@aircooled wow bruce!...that car is going to be OFF THE CHART!.....cant wait to see it at SUPERCAR SUNDAY!....the purist guys will even love it.....most of those guys LUV my plastic car....it will be the "bell of the ball" 
@JMM (Michael) posted:You can't have swing axles, so any change to a Subie transmission needs to include conversion to IRS. I thought Larry had a swing axle car.
That is correct......I have swing - axle car.....
@Larry Scislowicz posted:That is correct......I have swing - axle car.....
Oh, good. I haven't lost all my marbles...just a few of the shinier ones.
@IaM-Ray posted:Honestly the cost would be close I would think it may be $500 cheaper but I believe the reliability and choice of gears may be to your advantage, and no waiting for Berg. Also if you did go for a subie engine the tranny VSS ECU etc all fit together.
Other than that a 914 tranny or 901 tranny would also work.
Look us subarugears and there are many conversion videos you can watch.
SubieGears is the USA vendor in Cali.
Danny, fyi, the front nose cone is cut to shorten the tranny and be able to fit into a beetle frame the shifter is easily modified and a coupler added.
Ray, I know. I have a 5 speed Suby trans in my basement. I was looking into modifying it(along with converting my Spyder to IRS). I know about the shortening of the nose cone, and the removal and welding of the central diff.
I was speaking of the Berg5 modifications to the Bug pan for Larry, although that may not have been clear.
Sorry Danny, I didn't catch that, must be OldTimers age setting in.. 
Wolfgang.......I was aware that it's not necessary. to change the R & P gear in a Suby when used in a Spyder but thank you for the info that it's necessary to buy a new R & P if the Suby trans is going into a Speedster and it's not reversible like in the old VW Trans. I didn't know that ! Pretty spendy too ! $1300.00 ? Whew ! .......Add the same amount on as well for the L S D to bolt it to..................Bruce
Wow! LSD has gone up since the 60's.
I bought my first VW, a 1957 Beetle sedan, for $25 bucks if I hauled it away in 1967.
Everything has gone up since the 60s, Lane.
Hello to all…..*** Project Up-date *** after doing some additional reading regarding the subject of going to a 5-speed or changing the gear ratio on my freeway flyer 3:88 transmission to a 3:44, the thing that I never mentioned was what/how I would like the car to perform.
PROBLEM - My car performs well for “around town” driving but when I get to a “freeway” driving situation at speeds > 60 I’m running at >3,000 rpm on the engine and “feels” like I need another gear to go to. Is it healthy for the engine to run at such high rpm’s for long periods of time? I would like to cruise at 70 mph and feel that I am not beating the engine to death and at the same time not slowing traffic down.
CONFIGURATION TODAY- The car has a 2110 cc Engine w/Dell 45’s, 4-Speed Freeway Flyer Transmission 3:88
POSSIBLE SOLUTION-
- Leave it like it is – it is OK
- Put a 5-speed transmission at a project cost of >$7K.
- Go to a lower gear ratio of 3:44 < $2K
For those of you who have faced this issue, I am looking for your recommendations on which way to go from here along with what you did to solve this (perceived) problem. Please advise….Thanks
You need to run at 3000 rpm or above to cool the engine.
I kept my 5th gear the same as the old 4th. I have 175/70 tires. In 5th gear I am running about 3500 rpm.
I agree with Michael - You really want to keep the engine rpms above 3,000 when out on a freeway to cool the engine. Sounds like you're used to a modern, water cooled, probably Asian-based car with gobs of torque in the mid-range rpms. You're 2,110 isn't like that. It wants to see a bit higher RPMs to be happy. My Nissan is turning about 1,200 RPM at 65mph but that's a totally different engine design.
