Pat Downs is extremely busy. I wonder how long his backlog would be if one ordered a complete engine?

@Stan Galat posted:

I like to think we're all alike, you know - the brotherhood of man, and all... and then I read a statement like that, and I wonder if we're living on the same ball spinning in space.

I mean absolutely no offense by this, but if you've never owned a V8, you really "don't know hp". 8 cylinders is the starting point for corn-fed muscle-heads out here in Flyover, USA. We used to think of a Mustang 5.0 as a cute little engine. 5.7L (350 C/I) is where things started to make sense. A lot of us liked Pontiacs because thir engine family had one size block that was manufactured up to 455 cubic inches _{(that's 6.6 L for you metric-centric fellas, which is not to be confused with the freakin' Oldsmobile 6.6 (455) they put in Trans Ams during the malaise years at the General. That was sacrilege.)}

95% of the Flyover car-guys who look at my car have no idea of what they're looking at - there may as well be rubberbands wound up back there.

Um. 455 is almost 7.5 liters. I think the 6.6 was either a 401 or 403 or 400.

1 litre =61 CI

Yeah. Forget I said anything.

@edsnova posted:

Um. 455 is almost 7.5 liters. I think the 6.6 was either a 401 or 403 or 400.

1 litre =61 CI

Another example of intrepid news journalism holding a light to guide the way to a better understanding of the metric system!

I'll lift a wee dram, or 3.6966912 ml, in honor of the key role our journalists play.

@Michael Pickett posted:

Another example of intrepid news journalism holding a light to guide the way to a better understanding of the metric system!

I understand it just fine.

The world can be neatly divided by the countries that use the metric system, and the countries that have put men on the moon.

WHAT?!?!?!?

Someone actually uses the, so-called, Metric System?

Hey, wait….   The folks who put men on the Moon used the metric system, too, didn’t they?

WHAT’s goin’ on, heah??

A couple months ago I watched "Hidden Figures." Schmaltzy but well-done. Pretty sure it was in metric.

Yeah, I’m just funnin’ wit’cha.

Even in my Data General Computer days, way back in the early 1980’s, we were designing and building stuff in metric sizes, hence, the “Meter-HIgh” cabinet and everything else associated with it.

Same thing for EMC in the 1990’s - everything we designed and built was in metric dimensions from the printed circuit boards to the cabinets.  We used 5-1/4” disk drives (the size of the disk itself) but they fit into a cabinet frame that expected 15 centimeter disk housings with 6 disk platters stacked inside.

It is interesting, though, that computer data centers and buildings in America are built on floor tiles that are 24” X 24” which is .610 meters.  Doesn’t make much sense, does it?  Maybe the IBEW union of electrical workers still likes to use English measurements….    

Most everywhere else on the globe uses Metric dimensions.  

Metric is one band wagon I wish we could get on. As I get older it's getting harder to remember that 3/16" is .1875 inch, etc.

I know we lose a little precision in the Celsius scale in the human relevant temperature zones, but you know they say it's not the heat, it's the humidity (which is thankfully 0-100% (relatively)). I know Stan has about a dozen other ways he has to measure humidity, but thankfully, I don't have to learn them.

It's too late for me, but think about the little children who would only need one toolbox instead of two!

@LI-Rick posted:

Pat Downs is extremely busy. I wonder how long his backlog would be if one ordered a complete engine?

IIRC, Someone here has a Type IV in the queue.

@Michael Pickett posted:

Metric is one band wagon I wish we could get on. As I get older it's getting harder to remember that 3/16" is .1875 inch, etc.

Personally, I hate SAE. I hate having to take my shoes off to figure out what’s bigger that 5/8”. From my (very brief) time as a machinist, I remember .125=1/8”, .250=1/4”, .375=3/8”, and .625= 5/8” but that’s about it.

Probably because I’ve driven foreign cars almost exclusively. My 74 Volvo was a real head scratcher, though. Volvo being rebuilt by us after the war, it still had a combination of metric and SAE hardware on it.

