Stroker project

I've had both, love the 2110!

But, if you're in stop and go traffic, smaller is better...

You might wanna take it out to dinner first, Mike.  Maybe buy it some flowers.

Michael,

I'm sure you know that Natalie has a stroked 1915 to 2054.

If you want to take her for a spin in the spring to get a feel, you're welcome to it.

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 2:49 PM, SpeedsterOwners.com <alerts@hoop.la> wrote:
>

I have had an 1850, a 1968, and now a 2110. I appreciate the cool running 90.5 pistons and barrels as well as the awesome power output. My car absolutely RIPS Rubber when I want it to and that is plenty for how i drive. I think the Chevy/Buick rods are fine if you want to say you have them. I used a balanced set of C.B. "H Beam"

standard journal/length rods and should be good for how i drive. If i was going to build an dedicated race engine i would do things differently and would consider those GM rods. Another thing is that at 2110, you are probably going to have an 82mm stroke. With that stroke you can easily go up to some larger bores if your not happy with the punch delivered by the 2110. Now days there are so many choices but the one thing that is bottom line for me is driveability........Thats my 2 cents....Bruce

If the engine compartment has lots of air access and extra oil cooler I don't really see any problem with either size, as it's only 100 cc's, and what will will work in one will pretty much work in the other. What's more important is the combo itself; the cam/rockers, compression, intake port volume, valve sizes, carbs and exhaust all have to be suitable for the displacement and powerband you're looking for (eg- the heads you have on your 1776 will not give the same rpm range on an engine 2-300 cc's larger). What's in your 1776 now (cam, carbs, exhaust, heads), how much do you think you'll be re-using, how much power and what rpm redline do you want to end up with? 

 

Using a crank and rods with Buick rod journals will be fine as long as you're not running the thing to 8 or 9,000 rpm; I think it's been proven that at the rpm's we're looking at (below 7,000), there's still enough rod/main journal overlap that there's no crank flex (as long as the assembly is properly balanced) and it will make for less internal clearancing in the case. Some guys really don't like hogging out the case for the larger crankshafts, but it's not an issue either; whether it's clearanced for a crank with VW or Buick (or 356) journals doesn't make a difference in the engine's longevity. Al

 

Bill- why is the smaller engine better for stop and go traffic?

My big motor just wants to go go go. Likes the higher rpms. 

You may have to put bigger venturis in the carbs (and mess with the jetting a bit) but it will be a fun engine!

 

That's the way it was built; it's got nothing to do with engine size.

Mike: Chevy or Buick journals (I'm assuming from Chevy or Buick rods) won't really make a whole lot of difference in the kind of driving most of us do.  If you're buying a kit of parts and that's what's in there, fine.....go for it.  If what you end up with, instead, are VW H-beam rods, those are just fine too......whatever.  I doubt you'll be looking for low 11's at the drags, anyway!!  

 

The rest of the stuff recommended by Aircooled and others that you've listed look just fine, too.

 

Happy Building!

 

gn

Is the idea to use as much off the 1776 as possible or build a new engine and sell the old (maybe salvage carbs, manifolds, distributor and exhaust)?

i have a 2 litre 914 type 4 for sale . call me if interestered michael. 200. bill

 

ALB, the idea is to use as much off the 1776 as possible.

 

It looks like that will mostly be the case, cam and carbs plus all the little stuff.

 

When I went to the aircooled.net website last nigh the Bugpack engine kit was unavailable so I think I will go with Scat crank and rods.

 

I think I may need new venturis for the 42DCNF carbs. I would welcome any ideas about where to get them.

 

 

 

Michael- I would try Gene Berg, although their website isn't showing anything in the catalog right now. Pierce Manifolds might have them as well. Al

I just got an email from Gary Berg. He said 34 is the biggest venturi and they are probably already in the carbs.

 

I emailed him yesterday when the Gene Berg website was down. I thought maybe they had closed up shop.

I guess the thing to do is have a look then, and see what's in there...

