A middle road to take might be to go with a 1776. I have heard folks praise that size for a long time for it's performance, low maintenance, and general sweetness.
HaHa, yes I know, have been happily reading stuff all this morning, and coming to conclusion that a 1776? engine might be worth pursuing. What's the concensus of opinion with that. I would prefer twin webbers, and a fairly fast road cam, and cool exhaust, so recommendations are most welcome, but I'm a simple guy with simple needs, and I always say simple is effective 
so PLEASE KEEP IT SIMPLE lol, Thanks.
Lord, I could not agree with you more and I recognize that others have different objectives....as Jim says with great wisdom, that is why there are 57 flavors of ice cream.
I never had a doubt in my mind that I wanted a replica of a 356 Coupe that looked and performed like the original.
The 1776 was the perfect choice for me and the amount and type of scooting around that I have done for 11,000 miles.
KISS is a way of life for me. 
Hi Bart, many thanks, so what kind of setup have you gone for? Carbs, Cam, etc?
I have a type 1 1776 in my 1959 coupe 356A, really well build engine mated to the orginal 715 transmission, went to Le Mans last year around 1000 mile trip, along with a 911SC, 996 and Z3 kept the lead there and back average a very healthy French speed limitish.
Great this is all sounding like the way to go. Thanks
Lord Seti posted:Hi Bart, many thanks, so what kind of setup have you gone for? Carbs, Cam, etc?
It is the box stock base engine that was available at JPS Motorsports.... 1776, dual carbs, 3.88 gears, 4 speed VW bus transmission, burns 87 octane regular gas , runs cool even in 100 degree heat and spirited mountain driving...
I never exceed 4500 RPMs and roll into every shift or brake and have had zero trouble and zero regrets. I have other cars that can provide a need for speed.
Thanks for the info Bart, more homework, to get this sort of setup sourced over here.
Cheers
Ooohhhh, engines! One of my favorite topics.....gotta go to work....later! (I have lots to say)
Well me being a 2.something liter guy I have to say that there really is no replacement for displacement. I like the low end torque the bigger engines have and then they wind up just like the smaller ones - best of both worlds. I think the 2110 is the sweet spot and is a reliable engine.
Back to you Al.
A 2110 is a few bucks more than a 1776, and is 2x the engine. Buy once, cry once.
Stan Galat posted:A 2110 is a few bucks more than a 1776, and is 2x the engine. Buy once, cry once.
Get it right the first time: my next/SINGER 4.0
Attachments
Images (1)
bart posted:I had no interest in a larger engine....none....if I need to experience torque and horsepower I have another replica with about 500 of each...
You need a pool boy out there, Bart?
@Lord Seti - Like @bart, I am in the minority as far as requiring big horsepower for these little cars.
I had a Vintage Speedster that originally came with a 1776cc engine, with mild cam (110), 1:25 lifters, dual single throat Kadrons and an A-1 Sidewinder exhaust. I drove it many years with that configuration. I later installed larger pistons & barrels to increase to 1835cc. Also had front & rear anti-sway bars.
This car was my daily driver and I logged 100,000 relatively trouble-free miles (161,000Km) on coastal drives, desert & mountain roads, and could maintain highway speeds (65-80 mph) easily for extended periods.
The car had enough pep for my driving habits as I imagine it would have for you to enjoy your local roads. You can still drive it in a spirited manner while maintaining low cost-to-miles.
As with every other decision to make on these cars, its all a matter of personal preference. Just wanted to offer this different perspective. Hope you find it helpful. 
Click on pictures to enlarge...
Here is a video that gives you an idea of how the A-1 Sidewinder exhaust sounds on acceleration and cruising speed...
Attachments
Images (2)
Stan Galat posted:A 2110 is a few bucks more than a 1776, and is 2x the engine. Buy once, cry once.
When it was time for a new engine, this was why I chose a two-liter.
I wasn't looking to shred tires, either. But most of the cost of any new engine is in the labor to have the job done right, using quality parts. The bottom line won't grow much from a well-built 1776 to a 2110. A year later, you'll forget about the difference in cost, but what you'll remember - every time you come to a hill - is the difference in bottom-end torque.