Of course I'm being facetious. Keeping a full set of two kinds of tools is a bummer.

... but fortunately, I don't need to in my work-trucks. It's all SAE there.

As per usual, though - I think folks with a wider disconnect from the inner workings of the world greatly underestimate how much industry and general construction still use English measurements, and how stubborn the people who populate these professions can be.

The very bones of your house (if you live in the US or Canada) are in inches. Nails are still measured in "pennies", for crying out loud (although nail-guns have reduced the reliance on the designation for anybody my age or younger). A 2x4 is 1-1/2" x 3-1/2", a 2x6 is 1-1/2" x 5-1/2" and a 2x8 is 1-1/2" x 7-1/4". Every sheet of panel product is 48" x 96", which means your studs better be on 16" centers. It's all based on 48" x 96" - it's like the keystone for everything.

Counterheight is 36", depth is 24", unless it's a bathroom vanity (then all bets are off). Bathtubs are either 5 or 6 ft long, etc.

Which gets into plumbing - every common pipe size is designated in inches, even though it's a nominal figure. "1/2" of course, means nothing - because 1/2" copper is 5/8" O/D, the same as 1/2" EMT conduit and 1/2" CPVC. 1/2" iron pipe size is .84" O/D, the same as PVC. These pipes all have metric designations as well, because the ROW doesn't have their own pipe - but good luck ever getting a few million plumbers, pipefitters, and counter salesmen to ever start using them. My dad was a plumber and I soldered my first joint at 12 years old, I grew up to be a pipefitter - I had no idea that 1/2" BIP was called 15 mm until I looked it up this morning. Do you know any plumbers or pipefitters? None are likely to change because you want them to.

My refrigeration compressors are all SAE - every bolt, fastener, screw, etc. Someday Emerson Corporation will be replaced by Asian competitors as the standard (it's happening in residential motors and compressors right now), but that day isn't today. Out in the supermarket, it's 100% old-school on the mechanical side of things.

Switching to metric is not quite as easy as deciding your computer cabinet will be 1 meter high instead of 36".

Wow! Thanks to everyone for all of this extremely useful information and insight (he says as he resists the urge to dive into the metric/imperial debate :-).

This is super helpful. I'm not planning to start out by building or spec'ing my own engine (there's time for that later...), but I now have a much better sense of what to look for in the already-built cars up for sale.  Short answer I took away - probably pass on the 1600's and look for at least a well-built 1776 or 1900+.  And anything up for sale with a Pat Downs engine should get an extra-careful look.

Thanks again.

"Switching to metric is not quite as easy as deciding your computer cabinet will be 1 meter high instead of 36"."

Well, yes and no.....  It ain't bad if you plan for it.

At the time we made the switch, around 1980 or so, we were also dramatically ramping up production volume and our cabinets (which we didn't design and were SAE) were all made by Mercury Cabinets in up-state New York.  We were shipping fully assembled cabinets from there to Massachusetts, Maine or North Carolina to THEN get fitted with the electronic bits.  Shipping full cabinets full of air was very costly and they took up a lot of space upon arrival so we designed a new cabinet group that could be shipped knocked down, assembled on site and riveted together with big, honkin rivets.  Saved a bundle in yearly shipping and the new cabinets just made sense.  It was called the "Knock Down Cabinet" Project.  Pretty novel, huh?  At the same time, we also went from a blue/white color scheme to pastel "Earth Tones" which caused the company to literally create something like 3,000 new part numbers for the colors.  At least the part numbers made sense.  I still know that a meter-high cab in sandy beige with white side panels is a 100-120-4500.  See how that makes sense?

When we started that project we also decided as a company to switch over to metric on everything.  The hardest part was issuing new tool kits to the field service force (They used Jensen tools which are $$$$$) and Jensen worked with us to provide partial kits just to replace the SAE tools.  Either of those tool sets seem to last forever.

