Is 1915cc enough?

I run a 1776 with 4.12 R&P in my CMC Speedie, which tips the scales at 1940 lbs. My "seat of the pants" dynamometer" says it's 70-80 hP. My car won't win any races, but it's a blast to drive on the twisty cow paths that line the hills of southwestern Pennsylvania. I'm not fond of taking it on the interstate. With my tires, 70 MPH reads 3500 RPM on the tach I'm uncomfortable driving that slow because people whizz right by. I read somewhere that you're 6 times more likely to be in an accident when traveling 10 MPH faster or slower than the majority of traffic. 

those 2110s are in a sweet spot performance wise..had a 2332 and its alot of engine to worry about

The good news is that VMCs engines are built well (by Greg), so a "110 hp 1915" really should be a 110 hp engine. It matches very nicely with a stock geared transaxle.

The bad news is that it may not be the engine, but the transaxle that you find to be inadequate. A 4.12:1 final drive with stock 1-4 really only gives you 3 gears (first is so tall as to be very nearly useless for anything but a drag race or pulling another car out of the ditch). The engine will feel really, really "snappy" up to about 50 mph-- but revving down the highway, you'll find yourself wishing almost immediately for a 5th gear

.... and that's where it all starts. You can get a 4-speed which is much more usable in modern traffic, but then you need the engine to pull it. Greg understands this, which is why his 2332 is offered as a package with the longer custom-geared transaxle. I suspect that his 1915 would easily pull a stock-ratio transaxle with a 3.88:1 R/P, which might make you happier all around. You may want to discuss this as an option.

You can get a 5-speed in a few years (and believe me-- if you want one today, it'll be a few years until you actually get one). I was once told that I had spent many, many thousands of dollars building ever more powerful engines because I couldn't face up to the fact that what I really had was a transaxle problem. It was true. The transaxle problem can be overcome with brute force, but as you are finding-- it's an expensive proposition.

I'll always be the guy who thinks that "more" is more, so I'm a poor person to be answering this question. The happiest people on this site are those who have either accepted the limitations of the platform (I'm looking at you @MusbJim), or who have geared around them (*cough* @Sacto Mitch *cough*). Blunt force works (and works very well)-- but it makes the car into something else altogether. I've actually built 3 engines in a row trying to inch back just enough from the hairy-chested route and into the sweet-spot of something more civilized.

I know you "just want to cruise", but you may find yourself wanting more from the car as you fall deeper in love with it. In truth, it's happening already.

My advice and a dollar will buy you coffee at most McDonald's in the midwest, but I've always thought that everybody is entitled to my own opinion, so here it is: I'd get the 1915 and a stock ratio transaxle with a 3.88. If it's adequate, then you've saved many thousands of dollars. If it's not, you have something nice to sell.

  The 4.12 ring&pinion will create a fairly short 1st gear which, unless you're drag racing or really like ripping around town from stop light to stop light, you may find annoying. Think old VW Beetle or mid '50's-early 60's pick up trucks where 1st just gets you going and it's time to shift before you're half way across the intersection.  As Stan said, a longer 3.88 r&p will probably be more fun.  The cost to substitute the 3.88 for the 4.12 (with everything else being the same) should only be 300-$400.

Do you know what the specs are for the 1915?

PS- Bob makes a very good point- a 2110 is a very sweet engine in a Speedster- enough power but easy to take care of!

Vintage Motorcar 1915 with the "Freeway Flyer" tranny set up.

0 Complaints

Third opinion here to upgrade the transaxle to a 3.88 R&P and .89 4th gear which are stock Karmann Ghia ratios. With the 1915 spec'd as you describe you'll have snappy acceleration and a reasonably good highway gear, and he shouldn't charge much (if anything) for the change. Do not let him or anyone talk you into a 4.12 R&P with a .82 4th. That combo will suck the joy out of your life.

To my mind, 90-130 HP is perfect for these cars on these chassis. It gives you just a little more grunt than grandpa had in 1956, but not so much that you're fighting a constant, losing battle against the suspension's limitations.* The air-cooled engine has the sound and smell of what you're trying to mimic, and it looks right when you lift the rear deck lid. Plus you get to learn how to set your own valve lash and clear the occasional clogged idle jet.