This is a big deal in our cars for two reasons:
1) These engines have a very narrow rev range where they're happy. Even the 2110 doesn't make mountains of torque below 3000 rpm (especially compared to that other little monster in your garage). And by 4000 rpm, all of these engines sound like they're starting to complain. They may be safe until way beyond that, but there's something about the sound that says they're working hard. You find yourself working the gearbox to keep the revs in that range. And if you can stay between 2500 and 3000 without feeling like you're lugging, the drive will be even more relaxed and comfortable.
2) The real Achilles heel of these cars is the wide-ratio four-speed gearbox. While trying to stay in that 2500-3500 sweet spot, you're often hard-pressed to find a gear that makes you happy. In many situations, fourth is lugging and third is screaming. More low-end torque means you can carry a taller gear in a lot of situations where the 1776 would have you downshifting and screaming along at 3700 rpm. (The real solution is a five-speed close-ratio gearbox conversion, but that is a very expensive and somewhat exotic option that's probably best postponed until you find yourself hopelessly infatuated with these cars.)
So, ironically, the 2110 isn't so much about going fast and shredding tires, but about every day drivability. @MusbJim is the exception, but he is exceptional in many ways.
Many of us, after driving these cars for a while, just bite the reasonably-sized bullet and opt for a 2110.
The ENTIRE BEETLE TYPE 1 "ZEITGEIST" was not formulated for 2017.....we increase displacement, add bigger carbs, EFI, etc...all in attempt to CIVILIZE that which is NOT very civilized. When VW came up with the TYPE 4 for the 412 and vans/914, it was the next phase of civility as one approaches the FLAT SIX.
Hard to make SHRIMP SALAD out of TOFU.....its a losing proposition fraught with compromise and "aw shux" and worse. The trick is to face the music or sweeten it so that it HURTS LESS....like a 2110 hurst less than a 1776 for sure!
I guess I disagree to some extent, Banzai.
A big part of what I like about my car (as opposed to something more mainstream) is that I can make substantive improvements to a platform that is obsolete for many good reasons, and can by force of will and some creative thinking make it something much more than it was ever intended to be.
Call that "tofu shrimp salad" if you like- it's what I grew up thinking of as "hot rodding". Any schmo can buy a crate LSX and drop it in a '69 Camaro or pony up some long money for a new Cayman GT4. I'd like to think I took something further than any reasonable person would deem prudent, and made it sort've reliable. It's in overcoming the shortcomings of the platform that I find satisfaction.
I don't know, maybe I'm the ideal Citroen buyer, but I just can't get past how brutally ugly they were. So instead, I humor myself with my Shriner clown car sporting the world's fanciest lawn mower engine.
Anyhow... obviously a Porsche 6 is better than a Type 4, which is better than a Type 1, which may (or may not) be better than a Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine.
But I've got a buddy who's the most practical gearhead you'd ever meet. In his ice-cold realisim, he thinks of all air-cooled engines as best suited to power leaf-blowers. His money goes to 10 y/o AMGs making huge power for pennies on the dollar, or to 800 H/P LS motors-- both of which can be purchased for less than the cost of a decent 1776, and about 1/10 as much as a Porsche air-cooled 6. In his worldview, wasting time and money on some fragile little toy making less than 400 hp and costing more than $4000 is a fools errand. He'd lump your engine in that category just like mine.
Maybe he's right. Maybe you are right. Maybe all the Subaru guys are right.
I really don't care. I'm 100% happy with my car, compromised platform and all.
STAN...I dont disagree with much of what you have said....I was just suggesting that the basic/original parameters of the "PEOPLES CAR" has presented certain limitations that prevent(largely) the predictability and creature comforts most of us are used to/expect in an automobile 2017. It definitely has value and its place.....but much of the "MADNESS" of it all is a reflection of the quirkiness of its design/build and longevity .
To ACCEPT a NARROW happy rev range AND have to be concerned about the beginnings of COMPLAINT @4000 RPM is part of the quirkiness leaf blower head case that we EMBRACE with giggles.....we know better as SUBARU has proven over and over but we are still all in.....no problem with that.
You are dead right about the CAYMAN and crate V8 LS but way too easy and WALL STREET pony tail for most of us....been there, done that, and no fun for some/many of us. I have no problem driving my leaf blower that occasionally FARTS much to my chagrin AND embrace both the SHORTCOMINGS of the platform and that most of the SOC clan refuse to let go of the obsolete. Occasionally I have to chastise myself for being part of the tomfoolery and having to take full notice of my OIL TEMP.