I also have a 2,110 with a 3:88 rear. Keeping up with traffic at 70-ish mph, my engine RPMs are hovering around 3,200 which, to me, is just about perfect. It's almost exactly the same RPMs I would be turning if my car was an original 356A Cabriolet. If I had an original 356A Speedster the rear ratio would be a 4:12 or geared lower equivalent (more like a 4:36 or 4:52 but with different 1 - 4 gear ratios) which would put the revs at 70mph much closer to 4,000. Speedsters were geared, on purpose, for acceleration and track-friendly gear spacing, not highway cruising. Running all day at 4,000 rpm in a well-built T-1 engine won't hurt it.
Now, if you go higher in gear ratio from that 3:88 to a 3:44 and keep the 4th gear the same, you'll be down below 3,000 rpm at 70-ish, BUT you'll have a noticeable deadness to acceleration. You'll turn your car into a stop light acceleration pig. Period.
~3,000 @ 70mph isn't unusual in modern small displacement 4 cylinders cars, they just have better sound deadening so it doesn't seem so bad. My 2011 MINI Cooper S cruised at 3,000 at 70 mph and it was a 6-speed. Also, air cooling requires a certain amount of airflow at speed, I'm not sure you want to be much lower than that for fast highway work. Gearing down your ratio in 4th to spin 2,500 at 70 might leave you in a situation where you need to shift down to 3rd for even moderate hills and long grades. That wouldn't be fun.
We're all convinced (in US) that a slow engine lasts longer that a high rpm one. But with air cooled - that air flow is needed (especially) at high speeds. One especially good reason to have your engine rotating parts balanced and a good oil supply.
Taller tires - whether aspect ratio (70 or 80) or rim size (17 vs 15) will take less RPMs for higher speed (unless GPS speedo your old gear speedo will read wrong though). There are a couple good tire diameter apps that give revs per mile. (That is if your engine has enough hp to turn them - thinking 35" tires on some dune buggies).
i had a 3:44:1. And around 40 miles an hour I could either be in 3rd. And feel like I should be shifting or 4th and it seemed like I was lugging the engine. Also with my 2110cc as was mentioned you need 3000rpm or your engine will not be cooled and you may eventually cook the engine.
I tried the 901 tranny 5 speed and it was nice as you could essentially be more selective and the previous lugging issues were not there but you still seem to be looking for a 6th.
I think accepting that air cooled engine are noisier is what one needs to do and increase the soundproofing
Personally I feel that the fifth gives you better ability to row through the powerband but has little effect on cruising rpm with air cooled engines .
Finally, with a full subie and their 5 speed the engine and tranny are well match for gearing but if you want to cruise at 2100rpm it isn’t going to happen at 70mph with what is available unless you go with a six speed and it is still not available afaik
@Gordon Nichols posted:I agree with Michael - You really want to keep the engine rpms above 3,000 when out on a freeway to cool the engine. Sounds like you're used to a modern, water cooled, probably Asian-based car with gobs of torque in the mid-range rpms. You're 2,110 isn't like that. It wants to see a bit higher RPMs to be happy. My Nissan is turning about 1,200 RPM at 65mph but that's a totally different engine design.
I also have a 2,110 with a 3:88 rear. Keeping up with traffic at 70-ish mph, my engine RPMs are hovering around 3,200 which, to me, is just about perfect. It's almost exactly the same RPMs I would be turning if my car was an original 356A Cabriolet. If I had an original 356A Speedster the rear ratio would be a 4:12 or geared lower equivalent (more like a 4:36 or 4:52 but with different 1 - 4 gear ratios) which would put the revs at 70mph much closer to 4,000. Speedsters were geared, on purpose, for acceleration and track-friendly gear spacing, not highway cruising. Running all day at 4,000 rpm in a well-built T-1 engine won't hurt it.
Now, if you go higher in gear ratio from that 3:88 to a 3:44 and keep the 4th gear the same, you'll be down below 3,000 rpm at 70-ish, BUT you'll have a noticeable deadness to acceleration. You'll turn your car into a stop light acceleration pig. Period.
Thanks for your thoughts on this .....It looks like I'm going to keep everything "as is" for now. Ever since I changed out the linkage on the car it just purrrr's right along. Thanks!