These days, field techs/engineers don't fix things, they simply replace sub-assemblies.  The system typically calls home (where it was made) to report that something is beginning to fail while automatically switching to a back-up system.  The system orders the replacement part and schedules a swap date/time subject to customer approval and the field tech brings the right part with them to swap, usually within 24 hours.  

@BubbaMcCranky posted:

Short answer I took away - probably pass on the 1600's and look for at least a well-built 1776 or 1900+.  And anything up for sale with a Pat Downs engine should get an extra-careful look.

Thanks again.

Don’t rule out 1600 cars  out of hand. It’s a bargaining point. My buddy bought an early Fiberfab (CMC) Speedster with a 1600 for $19K. Slapped a 1776 and some Fuchs on it and made $10K.

Then again, if you care about your car being a "reproduction" and close to the original, go with a 1600. Yes, it's no modern rocket. But you do get the feel of what it was like "back in the day." : a well-balance machine.  Wring it's neck  a bit, keep the revs high, and you'll see why the things were so damn successful.

Porsche did pretty good getting 90 hp at 5500 rpm with 9:1 CR!  Not sure you could get that from a 1776 or 1835 cc VW engine.

Once an engine is built, no one can tell from the outside what the displacement is, but the driver can really tell the difference in torque in the seat of your shorts.  

Therefore, why buy a wimpy 1,600/1,776/1915 when you could have a 2,110+ cc engine with some guts?

A friend since kindergarten recently finished a 1958 356 Speedster restoration and when he re-built the engine he bumped it up to a “Super 90” configuration - That would be 90hp at the flywheel and was probably around 1,700cc’s.  Just for the Helluvit, we swapped cars to drive to a local cars and coffee, me getting the Super 90 and him getting my 2,110 at around 140hp at the flywheel.  When we got there, his only comment was “Man! I built the wrong engine!”

More is more, up to a certain but indeterminate point.

You won't know how much is too much until you've gone past that indeterminate point.

Thar be dragons thar.

When I first built my engine, more than 30 years ago, Gene Berg himself, recommended a low-compression 1776.  I later upgraded it to 2110 with 9 to 1 compression.

.

@BubbaMcCranky posted:

.

...I’m completely baffled, though, about how to think about the engine sizing  and how that relates to real-world fun and driving performance...

...I have some very quick vehicles...

...But I also don’t want it to feel boring and sluggish.

...I’ll be driving it mostly on curvy, hilly backroads..

...I’m mostly looking at 2nd hand replicas from the major vendors...

...So… should I steer clear of the 1600 cc’s...

...Is something in the 1900 range likely to feel quite lively and sporty...

...so please do share your subjective, opinionated thoughts...

BubbaMcCranky (may I call you Bubba?), I've been out of pocket for a few days, so missed this thread, but do have a few subjective, opinionated thoughts to share.

First, in these two pages of comments, you already have pretty much all the useful data necessary to make a good decision, or at least to start making a good decision. Unfortunately, it's mixed in with discussions of the metric system and what constitutes a properly knuckle-dragging hoonmobile in the American hinterland, so you'll have to do some separating of wheat from chaff here.

To me, the single best comment was from @Robert M :

"The right engine PAIRED with the right transmission, or would it be transaxle, can make all the difference. It doesn’t have to have the most hp if it it has the right gearing to make it go right through the twistys. You want to avoid being in 3rd at too high of an RPM and then shifting into 4th only to find yourself dropping too low in the RPM range and lugging the motor..."

That's the crux of it. These are very light cars.. They don't need American hinterland hoonmobile muscle to be fun to drive. And the weight of a hulking V-8 would pretty much kill that light, tossable feel that's most of the fun of whistling down a twisty, backroad.

Unfortunately, most of us have driven modern machinery. We know what significant power feels like underfoot, and we don't want to go all the way back to the motoring charm of the 1950s. We still want to drive in modern traffic. We don't want long lines of Corollas and Priuses honking at us every time the light turns green.