So, Scott......
After all that, you'll be good with anything from a 1,776 to a 2,110cc, whatever makes it easy to get through the MOT to get on the road. A 1,776 probably would never need an upgraded transaxle and will more closely resemble the original Speedster performance. You'll still have a lot of fun with it (as MUSBJIM has with his two Speedsters) and still get lots of questions as to "what is it?" Or "What year is it?"
In the meantime, get going on getting the chassis and body done. Not a lot of months between now and late Spring, eh?
Gordon, I believe there is more time between now and late spring in Britain than in places like California or, say, South Carolina.
Astronomers at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich discovered that to make the British spring coincide with our calendar, they needed to add an extra two weeks to February.
Scott has plenty of time.
Some great dissertations by Stan and Banzai (are you comfortable enough yet to reveal your first name or are we really going to call you Banzai for the rest of your days?), Mitch's analysis of the VW platform nails it, and let's face it, Jim's experience is not to be denied (having played with big VW power before, I'm like Stan in that I just can't go back). All that said...
A big part of what to build for an engine will boil down to how much you have to spend. A stock stroke engine (1776, 1835 or 1915) with stock dual port heads, dual 1 barrels, 5,000 or 5500rpm cam and 1 3/8" header/muffler will make 80-95 or so hp, will be a heck of a lot of fun and be easiest/ cheapest to build. Yes, a 1641 would be easier and cheaper as there's no machine work to install the bigger cylinders, but since DISPLACEMENT IS EVERYTHING!, there's almost not cost difference between the p/c sets and the machining is such a small cost I won't even discuss 87's (as Stan has said, these things do say Speedster on the side, you know).
This combo (with moderate compression) is dead nuts reliable, makes decent power and gets great mileage (as long as you go to the trouble of sorting out carb jetting so you're not driving around pig rich all the time). Some ported stock valve heads and 1.25 rockers will add a few hp and make it a little more fun, but kadrons may be required here as the Ict's will limit the engine's output 92-93 hp. 40mm Webers or Dellortos will allow for a slightly smoother running engine with maybe a little better overall power and maybe even a touch better mileage (again, with paying attention to carb jetting). You could cam it so it revs to 6500 or 7,000rpm (and 20-30 more hp!
- think big evil laugh here!) and even go to some 40x35 heads (for even more power) but a small high revving engine (especially with the bigger valve'd heads) doesn't have the street manners (bottom end and lower midrange) of a milder bigger engine, will take more maintenance and will not last as long as the larger version. And an svda distributor for even better mileage.
The beautiful thing about a mildly built (rev to 6,000rpm with power) 2 liter+ engine- you'll get the hp (or more) of the high winding half pint (so much fun when you want to really play!) while the bigger engine's inherent torque characteristics make it so much easier to drive. Again, with a well thought out combo and jetted correctly, mileage will not suffer (as long as your foot's not in it constantly from the moment it's started to when it's shut off) and it won't require any more mainenance than a stocker. The con- now it starts to get more expensive, but if you've already considered the ported heads and the Webers/Del's, it's not that bad. And as someone has already said, once you drive a 2 liter+ equipped car, you'll never go back...
A stock trans will last a surprisingly long time even with a modified engine, provided you ALWAYS roll on the power. I have scattered (and I do mean scattered- a new core needed) a stock trans with a 1600 in a beetle (I was much younger and yes, there was beer involved) so I can tell you that if you like driving in a sporting manner at all (all it takes is one moment), a beefed up unit (welded gears and the rest of it) may be a wise investment.
Yoda out (for now, but back you know I will be!)
2110.
Panchitos heads.
W120 cam.
40 Dellortos.
1.5" A1 Sidewinder.
Done.
DISPLACEMENT IS EVERYTHING: I can heartily agree to that....my 1960 AH BugEye SPRITE had less TORQUE than the wiper motors on my 2.7/six...it couldNOT get out of its own way, but as a senior in high school(1970) it was simply heaven on wheels.
DRIVABILITY and inherent TORQUE characteristics in full beast with a monster TYPE4 or a SIX and one does NOT have to think for a second...juts act/do. I recall going up a steep incline with my SPRITE(948cc) slowing DOWN despite pedal to medal/tailwind and having to downshift to complete the hill......