All but a few of the men on this board will advocate more power. Just because. There is only one Stan, but many guys here started out with a 1600 or 1776 engine and upgraded, some more than once. As ALB says, a 2110 from CB Performance with 150 HP at 5500 RPM is a popular engine.

There is a reason they call it "The Madness."

Some owners go from the 1915 to a 2.5 Subaru. That's a big step—and pricey—but, once the hook is set and you're fully committed to the Speedster lifestyle, 180 horsepower that you hardly need to bother looking at can be a real motivator.

My nominally experienced** advice: Get the gears changed and buy the 1915, drive the car for two or three years and see what you think.

==

*Then you find yourself chasing after rack and pinion steering conversions, Mendeola suspension kits and eventually full-on 911 parts. . . .

**I have a 2.2 Subaru-powered MG, and I find its 140hp a bit much for the chassis, and its wide, flat torque curve a bit boring. I also have a Spyder with a 120-horse 1915 which I am just now sorting. So far, so good.

Be advised that the engine size isn’t the only factor regarding performance.  When I bought my Beck in 2006 they offered two standard engines - both 1915cc.  One was a standard, low maintenance build rated at 90hp, while the other was souped up and rated at 125hp, with potential for more.  Heads, carbs, cam, etc. make a big difference.  I was quite happy with my  HiPo (🤣) 1915.  I had a 3.88 r&p and (I think) a 0.89 4th.  Yeah I was spinning at 3500rpm at 70, but the engine felt great.  It even felt better/smoother at 4000rpm/80.  Your mileage may vary, of course.

3500 at 70mph sounds like a 4:12 R&P to me, but I have 16” 205/50 wheels - that’ll make a difference.   I have a 3:88 (I measured it) and a .89 4’th (measured that, too) and I’m running a shade under 3200 at 70.

@TwinCitiesSpeedster posted:

VM rates their 1915cc at 110hp. Their next step up is the 2332cc they rate at 145hp. This would be about a $4,500 upgrade if I opted for different gearing or $2,500 for the engine alone. Seems like a lot for 35hp. I wonder how much the 1915cc could be modified to push out more power?

That 35hp is over a 30% power increase over the 110hp 1915cc. Still think it's a lot of money for little gain?

Answer on the 1915 power improvement: Not much without spending serious cash.

"I live in the cities and have to do a little bit of highway cruising to get out of town, but I plan to primarily cruise backroads and city streets." - @TwinCitiesSpeedster

Based on your statement, the 1915 with 3:88 (freeway flyer) is all you need. Subsequently, no need to spend $$$ on superfluous modifications.

Like @thedak I, along with a host of others, also have a 1915, mild cam, 40 idf Kadrons, 3:88 Freeway Flyer and A-1 Sidewinder exhaust.  This is a daily driver for me. Easily cruises at highway speed all day.

Your only real problem will be waiting for your bad boy to be competed and in your garage!

@thedak you can probably share your driving experience in your 1915 from VM as you have the same set up that @TwinCitiesSpeedster just ordered through me.  Personally I find the 1915 that Greg Builds to be plenty of fun for most but I understand the "wanting more" concern as well.  The 4.12 ring and pinion with the .82 4th gear really seems to be a great combination in my opinion allowing for cruising at 75 mph no problem but also plenty of pep and pull in 2nd and 3rd.

@Gordon Nichols posted:

3500 at 70mph sounds like a 4:12 R&P to me, but I have 16” 205/50 wheels - that’ll make a difference.   I have a 3:88 (I measured it) and a .89 4’th (measured that, too) and I’m running a shade under 3200 at 70.

An old stock Beetle ran 165SR15 or 165/80R15(25.4" diameter). If you ran a 195/65R15(25") it would run 59 mph while reading 60(about 1.6% smaller diameter).

A lot of guys run 195/60R15(24.2"), which is extremely close to Gordon's 16"(24.1") combo. Almost imperceptible speedo difference there.