 

Now, I know all sorts of people (including your mechanic, probably) will tell you these engines run fine without any oil system improvements, but please read and consider the info/work in this link- http://bobhooversblog.blogspot...007/05/hvx-mods.html

 

I've taken apart a few high mileage VW aircooled engines in my time, and one thing I've noticed is scuffing on the rocker shafts and wear on the brass bushings in the rocker arms on primarily the right side (and what does that tell you? the heads/rockers could use more oil!). Finding out that the lifters only allow oil to the heads 12% of the time, it only makes sense to perform these modifications to an engine which will make more power and rev even higher than a stocker. Remember, VW built these things to a price point (it was an economy car), and 100,000 miles out of an engine was almost unheard of at the time, so they didn't have to include any more case machining, as what they had more than achieved the goal.

 

There's also the benefit of more oil in the head/rocker box area removing more heat, and a 26mm oil pump can deliver more than enough oil to do all this and push oil out to an extra cooler, so I see it as a win/win, without any downside. All you're doing here is updating the oil system; I believe type 4 engines come like this and most more modern engine designs incorporate these ideas.

 

More later- Al

Michael, we'll all help you spend your money, right???

 

Sure keep the carbs, with a 34mm venture they'll be OK up to 2.1 or 2.2 liter.

 

My take, go with 94mm Mahle cylinders. Machining is machining, the machinist doesn't care what size he's punching the case out to. You're already going to a 78 or 82 crank, why not go whole-hog and get 94mm?

 

The 1.4 rockers are great, just pick the right cam and get some bigger heads, I love my 2165 with 44 X 37 heads(78 stroke X 94 bore). And please, just make it 9.2:1 to 9.8:1, low compression semi-hemi Berg motors are so 30-40 years ago. Compression and displacement makes torque.

I am pushing close to 180 hp and have VW journals, they are fine. Don't skimp on the rods though, H or I beam are a good bet.

I had a big long post composed 12 hours ago, and realized just now it never went up.

 

Anyhow, as Danny said-- it's easy to spend other people's money. If it were MY money, I'd do the following:

 

Welded (Demello or similar) 82 mm CW crank. There's just zero reason to stay with VW rod journals. Buick/Chevy bearings are available in .001 under-size increments, so a good and careful builder can dial in the exact clearance for good oil pressure with thinner oil. You can't do that with VW bearings.

 

You aren't going to want to hear this, but I agree 100% with Danny- lose the semi-hemi heads. Get some Tims Stage 1 or Revmaster 049 heads with 40x35 valves and a nice port /combustion chamber job. Heads are where the power is.

 

Since you are getting better heads... you can have them opened up for 94s, but run thick-wall AA 92s. They're thicker and better than 90.5s, and you are going to need new B pistons anyhow with the stroker crank. The thick-wall cylinders will stay round no matter how hot the engine gets (within limits).

 

I'd run a W120 cam and set the compression like Danny said at 9.2- 9.8:1. I'd run 40 carbs (Dellorto would be my first choice, IDFs can work great as well). Add a 1-1/2 sidewinder, and live large. You'll need a nice external oil cooler, but it's just a good idea anyhow.

 

Good luck. Welcome to the deeper end of the pool.

I already pulled the trigger on the parts order and I stayed with 90.5 cylinders.

 

My case is already bored for them and I like that they will cool better than larger diameter ones.

 

Also, my carbs may not support larger displacement beyond 2110.

 

I ordered Revmaster heads (aircooled.net L5).

 

I currently don't have an external oil cooler. I have read that if I have all the original tin and the engine is well tuned I won't need it. Probably some here think otherwise.

 

I am wondering how to plumb one in with my full flow filter and Accusump.

 

My filter mounting thing has two inlets and two outlets.

 

I am using all four now: from pump, to engine, to Accusump, pressure sender.

 

I know very little about the the external coolers. It seems like there are two kinds of thermostats for them, one stops and starts the oil flow and one turns the fan on and off. Is this right?

 

If I plumb it into the side with the Accusump and pressure sender it seems like I would a check valve to keep the Accusump from pushing oil backwards into the cooler.

You will need an external oil cooler.

 

Michael,

 

I've got an accusump, and have had from the beginning. Just plumb it on a tee on the oil line going back to the case.