Was just looking at the 2017 PORSCHE 911 website with 30 VARIANTS of a 911! The biggest LAUGH...and not easy to laugh at 4 a.m. was reviewing the OPTIONS on the GT2 RS which retails for $293K .....the ONLY option is the WEISSACH PACKAGE which lowers weight by 39.8 pounds...yes SIR: $31,000 to shed 40 lbs. with some carbon fiber???
There are a dozen plus desirable SPEEDSTERS for sale for LESS than the option package....
. I need another cup of coffee.....ADDITION by SUBTRACTION for $31K? I'll take TWO PLEASE. I'd buy a civil looking SINGER before I'd buy a GT2 as it is scary looking.....NOT happening unless the POWERBALL...
And Hawaii ain't got no "PowerBall"!
Bill - I'll buy you PowerBall tickets in FL -- I have $24 in last weeks drawing, I'll give you a FL Bayou (swamp land) deal!
Sounds good, put it on my tab! The checks in the mail...
OK, Seti, so you can see what you've got yourself into by now.
If you've done any VW tinkering you already know the Type 1 is a bit fiddly. The over-2-liter engine requires the case be clearanced for the longer throw crankshaft. No trouble at all if you're building from scratch & buying an aftermarket case.
The slightly-larger-that-stock barrels giving 1641cc are "slip-in," meaning no case machining needed for larger displacement, which is the cheapest way to get a little bigger.
The 1776, 1835 and 1914 displacements are all got with bigger cylinders only, but the cases need to be machined to accept the bigger barrels. So it's a midway, both in money and power, between stock and hotrod.
Horsepower, torque and revs: Please do not believe anyone who tells you that you need to stay under 4000 rpms to keep your engine "happy." Even the stock engine is happy enough at 4500 as long as you're not there all day and night. A balanced type-1 engine can be shifted now and then at 6000 without complaint or damage for a pretty long time, particularly if the oiling system is improved.*
The "90 horsepower" formula for a 1914 VW would include an Eagle 2246 cam (or Engle 120), Panchito heads from CB Performance, 34 or 40 ITC Webers and a good flowing exhaust. You want about 8.5-1 compression ratio. The 019 distributor is the way, the 009 will do but not as well.
This combo, carefully assembled, actually dynos out to about 115 or even 125 horses with 44 Webers. It peaks at about 5500 RPM but is still all there at 6000. Peak torque is about 120-130 ft-lbs at 4000. (All this according to the dyno sheets Jake Raby delivered with his series of 1914s, although those were made with ported 044 heads, which aren't as good as stock-from-the-box Panchitos).
Stan is right that a 2110 with the same cam and careful build will make 30 more hp, which is enough to feel it. And it is also true that most of the cost of the build is in the labor, paid to the person who actually knows what they are doing (i.e. Pat Downs at CB Performance).
A lot of guys who spec-out a strong engine and buy all the right parts still lose big if the assembly isn't done by the right person. Like I said, they're fiddly engines.
==
*Full-flowing the case is the minimum requirement for a built type 1. It's better yet, if the car's going to be driven a lot or hard, to do the "Hoover Oiling Mods," which require a bit of skill and knowledge but pay big dividends in longevity.
Hi Ed, thank you for the detailed reply, very useful information. I am going to sit down and write out the pros & cons of what has been said so far. Try and make sense if it all for my application over here, I know you guys have all sorts of roads and driving conditions and laws, and competitions in the States. My driving will be a little tame, with maybe the odd track day thrown in the mix.
So thank you all for your info it has been very very useful, my friend and mechanic is back this week so I will be chatting with him as well.
I will keep you posted to the decisions I make, and post photos to keep you up to date and also be asking lots more questions.
Thank you all for being so helpful and friendly.
Regards Scott
Scott: You might want to PM Jim Ignacio (MUSBJIM California Southern Coast) and Al Gallo (Cape Cod tourist area in Massachusetts). They both have mildly built 1,600's or so in their Speedsters but, more importantly, both live in areas of similar topography to where you are in North Wales - lots of back roads, shallow rolling hills, etc. - and can give a good assessment of performance on those roads.