Great tool:

https://tiresize.com/comparison/

@edsnova posted:

Third opinion here to upgrade the transaxle to a 3.88 R&P and .89 4th gear which are stock Karmann Ghia ratios. With the 1915 spec'd as you describe you'll have snappy acceleration and a reasonably good highway gear, and he shouldn't charge much (if anything) for the change. Do not let him or anyone talk you into a 4.12 R&P with a .82 4th. That combo will suck the joy out of your life.

To my mind, 90-130 HP is perfect for these cars on these chassis. It gives you just a little more grunt than grandpa had in 1956, but not so much that you're fighting a constant, losing battle against the suspension's limitations.* The air-cooled engine has the sound and smell of what you're trying to mimic, and it looks right when you lift the rear deck lid. Plus you get to learn how to set your own valve lash and clear the occasional clogged idle jet.

All but a few of the men on this board will advocate more power. Just because. There is only one Stan, but many guys here started out with a 1600 or 1776 engine and upgraded, some more than once. As ALB says, a 2110 from CB Performance with 150 HP at 5500 RPM is a popular engine.

There is a reason they call it "The Madness."

Some owners go from the 1915 to a 2.5 Subaru. That's a big step—and pricey—but, once the hook is set and you're fully committed to the Speedster lifestyle, 180 horsepower that you hardly need to bother looking at can be a real motivator.

My nominally experienced** advice: Get the gears changed and buy the 1915, drive the car for two or three years and see what you think.

==

*Then you find yourself chasing after rack and pinion steering conversions, Mendeola suspension kits and eventually full-on 911 parts. . . .

**I have a 2.2 Subaru-powered MG, and I find its 140hp a bit much for the chassis, and its wide, flat torque curve a bit boring. I also have a Spyder with a 120-horse 1915 which I am just now sorting. So far, so good.

I'll step up here in #4 position with another recommendation you go with the 1915 + the Freeway Flyer 3.88.This Xmas will be 12 years since I picked up my VS Clown Car and "satisfaction" doesn't come close to describing how I feel about it. Yeah, I know, there's only 22,000 miles on the clock but I've never babied her and she just keeps going like that Energizer Bunny. I had those 1915 cc's on a Dyno about 4 years ago and the printout said I was still getting 99 horses out of it. I'm pretty sure my own"engine" will give out well before the car's does! So, if you truly want to "cruise," along with the occasional "do what a race car (albeit replica) is meant to do," you won't go wrong with the VS Freeway Flyer 1915.

@thedak- The term 'freeway flier' is somewhat deceptive in that it means such different things to so many people- can you tell us the r&p and 4th gear numbers in yours?

PS- @edsnova wrote- "Do not let him or anyone talk you into a 4.12 R&P with a .82 4th. That combo will suck the joy out of your life."

What Ed said- widening the 3-4 spacing is one of the worst things you can do to your car.  There are guys here that have done it and will attest to how wrong it is.

3:10 - 1

1:93 - 2

1:21 - 3

0:82 - 4

3:88 - R/P

I'm running a 1915 with duel 40 dells that I built and I've thought about upgrading but after running in the mountains it performed just fine. My transaxle setup is IRS from a 1975 Bug with original gearbox.

Mike's ratios should be 3.78, 2.06, 1.26, and 0.93 gears. All stock '75 Bug. That works well with 3.88 final.

Glad to see you post on here Mike, it could have turned out so different.

For reference, I really like 3.78, 2.06, 1.30, .93. No big holes. With a 3.44, 70 mph is 3000 RPM. With a 3.88, 70 mph is 3500 RPM.

These ratios won't break the bank.

No, they won't. The only rare gear is third, all others are stock VW except the 3.44 R & P.

Thanks everyone for all of the responses! There is a lot of great information here that will help me make up my mind.

I'm leaning toward the 3.88 setup. VM's standard gear ratios with the 3.88 R&P appear to be 3:10, 1:93, 1:21, 0:82 as @thedak mentioned. Upgrading to this from the 4.12 with .82 4th gear is a $2,000 option.

My initial plan was to get the 1915cc engine with the 3.88 R&P transmission setup, however, I changed my mind before placing the order because I was unsure if it would be worth it. By the looks of the feedback you have all provided, it appears I should probably go with my gut and get the 3.88.

@RoyP awesome to see you on here!