This is why, if you do come across an original 1600 356 on the interstate today, they're usually  drifting along majestically in the slow lane, the white-haired gentleman at the wheel trying to look composed and unrattled by the stream of passing traffic he pretends not to see.

If you're going to spend what a decent replica costs today, and if you're expecting to drive it in modern traffic, and if you've owned a fairly recent 911 and an M4, you're almost certainly going to want at least a properly done stroker 2110. And even then, you won't feel like you're in a fast car. Quick enough on an interesting secondary road where your lightning reflexes and instinct for finding the right line will keep you in contention against those brash hooligans in their Mustangs, but not fast.

The whole gearing thing is yet another ball of wax to deal with — and one that has been dealt with at length in the archives here. If you don't know these engines and the available options for gearing, it's probably best to talk to Pat Downs or a local VW guru if you can find one (in a burgh the size of Pittsburgh, there should be a few still alive and kicking.)

Good luck with your quest. Make sure you've explored the options before making any decisions.

And, above all, ask here before you write any checks.

.

@WOLFGANG posted:

Porsche did pretty good getting 90 hp at 5500 rpm with 9:1 CR!  Not sure you could get that from a 1776 or 1835 cc VW engine.

You absolutely could do better than that. And many do.

@Michael McKelvey posted:

When I first built my engine, more than 30 years ago, Gene Berg himself, recommended a low-compression 1776.  I later upgraded it to 2110 with 9 to 1 compression.

Gene Berg was right about a lot of things.  6.8 to 1  compression and semi hemi heads were 2 big misses.

@Gordon Nichols posted:

Once an engine is built, no one can tell from the outside what the displacement is, but the driver can really tell the difference in torque in the seat of your shorts.  

Therefore, why buy a wimpy 1,600/1,776/1915 when you could have a 2,110+ cc engine with some guts?

A friend since kindergarten recently finished a 1958 356 Speedster restoration and when he re-built the engine he bumped it up to a “Super 90” configuration - That would be 90hp at the flywheel and was probably around 1,700cc’s.  Just for the Helluvit, we swapped cars to drive to a local cars and coffee, me getting the Super 90 and him getting my 2,110 at around 140hp at the flywheel.  When we got there, his only comment was “Man! I built the wrong engine!”

I don’t think so. Anything other than OE spec would only devalue a real Speedster. Another advantage to a plastic fantastic.

Now, building a hot VW and leaving the original numbers motor covered in cosmoline in the garage would be a capital idea.

@Sacto Mitch posted:

…. Unfortunately, it's mixed in with discussions of the metric system and what constitutes a properly knuckle-dragging hoonmobile in the American hinterland…

I feel like the time away might have dulled your usual appreciation for the absurd, Mitch. The man’s screen name is Bubba McCranky. It seems like he’s here for some fun and recreational chatter.

I’m personally a huge fan of the handle, and wish I’d have thought of it myself. But given the name he chose for himself, as well as the paucity of available used cars at anything even approaching a value proximation which doesn’t require either a desire to incinerate money or some very creative math - I’d say we’re all just spitballing here.

He’s going to need to buy the car that presents itself as being in the best condition and offering the best value in his budget. That particular needle in a haystack is going to have whatever engine it has, and it isn’t going to have a transaxle geared any differently than all the other transaxles in all the other speedsters available for sale.

We’re all answering the question as if Mr. McCranky is shopping for a new car, deciding which boxes to tick. He’s not - he’s shopping for a used car, which (in 2023) means you get what you get and you don’t throw a fit.

Bonus points if he doesn’t actively hate the color.

.

Stan, he's been hanging out here for a while, and he still wants to buy a Speedster.

So, he must understand that whatever he buys is just a beginning — the raw material for what could someday grow into a thing of beauty, no matter how flawed it might now be. He's a man of vision, of hope. He sees his crankcase as half full.

Who are we to crush that vision?

And I'm still not thoroughly convinced that this is a screen name.