It also sounds a lot like you'll benefit from finding some local aircooled VW folks for what they have and good sources of builders and parts.
And now you see why we call this "The Madness"!
Oh dear, Lord Seti.
As Ed has said, you can see what you've got yourself into here.
Namely, a group of folks who are passionate about these cars, with strong opinions about what to do and what not to do.
I agree with just about everything Ed has said, but I didn't mean to imply these engines aren't 'happy' over 4000 rpm. It's just that, to my ear, they don't sound happy being driven there for very long. And that is merely my opinion.
I have a 2026 cc engine - kind of an unusual displacement. It's basically a slightly detuned 2110 - same cylinders, same sized valves, same carburetors, same sized exhaust that are usually spec'd for a 2110, but with a slightly shorter stroke crankshaft (78.8 mm vs. 82 mm). I'll spare you the details of why I went that way. In the UK's climate, you'd be much better off with a 2110 than a 2026.
My engine builder assures me that my engine is perfectly safe and 'happy' at 4000 rpm. And at 5000 rpm. And at 6000 rpm. It's just that I'm not. I do go to 4000, and even 5000, quite often. But, as Ed says, you don't want to drive around like that all day.
Which sort of goes to the point I was trying to make. A long-stroke engine, like a 2110, will make a lot more power at those higher revs than a stock 1600, which can be a lot of fun when you want to get your boot into it, but it will also make a lot more torque lower down in the rev range - starting as low as 2200 rpm or so. And that will make all the difference in everyday driving.
Puttering about, you'll be able to hold taller gears at lower revs than a 1600, 1776, or even 1835 would, and the whole driving experience will be more relaxed. Staying with traffic from stoplight to stoplight (or roundabout to roundabout) will be easier, and you won't feel like you need to take every shift to 4000 rpm just to keep up.
There are a lot of decisions to be made in building one of these cars. Many are determined by what makes good engineering sense. But many others are all about your personal preferences. Listen to the wide range of opinions you're sure to read here before making up your mind.
The journey could be more fun than the destination.
Sorry to pick, Ed, but your 90hp 1915 is a bit of a mismatched combination- the 2246 cam will rev to 6500 rpm and properly ported (or cast like the Panchitos) 40x35 heads on this displacement are capable of 7500 or more, so with dual Webers or Dels it should make 150 or more hp. With the Ict's the engine won't rev much past 5,000 rpm and will top out at 92-93 hp, yet bottom end and lower midrange won't be what it can be either because of the cam's duration and poor airspeed through the larger intake ports at the lower rpm's.
Better off to look at it as 2 separate engines- with the Ict's, a 5,000 or 5500rpm (maybe too much?) cam, either stock or ported 35x32 heads (bigger valves and ports really are a waste of time here, as the carbs won't flow anywhere near enough to use what the larger heads are capable of), and a 1 3/8" header/muffler. It will have great bottom end/lower midrange, be rock solid to redline, get great mileage and be as easy to take care of as a stocker. The Ict's really are the limiting factor here, and a 5500rpm cam and stock ported heads may even be too much for the carbs, the engine possibly needing kadrons to feed it enough gas and air at the higher rpms.
The 2246 cam/40x35 heads/Webers or Del's combo would be a very revvy engine, and be a heck of a lot of fun, the caveats being the bottom end/lower midrange suffering a little (in comparison to the Ict/stock head version, but that's why we build 2 liter+ engines- so we can have it all! ) and it will take a little more maintenance to keep it in tip top shape, but did I mention it would be a lot more fun?
I remember Jake building several of these engines and typically getting 155-160 hp. And whether cast, or hand or cnc ported, if the port shape and volume are correct they'll all make the same power. And yeah, when you think about it, every VW engine needs to be plumbed for full flow and the Hoover Oiling Mods done to it. Al out
Hi, Seti. Or Lord? I live in a place where the back roads are the only way to travel. When I had my engine built I wanted to have something that was comfortable , easy to drive and not be too finicky to maintain. I went to the Musbejim School of Taking It Easy.
I talked to a few engine builders including Chico and Pat Downs and told them what I wanted for the type of driving that I do on the sandbar where I live. My idea was a nicely built 1776 and I told them I wanted longevity and drivability. They both suggested a 1904 would be what I could build with a little more torque.