@TwinCitiesSpeedster posted:

VM rates their 1915cc at 110hp. Their next step up is the 2332cc they rate at 145hp. This would be about a $4,500 upgrade if I opted for different gearing or $2,500 for the engine alone. Seems like a lot for 35hp. I wonder how much the 1915cc could be modified to push out more power?

@DannyP posted:

That 35hp is over a 30% power increase over the 110hp 1915cc. Still think it's a lot of money for little gain?

Answer on the 1915 power improvement: Not much without spending serious cash.

Listen to Danny here- to get more horsepower out of the same displacement means the right equipment (cam, heads and maybe rockers, exhaust) to let the engine rev substantially higher, and now you have a somewhat peaky, higher strung engine that doesn't make as much bottom end/lower midrange power as it did before (if you think of it, this is the part of the powerband you use for 95-99% of your driving) which requires more maintenance to keep it sharp.  Generally, an engine with a 5500 to 6000 rpm redline requires very little more maintenance than stock, while a  6500-7000 rpm beast is way more work.

The name of the game here is displacement- anything over about 2100 cc's will have substantially more bottom end/lower midrange than even a mild 1915 while, even restricting the 'big block' to 6000 rpm, can produce 140, 150 to even 160 hp.

An >2liter way more fun to drive!

@RoyP posted:

@thedak you can probably share your driving experience in your 1915 from VM as you have the same set up that @TwinCitiesSpeedster just ordered through me.  Personally I find the 1915 that Greg Builds to be plenty of fun for most but I understand the "wanting more" concern as well.  The 4.12 ring and pinion with the .82 4th gear really seems to be a great combination in my opinion allowing for cruising at 75 mph no problem but also plenty of pep and pull in 2nd and 3rd.

Using a .82 with stock 3rd leave you in situations with a 4-5 mph 'hole' where in 3rd you're either revving too high for any length of time or in 4th there's too much load on the engine at the lower rpms' to cool itself properly. Think going up a long hill where it really won't pull it properly in 4th (because the revs are too low) and and it's screaming at close to 4,000 rpm in 3rd.  It's really easy to overheat an aircooled engine and do serious damage fairly quickly with this combination, and this is why the gear spacing gets smaller as you shift up in a stock transaxle. If you look,  auto manufacturers all design their transmissions the same way.  With the extra work a sub 2 liter is doing with the longer 4th it usually doesn't even give you better mileage.  It will work with a bigger than 2 liter engine (more bottom end/midrange power) but most guys find the increased spacing just awkward and there are a couple guys here that will tell you just that.

You sound like a dealer- spend enough time behind the wheel of a Speedster so equipped I'm betting you'll agree with me...

@DannyP- The 1.30 (or 1.31- I can never remember!) is out of an early (pre '67?) trans.  If you find the right guy there's lots of them around.

@TwinCitiesSpeedster posted:

Thanks everyone for all of the responses! There is a lot of great information here that will help me make up my mind.

I'm leaning toward the 3.88 setup. VM's standard gear ratios with the 3.88 R&P appear to be 3:10, 1:93, 1:21, 0:82 as @thedak mentioned. Upgrading to this from the 4.12 with .82 4th gear is a $2,000 option.

My initial plan was to get the 1915cc engine with the 3.88 R&P transmission setup, however, I changed my mind before placing the order because I was unsure if it would be worth it. By the looks of the feedback you have all provided, it appears I should probably go with my gut and get the 3.88.

@RoyP awesome to see you on here!

Stock late gears (3.78, 2.06, 1.26 or switch to earlier 1.30, 0.89) with a 3.44 give almost exactly the same results as what's been suggested to you for far less- maybe ask why? The only real benefit I see there is the closer ration 2nd.  Those ratios are anything but standard- the mainshaft and matching 1st/2nd gears are over $1,000 and 3rd is over $300 vs $400 for the longer r&p.

http://www.teammfactory.com/ca.../0/0/3600/3600/1/0/2

Sorry, you'll have to click the link (I can't make the pics come here with my meagre computer skills. I guess I need to talk to Uncle Stan... ) Al

Call the guys at Rancho Performance Transaxles in CA.  They can set you up with what you need, without the markup from the builder.

Now let's discuss motor oil options.