@IaM-Ray posted:i had a 3:44:1. And around 40 miles an hour I could either be in 3rd. And feel like I should be shifting or 4th and it seemed like I was lugging the engine. Also with my 2110cc as was mentioned you need 3000rpm or your engine will not be cooled and you may eventually cook the engine.
I tried the 901 tranny 5 speed and it was nice as you could essentially be more selective and the previous lugging issues were not there but you still seem to be looking for a 6th.
I think accepting that air cooled engine are noisier is what one needs to do and increase the soundproofing
Personally I feel that the fifth gives you better ability to row through the powerband but has little effect on cruising rpm with air cooled engines .
Finally, with a full subie and their 5 speed the engine and tranny are well match for gearing but if you want to cruise at 2100rpm it isn’t going to happen at 70mph with what is available unless you go with a six speed and it is still not available afaik
You are correct...I think I just need to drive it more and get used to the noise of the engine.....Thanks.
Unless someone knows otherwise, a 3.44 hasn’t been available for a few years now. See, easy decision! 
would the size of the alternator pulley affect the RPMs of the fan,,,could increase or decrease Im thinking..with the engine R PMS staying constant
@Gordon Nichols posted:If you go higher in gear ratio from that 3:88 to a 3:44 and keep the 4th gear the same, you'll be down below 3,000 rpm at 70-ish, BUT you'll have a noticeable deadness to acceleration. You'll turn your car into a stop light acceleration pig. Period.
I don't find this to be true. I have a 3.44 final with stock gears currently(3.80/2.06/1.26/0.89). Tires were either 195/60R15 or 205/60R15.
I run about 2450 rpm at 55 in 4th. I run about 3000rpm at 70, and 3500rpm at 80.
Acceleration is pretty quick as those who have ridden in or driven my car can attest to. I have a pretty stout 2165 in a 1500 pound car, so maybe that's why I can get away with the 3.44. It is about 11% or 12% taller.
Having said that, I'm waiting on some parts from Weddle Industries so I can finish up my custom close-ratio mountain-road-slayer transmission.
I'm retaining the 3.44 final with 3.44/1.93/1.30/1.0 gears. This will tighten ALL the shift points up and hopefully I'll be able to enjoy NO holes when climbing/descending the hills. The 3.44R&P/1.0 4th is almost identical(3.44 overall drive ratio) to the 3.88R&P/0.89 4th combo(3.45 overall drive ratio) .
@barncobob posted:would the size of the alternator pulley affect the RPMs of the fan,,,could increase or decrease Im thinking..with the engine R PMS staying constant
This is true. If you speed up the fan it could be a problem up top at redline, depending on what rpm that is. And a welded and balanced fan goes without saying, right?
@DannyP posted:Acceleration is pretty quick as those who have ridden in or driven my car can attest to. I have a pretty stout 2165 in a 1500 pound car, so maybe that's why I can get away with the 3.44. It is about 11% or 12% taller.
I’ve ridden in Danny’s Spyder, and it absolutely rips! A 3.44 in a typical speedster with several hundred more pounds of weight and 30-50 less hp will be much less exciting. Gearing, hp and weight all need to be taken into consideration.
.
Larry, it looks like you may be new enough here to have not yet experienced one of our marathon online gearing slugfests, so please, be careful. At best, we are spirited and opinionated. At worst, well, we’re still replacing some of the furniture from last time.
I’ll start by saying I have a modest two-liter and have ended up with a Berg five-speed conversion, but will quickly add that’s not necessarily what I think you should do.
The bottom line is that there are A LOT of variables that will bear on what ends up working best for you - so many that we are each in a unique situation, and must make our own unique choices. Even with a five-speed, there are compromises to be made, so we need to first decide what are our expectations for the car. How much torque and power do we have to work with? What terrain do we need to cope with? How much time in the twisties, how much time on the interstate? How much of the work will we do ourselves? What access do we have to local expert help? And finally, will our bank allow a second mortgage?