 

FWIW, the thickwall 92s tolerate heat better than the 90.5s, and they run just as cool. There's nothing wrong with 90.5s, but for the sake of future searches... forewarned is forearmed.

Michael, some have had no overheating problems with their larger engine using the stock shroud cooling, but most have added an external cooler for an extra margin of cooling.

If you want to go with the best, get a Setrab oil cooler/fan from Aircooled.net.

For my 2276 I installed a dual set of coolers/fans and mounted them in the front of my IM.....yes, I had some overheating issues.

If you decided to go the external cooler route (which I recommend) have the cooler mounted in the rear fender well, or above the tranny.  Personally, I like the above tranny location, but it can get a bit crowded there, especially if you have IRS.

 

call me on the phone michael, ile tell you about oil temp and what to look for. bill

 

Check out the full-flow and cooler articles in the knowledge section, too.

 

Start with this one, but installing an external cooler is all in there somewhere:

 

https://www.speedsterowners.com...-1-mechanical-layout

Michael- The cooler goes in the return line from the filter to the engine case, with the oil temp sensor (for the cooler) going before it. When the oil is still cold/lukewarm it goes straight through the sensor unit, bypasses the cooler and back to the engine. The temperature sensor for the fan (if you use one; some guys just turn the fan on when needed) mounts in the return line after the cooler so the fan only comes on when just the oil running through the cooler isn't enough. The point here is you don't need the fan on all the time. The Accusump tees in to the return line after the cooler, as close to the engine as possible.

 

While it would be nice to go with 94's (you may have heard me mention before that bigger is always better, and it is; more displacement gives more low end torque and just makes driving more fun!), but you will already be above 2 liters, the increase you'll get with the 94's is so small percentage wise that it doesn't really matter that much and you already have the case cut for 90.5's, so you'll be fine. John Connolly's recommendation of 8.5:1 with the V26 cam is a tad conservative. Though I wouldn't go as high as Stan and Danny suggest, with 253' @ .050" duration (this is the important part, the amount of duration) you can run 8.8 or 9:1 safely. You'll need to set up the deck height at .040-.050" (the closer to .040" the better)- the tight quench will keep most of the burn in the combustion chamber and not across the quench pads of the piston and cylinder, which will transfer more heat to the head and piston, requiring more work to get rid of. Also, make sure there are no sharp edges in the combustion chambers, as they can get hot enough to fire the mixture prematurely. Go so far as to install spark plugs before the heads are on the engine and check for exposed threads.

 

Make sure the heads come with large enough combustion chambers that you don't have to run huge deck height- did you order a 78 or 82mm crankshaft? With the 78x90.5, .045" deck will need 55cc combustion chambers, and at .040" 56cc combustion chambers will give 9:1. If you've decided on an 82, at .040" you'll need 59cc's for 9:1, and at .045" 58cc's gives 9.1:1, which is close enough. Specify with whoever is supplying the heads what combustion chamber size you will require. I'm using the CB Performance engine calculator-  http://www.cbperformance.com/v/enginecalc.html

 

You could run a little higher compression (as the guys have suggested); 9.2 will work, but you'll have to watch the tune a little closer. Anything much above and the tune will have to be spot on ALL THE TIME! A little variation in the distributor timing (caused by points wear) or a lousy batch of gas could wreak havoc, and if you're travelling, a major rise in elevation will cause it to run lean (hot) and you'll be pulling out the spare carburetor jets to keep it from overheating. Danny gets away with 9.8:1 because he's running more camshaft duration (Engle FK8- 258' @ .050") and he's in a lighter car.

 

My apologies for being so long winded- what started out to be a few words.....

Hope this helps. Al

 

Oops; forgot the pic I was going to give you (and yes, that's a 1 way valve right before the accumulator tee)- 

 

 

 

My /CR recommendations are based on my cam recommendation. It's dynamic CR that means something, not static. I missed the part where Michael was running a mild-ish cam.

 

With a W120, I'd aim for 9:1, but if it got as high as 10:1 with an FK8, assuming no special tricks (thermal coatings, twin-plugs, etc.).

 

Al, please don't apologize for being long winded. I appreciate what everyone has contributed to the discussion.