He might be related to the New York McCrankys. Or, possibly, the Newport McCrankys.

.

Rainer Cooney is the guy in New Hampshire building high buck, aluminum, 550 Spyder reproductions.  He has also had a Speedster for many years and in it's current state it has a 356 engine that he built, with crank-fire ignition and electronic fuel injection.  

When I last saw Rainer and his car a few years back, he told me it was putting out "just north of 150hp".  See?  Even the PCA Purists want more.....

Is he still at it? I can't find the website anymore. Your you tube vid is my top search result. The company seems to be defunct.

Recent filings for THE SPYDER FACTORY LLC

7 Sep 2019

ADMINISTRATIVE DISSOLUTION NOTICE view

How about a real Porsche engine? My CMC is powered by a 1966 912 engine, which was left over 356SC from 1965 model year. It has a big bore kit and a Delco-Remy HEI 7000RPM electronic Ignition, Weber 40’s, and an oil cooler. Very peppy.

@edsnova

You may be right.  I can’t find him anymore, either.

I’m trying to get to a local PCA Cars and Coffee tomorrow so I’ll ask around to see what’s happened.

… and the great advice keeps flowing 😎.

@Sacto Mitch - thanks for the thoughtful analysis . Very helpful.

@Stan Galat - glad you like my handle. Seems to fit me. I don’t think that I’m related to the New York -or- Newport McCranky’s. Pretty sure I trace my lineage back through the Detroit McCranky’s. I realized after reading @Stan Galat and @WOLFGANG’s discussions on V8’s, though, that the Detroit McCranky’s might not want to claim me as one of their own. I mean, I’m a grown up kid from Detroit who’s owned a lot of great vehicles over the decades, including two right now that make more than 500hp, but I’ve also never owned a V8. Had to roll back through a dozen or so cars to confirm that. Lots of flat and in-line sixes, quite a few turbochargers, even a five cylinder. But no V8’s.

@BubbaMcCranky posted:

I’m a grown up kid from Detroit who’s owned a lot of great vehicles over the decades, including two right now that make more than 500hp, but I’ve also never owned a V8.

Bubba-

I've taken the liberty of getting in touch with your family (the Detroit McCrankys), and we've decided you are OK to continue as a McCranky, as long as you'll agree to enroll in the 12-step program of our choosing - for recovering europhiles.

We all really want to see you get better.

In order to ease your integration back into the fold, we've taken the liberty of putting a small down payment on a CT5V Blackwing, really just something to get a place in line. The car should be ready for you when you get out. There's really nothing wrong here that a blown 6.2L LT won't take care of.

Of course you're going to need a 3/4 or one ton diesel (and you do want the oil burner) truck to go along with that, but we can discuss what to buy on a more friendly forum. Some folks here get testy when big trucks enter the conversation, so ixnay on the ucktray (for now).

No matter what, you'll need some accessories. The Woodward Dream Cruise is on Aug 19, so there's still time to get your significant other a tube top and some Daisy Dukes, and for you to start working on your mullet. The family is looking for a vintage concert tee-shirt from Iron Maiden's 1984 World Slavery tour (you're an XL, right?). We've got some leads, but nothing solid yet. I'm 100% sure you'll have time to grow a righteous pedophile stache before late August.

We've also reserved some grandstand seats for the NASCAR FireKeepers Casino 400 at Michigan International Speedway on August 6. I know it seems like a lot, but the family and I were hoping a full immersion would have a better chance of sticking than the half-measures you may consider more prudent. At this point, the family doesn't trust your judgement. We're hoping to rectify that.

As far as the Speedster - well, we're going to need to work on that. There's nothing wrong with the car in and of itself, but getting an engine that fits to make an honest 200 hp takes some luck and timing and unfortunately, money. Looking used is the right way to approach this at this point, but not with an eye toward improvement - look at it as a starter car, to see what you like and what you don't. Get a place in line with Carey and spec the car you really want (the one with the big motor).

You have a long way to go, but your family and I are pulling for you.