Please note that DannyP and others like him (and they know who they are) are sly and cunning and not to be trusted. Yes, his 3.44 R&P works great and he never suffers from slow syndrome. But his 2165 has been more than lightly breathed upon (he built it himself). And your Speedster is probably more than 500 lbs. heavier than his Spyder (he won’t admit it, but his suspension parts are all carbon fiber - painted to look like steel). So, you’re starting out 33 per cent heavier than Mr. P, with fewer beans in the tank. With an average 2110 (and, by definition, most of us are average), you’ll probably be better served with a 3.88. (Rules require that Mr. P be given five minutes for rebuttal after my remarks.)
About that five-speed I have. I was extremely lucky to have local access to one of the best aircooled VW gurus anywhere. He found the transaxle in our area with all the difficult to obtain parts already there, had another local shop do the conversion for me (existing gearing was wrong for my application) and did the installation himself (there’s more than a little hacking and fabrication involved). All I had to do was write checks and wait for everything to happen. And wait for everything to happen. Without all this local help, I probably wouldn’t have taken on the hassle of a five-speed.
For me, freeway cruising revs weren’t the issue. What bugged me most was the big gap in the gearing between third and fourth. Most folks who put in a five-speed (like Michael describes above), keep the same 3.88 R&P and the same (.89) top gear. Your old fourth just becomes the new fifth. The big change is that a new gear ratio is slipped about midway between the old third and fourth, dramatically reducing the drop in revs when you shift up. (Usually, third is lowered a bit, too, thus shortening the 2-3 shift as well.) So now, you’re no longer forced to choose between lugging the higher gear and carrying too many revs in the lower gear in many situations. Climbing a steep hill at highway speeds, you always have a good gear to drop down to without worrying about blowing things up. And general two-lane noodling improves, too. You can do everything in a narrower rev range. The car feels more relaxed up and down short, steep grades. If you lived in Fallon, Nevada, you probably wouldn’t notice.
All of that did nothing to lower my revs at cruising speed, though. With 175/65 tires, 70 comes in at 3300. That’s a little higher than I’d like. The engine will do it safely, but it sounds a lot more relaxed at 3000 (about 64 mph). I could drop the revs a bit with taller, skinnier tires. A 165/80 (very close to original tires on the Beetle and 356) would give me 70 at around 3100. But I’d also give up a little hill climbing torque in top gear - so I’d have to downshift on some hills that I can pull in fifth now. As noted, every plus has a downside.
I’ve decided that since I treat freeways as ‘transit zones’ between the roads I really want to be driving on, I’ll live with freeway gearing that’s a bit too low. Other folks need to do hundreds of miles at a time on interstates so they will find a different solution. Again, my point is that there are too many factors to consider for there to be a simple ‘best’ solution. Read through all of the discussions in the archives and you’ll see how much there is to think about. Take your time before deciding and drive as many different cars as you can in the meantime.
Or maybe, just drop in an LS-1 conversion with 350 lb.-feet of torque. Then, any four gears, or maybe any three, will work just fine.
.
I have driven hundreds of miles on a freeway with my 5-speed, like on trips from Michigan to Carlisle. And, I hope to do it again when things are the new normal, whatever that will be.
But, such driving was not a factor in deciding what gearing I wanted because I only do this one or two times a year. I would rather have added pep on local drives.
No rebuttal needed, Mitch. You're spot-on.
Well, except for the carbon fiber stuff....that's Malarkey!
And that comment about a Cheby tree-fitty? Right on, which is one of the reasons the original 911 Turbo had a 4 speed. The other reason was horrible turbo-lag between gears. Porsche figured out it was safer AND faster to change up LESS, because they had oodles of torque. Like a Cheby.
@Sacto Mitch It's too bad you don't have a taller tire, indeed. At just under 24" I understand your 3300rpm problem. With the original tire size of 25.4", that drops the rpm some to 3200 at 70(the Weddle calculator says 3400 with your tire), 55 is just over 2500. If you cruise at 80, that's just under 3700.