@MikelB posted:

I'm running a 1915 with duel 40 dells that I built and I've thought about upgrading but after running in the mountains it performed just fine. My transaxle setup is IRS from a 1975 Bug with original gearbox.

x2 what @MikelB said!

@ALB By standard I meant it is the default 3.88 setup offered by VM. I will likely be contacting Greg to discuss options with him. Based on my research, it appears Greg has been offering a 3.44 setup too.  @Bobby D That might be a little difficult to arrange as I am in MN and VM is handling the build/setup at their location in California. For me, it is probably easiest to do everything directly through the builder. If it costs a little more so be it. @DannyP The cost of the extra power makes sense. I understand the engineering/additional parts and expense to get that gain in power does not come cheap. To rephrase my initial statement, I don't think I am interested in paying that price for the gain in power. I think I will be satisfied with the 1915cc, at least to start, and need to look at 3.88 or 3.44 gearing setups. Thanks again everyone!

@Panhandle Bob posted:

Now let's discuss motor oil options.

That's our Bob - always the rabble rouser.

Can anyone summarize what the differences would be for everyday driving with a 1915cc with 3.88 gearing vs the same 1915cc using 3.44 gearing. I'm still trying to understand what these gearing changes mean for everyday driving. When you put the numbers in the gear ratio calculator, it doesn't seem like there is much effect on the max mph or shift points. (at least with the 165/80/15 tire size on my car).

Bill

@ALB posted:

Stock late gears (3.78, 2.06, 1.26 or switch to earlier 1.30, 0.89) with a 3.44 give almost exactly the same results as what's been suggested to you for far less- maybe ask why? The only real benefit I see there is the closer ration 2nd.  Those ratios are anything but standard- the mainshaft and matching 1st/2nd gears are over $1,000 and 3rd is over $300 vs $400 for the longer r&p.

http://www.teammfactory.com/ca.../0/0/3600/3600/1/0/2

Sorry, you'll have to click the link (I can't make the pics come here with my meagre computer skills. I guess I need to talk to Uncle Stan... )

I'm no computer guru, Al-- I just do a screen snip and save the image to my files.

We're all saying the same thing here, @TwinCitiesSpeedster-- even @MusbJim, who ALWAYS advocates for simplicity. Stock 1-4 or my gears (which are really just a different permutation of those gears) with a 3.88 is short money for a huge gain in usability.

The 3.10, 1.93, 1.21, .82 with a 3.88 R/P setup Greg uses is almost identical gearing to the 3.78, 2.06, 1.30, .93 gearing I have with a 3.44 R/P. It's really, really close. I suspect that Greg most likely uses the custom 1-2 main-shaft because availability of the 3.44 R/P is spotty, and he can always get the 3.88.

What everybody is suggesting is a transaxle that splits the difference between a stock gear-set with a 4.12 and the one Greg uses with bigger engines (the 3.10, 1.93, 1.21, .82 with a 3.88 R/P). It has the nice spacing, but will definitely be snappier than the longer (.82/3.88) gears proposed. It'd also be quite a bit less expensive-- like a $500 add, instead of $2000. It's what I would use with a 1915.

The thing is-- Greg is building your car, not us.

@Panhandle Bob posted:

Now let's discuss motor oil options.

Fixed it for you.

If I can go the cheaper route, great. If I have to pay the price for what is essentially the same as you are all suggesting, so be it. As long as either option is equally better than the 4.12, that is all that really matters to me.

@slowshoes asked: “Can anyone summarize what the differences would be for everyday driving with a 1915cc with 3.88 gearing vs the same 1915cc using 3.44 gearing.

Let me take a stab, since I went from. 4:12 to a 3:88.  I’m sure lots of other opinions will surface.

As you go lower numerically in final ratio, you are moving ALL of the four gear ratios into a higher final gear.  That means that for any same speed, all four gears will will cause a lower engine rpm with a 3:44 than with a 3:88, very much like an overdrive.  But you can’t feel a lower rpm, especially with a post.

A transmission is a torque amplifier, so what  you feel is a stronger acceleration in any gear with a 3:88 than with a 3:44 (and even more pronounced acceleration with a 4:12 final ratio).  