Welcome to the Madness.

@Stan Galat, it is nice to see that you are so aware of things happening in Michigan.

There is a very nice low mileage VS speedster for sale on BAT just waiting for an engine upgrade for somebody wanting more than a 1600.  Not mine, but local to me.

link

Are you suggesting the blown 6.2L?  Hmmmmm. Haha.

@Teammccalla posted:

Are you suggesting the blown 6.2L?

The General's blown 6.2L LT pushrod V8 is the highwater mark of civilization. It's just a darned shame there's no way to git-'r-dun in a Speedster.

I made 2 big mistakes when I did my build:

1. Building a 1914 with 69mm crank instead of going longer stroke. The cost difference doesn't need to be huge, and the extra torque would have made a difference.

2. Going with too high a 4th gear ratio (Freeway Flyer). The drop in revs between 3rd and 4th is annoying every time. 3.88R&P is fine, the high ratio 4th isn't.

@Jonr400 posted:

I made 2 big mistakes when I did my build:

1. Building a 1914 with 69mm crank instead of going longer stroke. The cost difference doesn't need to be huge, and the extra torque would have made a difference.

2. Going with too high a 4th gear ratio (Freeway Flyer). The drop in revs between 3rd and 4th is annoying every time. 3.88R&P is fine, the high ratio 4th isn't.

The gearing for the Beetle with a low rev, single carb 1600 (which is what you start with when using a used Type 1 transaxle) can't really be messed with without detrimental effects, ESPECIALLY when installed with a stock stroke (usually 1915 cc's or smaller) engine.  The typical freeway flyer mod (.82 instead of .89 4th gear) increases the rpm drop when shifting up from 3rd and creates a 5mph 'hole' where the rpm's can be too low to accelerate up a hill and 3rd feels like the engine is screaming.  The engine in 4th gear is working too hard at these lower rpm's while the fan isn't turning fast enough to get rid of the heat being created and overheating is the result.  Do this enough and the engine suffers a premature death, with sometimes very little being re-usable for the rebuild.  When I bought my first Volkswagen 48? 50? years ago everyone in the know called it 'lugging it' and took great pains to tell me that it was an engine killer (and in 40hp engines it sometimes even broke crankshafts).

If, when going up a hill, you upshift and the engine can't accelerate through those lower rpm's while under full power, never (and I do mean NEVER!) just hold it there floored until the top of the hill- you will overheat the engine.  Shift down a gear and you'll feel how at the same of slightly lower speed the engine will make enough power to run (and even accelerate) up the hill while depressing the gas pedal only part way.

A stroker (2 liter or over) engine, having more torque in the bottom end/lower midrange alleviates this a little, but even then doing the freeway flyer 4th gear thing just feels wrong unless you go through and lengthen ALL the gear spacing (1-2 and 2-3) slightly as well. And for roaring through the mountains and hills lengthening the 3-4 spacing is exactly what you DON'T want to do!

Far better off to do close gears and make it way more fun with the Way of 5...

Isn't keeping the .89 and using a 3.88 R&P also considered a freeway flyer? It doesn't have the 3-4 gap.

@Michael McKelvey posted:

Isn't keeping the .89 and using a 3.88 R&P also considered a freeway flyer? It doesn't have the 3-4 gap.

Transform, the company that coined "Freeway Flyer" back in the 1980's, used the term to denote a .82 fourth gear, with the 4.12 r&p.  If you added the 3.88 r&p and the .82 fourth gear, it was a "double flyer".   All marketing BS.

Imho, when using engines with double the horsepower of a 1600, there is no need for a 3.80 first gear. VW did this to move a 1600 lb car with 60 hp.  I believe the trend should be to change the 1-2 mainshaft, to a 3.11-1.93 or a 3.44-1.93 and use taller gears in 3 & 4, like 1.26 and .88, or 1.21 and .82, depending on your desired cruise speed.  The one downside is cost, as a mainshaft change is about $1200.