"I would like to cruise at 70 mph and feel that I am not beating the engine to death and at the same time not slowing traffic down." - @Larry Scislowicz
Larry, I'm usually swimming against the current in these type of discussions because I am devoid of angst regarding engine or oil specs, but FWIW, here is my experience.
My previous Speedster was a 1995 VS, and at that time it was powered by 1776cc/dual 34PIC Kadrons/3:88 Freeway Flyer/Sidewinder Exhaust, the typical Kirk Duncan set-up. With that set-up, I logged 65,000 trouble-free miles (with an embarrassingly lax maintenance history). 
My driving style is mostly 'cruiser' with occasional bursts of spirited driving. I had some parts to eventually enhance the engine to 1835cc/1:25 lifters/welded fan/ext oil cooler. We were able to cruise long distances at hwy speeds (72-75mph at 3,100+rpm) without issue. My wife and I eventually logged 100,000 miles (160,900 km) in that car driving throughout CA, AZ, NV, UT, CO. Sadly it was totaled in an accident during one of our West Coast Cruises. I replaced it with another VS with 1915cc/mild cam/40mm Kadrons/Sidewinder. So far we have logged 45,000 trouble-free miles. Both VS cars used as daily drivers.
That's been my experience having owned a VS Speedster for the past 20 years.
Using a line stolen from a good SOC friend..."Your mileage may vary". 
Attachments
Images (1)
I think Jim has it right, but he has a mantra that he keeps the Kiss method the madness on upgrades has yet to affect the chill ElGuapo... All others on here suffer from the madness and this will not allow them to leave things alone ... hence we are on the continual quest for MORE !... lol and it goes on.
@MusbJim posted:"I would like to cruise at 70 mph and feel that I am not beating the engine to death and at the same time not slowing traffic down." - @Larry Scislowicz
Larry, I'm usually swimming against the current in these type of discussions because I am devoid of angst regarding engine or oil specs, but FWIW, here is my experience.
My previous Speedster was a 1995 VS, and at that time it was powered by 1776cc/dual 34PIC Kadrons/3:88 Freeway Flyer/Sidewinder Exhaust, the typical Kirk Duncan set-up. With that set-up, I logged 65,000 trouble-free miles (with an embarrassingly lax maintenance history).
My driving style is mostly 'cruiser' with occasional bursts of spirited driving. I had some parts to eventually enhance the engine to 1835cc/1:25 lifters/welded fan/ext oil cooler. We were able to cruise long distances at hwy speeds (72-75mph at 3,100+rpm) without issue. My wife and I eventually logged 100,000 miles (160,900 km) in that car driving throughout CA, AZ, NV, UT, CO. Sadly it was totaled in an accident during one of our West Coast Cruises. I replaced it with another VS with 1915cc/mild cam/40mm Kadrons/Sidewinder. So far we have logged 45,000 trouble-free miles. Both VS cars used as daily drivers.
That's been my experience having owned a VS Speedster for the past 20 years.
Using a line stolen from a good SOC friend..."Your mileage may vary".
@IaM-Ray @musbjim “smiles per mile” 🤙🤙🤙
Mitch well done and that pretty much sums it up and it's a great logic flow for the why's of choosing a 5 speed with an aircooled engine.
@calmotion posted:@IaM-Ray @musbjim “smiles per mile” 🤙🤙🤙
Thanks for sharing your experiences with your car, brings everything into perspective. I think I will keep everything as is for now and see how it plays out this summer....Thanks!
@Sacto Mitch posted:.
Larry, it looks like you may be new enough here to have not yet experienced one of our marathon online gearing slugfests, so please, be careful. At best, we are spirited and opinionated. At worst, well, we’re still replacing some of the furniture from last time.
I’ll start by saying I have a modest two-liter and have ended up with a Berg five-speed conversion, but will quickly add that’s not necessarily what I think you should do.