Where that shows it’s stuff is off the freeways and out on city and country roads where you might spend most of your time in 2’nd and 3’rd gears (so-called canyon carving, if we actually had canyons in New England - We have old cow paths, instead).  A 4:12 will have the best acceleration out of a stop sign or accelerating out of a curve.  A 3:88 will feel slightly less so, and a 3:44 will seem like a dog off the line, especially with an engine under 2 liters And out of a curve you might be a gear lower than a 4:12 car, just to keep up.  I went from a 4:12 to a 3:88 and immediately noticed that it was slower out of the hole than before and slower out of the curves, but it no longer cranks at 3,500 at freeway speeds - More like 3,200 or so at 70.  Enough to make a noticeable difference.

Freeways are where the 3:44 and 3:88 shine.   A 4:12 rear ratio is happier in the mountain curves but will make the engine crank at 3,500 rpm or more at 70mph, whereas a 3:88 will drop engine rpms closer to 3,200 and a 3:44 closer to 3,000 engine rpm, all depending on rear wheel and tire size.  These engines are perfectly OK cranking 3,500+ RPMs all day long, but Americans have become accustomed to seeing 1,500 rpm or less at freeway speeds in their daily drivers so we become concerned when our speedster is “straining” away at those speeds.   Because the efficiency of the cooling fan drops off dramatically close to 3000 engine rpm, You really want to keep your highway revs up above 3K - Simple as that.  Anything 3,750 or below at turnpike speeds is OK to me, but not OK to a lot of us, so we compromise around 3,250-3,500 and say “that’s OK”.

Hope this helps.  Let conflicting opinions begin!

@TwinCitiesSpeedster posted:

If I can go the cheaper route, great. If I have to pay the price for what is essentially the same as you are all suggesting, so be it. As long as either option is equally better than the 4.12, that is all that really matters to me.

To clarify, what Greg is proposing is NOT the same as what we've all been suggesting.

What we're all suggesting is a stock main-shaft (3.87 1st, 2.06 2nd) rather than the custom main-shaft (3.10 1st, 1.93 2nd) and a .93 or .89 4th (with a 3.88:1 ring and pinion) rather than a .82 4th. It's a shorter final drive. If you plug the numbers into www.teamfactory.com/calculator you'll see what we are talking about.

Greg's gear-set with a 3.88 is the similar to mine with a 3.44-- but we aren't proposing Greg's gear-set with a 3.88, we're proposing the stock gear-set (or something similar) with the 3.88. It makes a difference.

The 3.10, 1.93, 1.21, .82 with a 3.88 R/P setup Greg uses looks like this:

A completely stock gear-set with a 3.88 (3.78 1st, 2.06 2nd, 1.26 3rd, .89 4th) with a 3.88: R/P looks like this: (the blue numbers overlaying the red ones of Greg's transaxle):

See how much shorter is is?

The gearset I've been proposing (3.78 1st, 2.06 2nd, 1.30 3rd, .93 4th, 3.88 R/P) looks like this (again in blue, over Greg's proposed transaxle in red):

It's even shorter yet. It's a subtle difference, but it closes up the gap between 2nd and 3rd.

With either of these, 4th gear will feel snappier than the .82/3.88, but you'll still be able to keep up at highway speeds. For reference, here's what a stock gear-set looks like overlaying the one everybody is asking you to consider (stock is red, proposed is blue):

It's longer-- it doesn't seem like a lot, but every bit matters. It's important to note that on every other graph, the numbers on the left have been from 0 mph to 160 mph, and on this last graph they are from 0 mph to 120 mph. This is why they appear to be going higher (they aren't).

Since we're belaboring this, here's why I said that Greg's proposed gearset (3.10 1st, 1.93 2nd, 1.21 3rd, .82 4th) with a 3.88 R/P was very similar to mine (3.78 1st, 2.06 2nd, 1.30 3rd, .93 4th) with a 3.44 R/P. Greg's is red, mine is blue:

The transaxle I'm using is immaterial to the discussion, because I'm not proposing you use this. I've not run a stock stroke engine in 15 years, and I feel like it may be too long for a stock stroke engine. Others may disagree, and that's OK.

At the end of the day, Greg is building the car for you-- not for me or anybody else. I think you'll get a good one no matter what.

