it just depends on what type of belly pan Vintage Speedster gives me...or I request.

 

If I am not mistaken the type of tranny/suspension are dependent on the belly pan from the year model bug.  The front spring plates and the assembly used are dependent on the mounts right?

 

As a side note...I DO plan on picking up a Pro Street Type 1 tansaxle from Rancho Performance.  No way I am using a stock tranny in this baby!!!

 

Zulu

I can attest to that.  Stick with what Pat Downs puts together, and you'll be happy.

 

That's all I'll add to this ever expanding thread.

 

Let the spending begin!

 

 

They say, "fast, cheap, reliable: pick any two".

 

However, I think "cheap" is pretty much a non-starter when you have a desire to be either fast or reliable in an ACVW. Trying to keep the price in line will make it either slower, less reliable, or both.

 

Want fast AND reliable? Sell some stock. Cash in the kids' college fund. Take out a second mortgage. Hope for the best.

Or, buy a lottery ticket  ;-)

 

People do win once in a while...