I was not comfortable being 3000 miles from my engine builder so I found a very reputable guy only 100 miles away. He builds a few dragster engines and race engines every year, (he owns and drives an 11 second Beetle dragster) but his main business is heads and valve jobs on Porsches and other race cars, so he could have built ANY engine I wanted. He also is a dealer for CB Performance and uses many of their parts. He had built a few 1904's for restored Bugs etc. and, knowing my requirements, he agreed that was what I would be happiest with.
So, long story short, I talked to a gentleman who had one of his engines in a '66 bug and I was convinced. He did his magic with the heads , valves , manifolds and oil pump etc. and I'm very happy with the result. I have a remote oil filter, Weber 34s and a 1 1/2 qt. sump. No oil cooler or fans needed. If I had one thing that I would have added it would be the Panchito heads. That' my story and I'm sticking to it. Best of luck with your build.
P.S. If I was building from scratch as you are, I might think of doing the plumbing now while it's easy, and going with Subby water cooled. Jus' sayin'.
There is NO substitution for EXPERIENCE....whether it be any of the ELITE builders like Jake Raby, Pat Downs, or Henry Schmidt(Supertec Performance)...these guys have done RESEARCH and have learned by their FEW failures AND pursuit of EXCELLENCE.
Of course the key to that is OIL....and MORE OIL....and HEAT...and MORE OIL. The "HOOVER" article is brilliant and a sure reminder that the PLATFORM is circa 1931(one has to laugh) but still around with its improvements and technology.
As CARLOS SANTANA once said to a young guitar player who wanted to buy one of CARLOS's guitars, " you wont be able to play like me even if you have my guitar"! It hasn't been said ANY BETTER than that
Al- if you'd gone with bigger heads the carbs would have been too small, and after putting bigger carbs on it you would have found it wasn't making the power it should be because the exhaust is too small, and maybe the rockers need to be upgraded to take full advantage of what the heads (and carbs) now flow, and now it needs that thermostatically controlled oil cooler, and...
see where this is going?
You're wet (but not lately- it's been gorgeous out here! Except for the forest fires, of course) coast buddy Al
Banzai Pipeline posted:
Of course the key to that is OIL....and MORE OIL....and HEAT...and MORE OIL. The "HOOVER" article is brilliant and a sure reminder that the PLATFORM is circa 1931(one has to laugh) but still around with its improvements and technology.
Very wise words, Banzai!
Al Gallo posted:My idea was a nicely built 1776 and I told them I wanted longevity and drivability. They both suggested a 1904 would be what I could build with a little more torque.
I was not comfortable being 3000 miles from my engine builder so I found a very reputable guy only 100 miles away... He had built a few 1904's for restored Bugs etc. and, knowing my requirements, he agreed that was what I would be happiest with.
So, long story short, I talked to a gentleman who had one of his engines in a '66 bug and I was convinced. He did his magic with the heads , valves , manifolds and oil pump etc. and I'm very happy with the result. I have a remote oil filter, Weber 34s and a 1 1/2 qt. sump. No oil cooler or fans needed. If I had one thing that I would have added it would be the Panchito heads. That' my story and I'm sticking to it.
Al, can you refresh my memory please? You built a 1904 with Ict's, some work done to the stock heads (any pics?) Do you know what cam he put in it? Compression?
Hi Scott
lots of good advice going on here as usual.
I'm running a dual brake servo without any problems. Although when l converted to disks all round l never ran it without a servo just to see a comparison. Abit unlike like me but eh ho.. don't forget to use a bigger bore master cylinder if going disks all round whether your using a servo or not.
A fellow countryman.
Hi Richard. Many thanks for the info, I am in the early stages of the build at the moment, but brakes will be dual circuit, with a servo, so any info will be greatly received, as this is the next job down the line.
Cheers
Hi Scott
Have you decided on a location for your dual servo.??
You don't see many (maybe 1 or 2) Speedsters with brake servos - guess due to issues with getting good vacuum to front of vehicle. All seem satisfied with at least front discs. Rear discs are popular option but probably not mandatory for safe operations. T3 drum brakes are also good often with larger wheel brake piston and perhaps a residual valve. I prefer stainless steel cover teflon lined flexible brake lines to each wheel. Dual circuit is pretty much mandatory.