Many thanks for the reply Gordon. In Michigan, I spent almost no time on the highway. We are in the middle of a move to Florida, and I have only had the car here a short time - so far, my drives have been much more highway speeds, so it sounds like the 3.88 I have will be a better fit.

I have to ask - do you have any regrets going from the 4:12 to the 3.88? Going by your response, it sounds like the twisty New England roads would have been a perfect fit for the 4:12.

Bill

@slowshoes posted:

Can anyone summarize what the differences would be for everyday driving with a 1915cc with 3.88 gearing vs the same 1915cc using 3.44 gearing. I'm still trying to understand what these gearing changes mean for everyday driving. When you put the numbers in the gear ratio calculator, it doesn't seem like there is much effect on the max mph or shift points. (at least with the 165/80/15 tire size on my car).

Bill

@Gordon Nichols posted: Blah blah blah...

What Gordo meant to write- There's not a ton of difference between the 2 ring & pinions. The shorter (3.88) will be quicker through the gears, slightly less top speed in each gear and less top speed overall. The longer (3.44) will be slower through the gears with higher top speeds in each gear.  If you like ripping it up in town pick the 3.88.

And Gordon- my apologies; I couldn't resist!

@Stan Galat Greg isn’t proposing anything. I haven’t even talked to him. I only mentioned the 3.88 option he has listed on his website opposed to the 4.12 he offers as standard.

I didn’t think anyone was belaboring anything, but I can say your last post only muddied the waters for me 🤣. I think things are getting overanalyzed at this point. I do appreciate the help and offered suggestions. I know very very little about gearing and most of this is over my head. Thanks.

@TwinCitiesSpeedster posted:

I can say your last post only muddied the waters for me 🤣. I think things are getting overanalyzed at this point.

Yep. Sorry about that.

Carry on.

@Stan Galat no worries! It’s good info. After reading through this thread several times, I think I am starting to track a little more. A 4.12 with .82 4th, the first 3 gears are too short and 4th is long. With Greg’s 3.88 offering, the first 3 gears are longer than his 4.12 set up, but maybe a little too long for a 110hp 1915cc motor, and 4th is still too long. A 3.88 with 3.78, 2.06, 1.30, and .93, or even .89, would maybe be more of a sweet spot for the 1915 I’m getting. And finally, the 3.44 sounds to be too long, but could be geared similar to Greg’s 3.88 offering. 🤷🏼

Slow Zapatas wrote: "Gordon: do you have any regrets going from the 4:12 to the 3.88? Going by your response, it sounds like the twisty New England roads would have been a perfect fit for the 4:12."

Well, so far I'm pretty happy with the choice, but remember that I'm running a 2,110, too.  I don't remember the ratio of each gear, but I know I have a .89 4'th (I specifically asked for that with the 3:88) simply because to get to the fun roads, just like anywhere else you have to cruise the interstates and highways to get there.  For that reason I chose to compromise a bit.  There are some terrific back roads close to me, but anywhere within an hour radius is "thickly settled" (in an hour east, I can be in downtown Boston) so you have to carefully choose where you can let 'er rip.  If I want to do more remote driving, like Connecticut, southern Vermont or New Hampshire I have to get there via interstates at 70-75mph.  Everything is a trade-off.  

So, yes, I like what I have.  It has that sometimes annoying, wide, stock gearing VW gap between 2'nd and 3'rd but I just bump the speed up a bit to keep third happy and keep my foot in it.  The gaps and rpm drops are predictable and I just drive to them.

@TwinCitiesSpeedster posted:

@Stan Galat no worries! It’s good info. After reading through this thread several times, I think I am starting to track a little more. A 4.12 with .82 4th, the first 3 gears are too short and 4th is long. With Greg’s 3.88 offering, the first 3 gears are longer than his 4.12 set up, but maybe a little too long for a 110hp 1915cc motor, and 4th is still too long. A 3.88 with 3.78, 2.06, 1.30, and .93, or even .89, would maybe be more of a sweet spot for the 1915 I’m getting. And finally, the 3.44 sounds to be too long, but could be geared similar to Greg’s 3.88 offering. 🤷🏼

Unless you get the 2332, then it'd be perfect.......