 

Below are diagrams of my current and proposed arrangements. I think the proposed is similar to yours Al except I have the check valve in a different place.

 

Al, both you and John and aircooled suggest putting the fan thermostat on the outlet side of the cooler. Setrab suggests the inlet side. It seems like it might depend on whether you have the oil flow thermostat.

 

I see that I forgot to show the check valve. It is on the line from the pump after the temp sender.

 

 

Get the Mocal sandwich thermostat like the one in Joel's picture. It's the one to have.

Stan,

 

I think part of the purpose of the Mocal sandwich is to gain 2 more places to connect hoses when the typical filter mount only has 2.

 

I already have 4 places to connect hoses with my filter mount. I do see that I might eliminate 2 tees.

The purpose of the Mocal sandwich is to provide am oil-cooler bypass thermostat and connection points into and out of the cooler. If you use it, you have LESS connections than the cheaper, more restrictive EMPI bypass thermostat, not more.

 

Since it uses the filter base as it's pickup and return point, it eliminates two hoses.

 

You can leave your entire setup intact, add the sandwich, run a hose to and from your oil cooler (putting a fan switch somewhere), and be done.

Good morning Michael-

Looking at your proposed hose/filter/cooler arrangement above, the Accusump is tee'd into the cooler back to the filter line, but that's not where the drop in oil pressure will be felt, and it's not what you are trying to protect. The Accusump needs to be in the return line to the case, tee'd in as close to the engine as possible. I would put the check valve in the line just behind the Accusump, as it would force the oil from the Accusump into the bearings, which is where you want it. In your "proposed" pic, what are the 2 tee'd lines on the inlet to the filter and inlet to the oil thermostat lines (bottom of pic- can't read what they are)?

 

Setrab's recommendation to put the fan thermo switch before the cooler/fan assembly doesn't make any sense (to me, anyway, but I'm the first to admit I'm not an engineer, so if anyone knows why it should be before the cooler, please speak up), as the fan would run continuously when oil was flowing through the cooler. You only need the fan to kick in to raise the cooler's efficiency, when the temp drop across it isn't enough. Lots of guys in the VW world (and some Speedster owners) claim the fan only comes on occasionally, and the cooler by itself is enough to do the job the majority of the time.

 

Porsche first put an extra oil cooler (mounted in the right front wheelwell, just behind the headlight, iIrc) on the engines in 911S production cars (I believe they were already utilizing extra coolers in competition cars) in the mid 1970's. I've read it was needed when hp surpassed 170, and the first ones were a simple piece of tubing in a U shape (might have had a loop on the end?), about a foot long (well, that, and the hard lines to and from the back of the car).

 

A pic of a factory 911 cooler from the '80's; the earlier ones were even simpler- 

 

 

Again, if you use the Mocal thermostat: you can leave everything else the same, pressurize the engine with the Accusump, not the oil cooler.

I may be totally missing what's going on in Mike's illustration (mostly because I can't read any of the nomenclature) but I don't think that's going to filter much of the oil.  I looked on the Canton website and their Billet filter mount is about the same as what I'm using (I got mine from NAPA) which is designed with two input ports and two output ports simply to be a universal design.  You have inputs and outputs on both sides of the mount to make it easier to run hoses to it.  If you look into, say, an input port you can see right through and out the port opening on the other side of the mount. 

 

If you connect everything as in Mike's drawing, the oil flow will take the path of least resistance, which is NOT through the filter.  It will flow into the mount from the pump and right out the other side into the cooler circuit (switched between cooler and bypass, depending on oil temp), then back to the mount, right through the mount (bypassing the filter again) and back to the engine.

 

To make it filter and cool properly, you have to go into the filter mount from the pump on one side only and block the opposite side with a plug.  The filter output side uses one port only as well, with a plug in the other port, the output going to the cooler circuit by way of the input side of the oil temp switch (that part of his drawing looks OK).  The return line to the engine from the cooler temp switch goes, first, through a one-way check valve, then to a "T" where you connect the Accusump, the other side of the "T" goes to the case fitting near the distributor.  doing it this way forces ALL of the oil through the filter before it goes anywhere else, as it should.