The bottom line is that there are A LOT of variables that will bear on what ends up working best for you - so many that we are each in a unique situation, and must make our own unique choices. Even with a five-speed, there are compromises to be made, so we need to first decide what are our expectations for the car. How much torque and power do we have to work with? What terrain do we need to cope with? How much time in the twisties, how much time on the interstate? How much of the work will we do ourselves? What access do we have to local expert help? And finally, will our bank allow a second mortgage?
Please note that DannyP and others like him (and they know who they are) are sly and cunning and not to be trusted. Yes, his 3.44 R&P works great and he never suffers from slow syndrome. But his 2165 has been more than lightly breathed upon (he built it himself). And your Speedster is probably more than 500 lbs. heavier than his Spyder (he won’t admit it, but his suspension parts are all carbon fiber - painted to look like steel). So, you’re starting out 33 per cent heavier than Mr. P, with fewer beans in the tank. With an average 2110 (and, by definition, most of us are average), you’ll probably be better served with a 3.88. (Rules require that Mr. P be given five minutes for rebuttal after my remarks.)
About that five-speed I have. I was extremely lucky to have local access to one of the best aircooled VW gurus anywhere. He found the transaxle in our area with all the difficult to obtain parts already there, had another local shop do the conversion for me (existing gearing was wrong for my application) and did the installation himself (there’s more than a little hacking and fabrication involved). All I had to do was write checks and wait for everything to happen. And wait for everything to happen. Without all this local help, I probably wouldn’t have taken on the hassle of a five-speed.
For me, freeway cruising revs weren’t the issue. What bugged me most was the big gap in the gearing between third and fourth. Most folks who put in a five-speed (like Michael describes above), keep the same 3.88 R&P and the same (.89) top gear. Your old fourth just becomes the new fifth. The big change is that a new gear ratio is slipped about midway between the old third and fourth, dramatically reducing the drop in revs when you shift up. (Usually, third is lowered a bit, too, thus shortening the 2-3 shift as well.) So now, you’re no longer forced to choose between lugging the higher gear and carrying too many revs in the lower gear in many situations. Climbing a steep hill at highway speeds, you always have a good gear to drop down to without worrying about blowing things up. And general two-lane noodling improves, too. You can do everything in a narrower rev range. The car feels more relaxed up and down short, steep grades. If you lived in Fallon, Nevada, you probably wouldn’t notice.
All of that did nothing to lower my revs at cruising speed, though. With 175/65 tires, 70 comes in at 3300. That’s a little higher than I’d like. The engine will do it safely, but it sounds a lot more relaxed at 3000 (about 64 mph). I could drop the revs a bit with taller, skinnier tires. A 165/80 (very close to original tires on the Beetle and 356) would give me 70 at around 3100. But I’d also give up a little hill climbing torque in top gear - so I’d have to downshift on some hills that I can pull in fifth now. As noted, every plus has a downside.
I’ve decided that since I treat freeways as ‘transit zones’ between the roads I really want to be driving on, I’ll live with freeway gearing that’s a bit too low. Other folks need to do hundreds of miles at a time on interstates so they will find a different solution. Again, my point is that there are too many factors to consider for there to be a simple ‘best’ solution. Read through all of the discussions in the archives and you’ll see how much there is to think about. Take your time before deciding and drive as many different cars as you can in the meantime.
Or maybe, just drop in an LS-1 conversion with 350 lb.-feet of torque. Then, any four gears, or maybe any three, will work just fine.
.
Thanks much for discussion ,,,,it is always good to hear what other people have been through with their cars....since all "hand built" cars each have their own ideocracies each having their own set of variables to deal with....appreciate the time you spent putting this in writing........
You're lucky you didn't ask something about oil....... 
@Gordon Nichols posted:You're lucky you didn't ask something about oil.......
I'm a fan of it.
Aren't you!?!? Why do you hate your mother? And America? And puppies?
Wait, did we just talk someone out of spending another $7k on their speedster? That's a first.