 

THAT's how I would connect everything, but maybe I'm just missing something in the drawing (It's pretty hard to read).

 

(Edit)

 

I brought the drawing up in Powerpoint and enhanced it - now I can read it.

 

Referring to the drawing, why would you want to read oil pressure at the pump output (as shown) and oil temp after the filter, rather than both right at the oil gallery in the case as VW does?  Reading it at the gallery gives you pressure entering the bearings and temp before going to the cooler.

 

I think it should look more like this, unless I don't understand the original drawing.....

 

 

http://youtu.be/C_OGARBe6W0


> On Jan 18, 2015, at 10:47 AM, SpeedsterOwners.com <alerts@hoop.la> wrote:
>

I have dual Setrabs with fans, and the fan thermostat is mounted after the coolers.

 

I'm really glad you all are hanging in this conversation.

 

After Gordon's post I see the error of my proposed arrangement and now appreciate what Stan has been repeating.

 

I am going to insert a higher resolution copy of my drawing but at this point we can pretty much ignore my proposed arrangement. I'm really glad I asked about it.

 

What about doing as Stan suggests, just adding the Mocal thing between my filter and the mount with everything else as is?

 

I think my Accusump connection functions the same as being in the return line to the case since it flows straight through the mount.

 

Since oil is not compressible it seems like the check valve could be anywhere upstream of the Accusump.

 

Regarding my pressure sender: This is the dual terminal sender that looks like a little can. I am using only one terminal from it for my oil pressure gauge. I have read that the pressure light terminal on it makes the light come on at a higher pressure than the original VW pressure light sender. So, I kept the original pressure light sender by the distributor. Wouldn't I still be reading the pressure entering the bearings since that is where the oil from the pump, by way of the filter, goes?

 

Regarding my temperature sender: The sender has to be matched to the gauge. Originally I had a sender in the bottom of the case (which I guess is the location Gordon is referring to). It was connected to the temp gauge in my 914 combo unit. Palo Alto Speedometer built me a new 4 part combo gauge that added volts and oil pressure. It uses a different temperature gauge that used a different sender. I wasn't able to find a sender for the new gauge that would fit in the original location. I think now I am measuring the temp of the oil after is comes out of the sump.

 

What temperature values should I use for the Mocal sandwich and fan switch?

 

Here are some comments from thesamba about temp sender locations. Of course I selected some that support my current location.

 

I have 2 senders on my case - one in the type 3 oil block off plate and one in the relief position. The sump temps (type 3 plate) are usually 20 degrees hotter than the relief position.

 

The relief position is a mixture of cooled oil coming from the external cooler/filter return (bleeding past the piston) and oil in the case sloshing up into the bottom of that relief well.

-----------------------

If you ask me, the temp that interests me the most is the temp of the oil leaving the pump, and entering the engine. That's the oil that's about to do it's job, after all.

--------------------------

Jake Raby: I have used as many as 6 oil temp sensors simultaneously to measure oil temp... Between all 6 of them I saw a max of about 5F differential between the sensors that weren't placed directly after the cooler, those saw about a 10F reduction.

 

I want to see the hottest temp in the engine, nothing else really matters.. I found those hottest temps in the sump over and over again as the oil returns from the bearings/cylinders/pushrod tubes and dumps into the sump.

"What temperature values should I use for the Mocal sandwich and fan switch?"

 

180F for both

 

For the placement of the check valve for the accusump, I would place it as close to the Accusump "T" fitting as is practical to minimize the effects of other components.  All it is, is a pressure tank that, when released, pushes oil back into the engine.  I would want to insure that as much oil as possible goes to the engine, rather than pressurizing the cooler, filter and hoses.  

 

I agree that the hottest part of the engine will be in the sump.  Guess that's why dipstick thermometers are popular.  Simply use a quality dipstick thermometer to "calibrate" whatever temp gauge/sensor you have.  Read the dipstick and then read your electric gauge to see what the delta is at several data points and remember (or note) the differences and you're good to go.  If you're anal, like me, then determine where, on your electric gauge, it is "too hot" for your piece of mind and draw a red line on the glass with a "Sharpie" marker and pull over if it gets that high.