The "best" engine/gear combination???

Wow, the more I read, the more confused I get. I travel to JPS and Thunder Ranch next week to check out the specs offered from both companies. I want a car that has enough horsepower and torque to allow me to travel 75mph on the freeways without having to downshift in a headwind and to push uphill in the Sierra without having to (yeah, again) get downshift blisters (I dislike gloves). I also would like to average around 20+ mpg.

From what I have read on this site, the 2-liter Type 1 with 3:88 would be a good bet....but wait! What about a larger engine with higher gearing. Why not a 3:44?

The engine would have to run cool, be reliable and not suffer frequent breakdowns. I drive conservatively most of the time, and
don't want to have an engine put together that lacks HP, the have to spend a bunch of money later to get what I really wanted.

I have contacted Stan Galat and would have bought his car...but 1776cc seems a little short on power, from what I get from SOC.
Yeah, I know that you all will say, "Well, everyone drives differently, and as such has different needs in the engine/trans department." The long and short of it is that I want a combination that gives reasonably good torque with reasonably good reliability and gas mileage. I am not a racer, but like to drive quickly on Hwy 1 and cruise at 70-75mph on freeways.

This subject has probably been covered, but I have not been able to sift what I need to know from the archives....So, what is the verdict? Would Stan's speedster work for me, (I could bring it back to California, its home state), or should I go with something bigger, as mentioned in a previous thread. Or, if I did buy Stan's car, would it be upgradable (without breaking the bank) to a larger engine in the future.

Barry,
My car has a 1776 with 3:88 trans and I just drove hwy 5 from the bay area to Knotts last month. I was up and over the grapevine at a steady 70mph, never downshifted and got 30 mpg on that leg of the trip.
Temp never got out of a reasonable range either. My car has 30,000 miles on it with the original engine.
Troy

It's not just the size of a motor but what is within the engine build.
Often it is misunderstood that it is torque rather than horsepower makes the actual power. I have driven VW beetles with a small displacment 1641 type 1 motor that set you back in a seat and spin the tires as well as pulling a hill in 4th without downshifting .....sure this have further confused the issue:)

Listen to what Troy and Alan say. The magic word here is torque. Considering the power to weight ratio in a fiberglass replica a well built, massaged and tuned 1776 cc will be more than enough since it sounds like your driving habits are like mine: fairly conservative but like to move in highway traffic. In my build I chose that size engine with longevity in mind. Unless you spend very decent amounts of money, large engines tend to be more high maintenance.

Troy, Alan, Ricardo: thanks for your input. I read some advice here on SOC that when you choose a certain engine size, go a size larger. There was another thread that implied that larger engines have more problems due to increased engine heat, thinner cylinder walls due to increased bore, less gas mileage, etc. That argument was then refuted by those who have cars with larger engines. The large-engine guys kind of admonished the smaller engine guys for even implying that there might be something negative about larger engines. So, there is the rub: larger versus smaller.

Seems to me that a smaller engine might be more reliable for a longer period due to the lower stresses placed on it...but then, as previous threads have pointed out, it depends on how the car is used.
But, then again, the back and forth information has been nothing less than confusing to this newbie.

I can write reams about air-cooled bikes, but four-cylinder VW engines, although air-cooled also, push a heavier vehicle and as such are in a different torque/stress arena. And (you have guessed it already), I have yet to drive one of the darn things. I just don't want to get snookered into placing an order for an engine that will bring in big bux to the car maker, but will not be suitable for my needs. Maybe I need an injection of "trust."

I also am concerned about gas mileage. If a 1776cc engine can get 30mpg, but a 2-liter gets 20 mpg....that is another consideration. Also, my wife will add her 100# to the car. We plan on taking some long cross-country trips when I retire at the end of the year.

Tell you what: I will drive a car with a smaller engine, then one with a larger engine next week, then report my impressions. In the meantime, other members: please add to the opinions and advice of Troy, Alan and Ricardo. At this time, I am a sponge for information.

Barry - I drove a 1776 JPS for two years and loved every minute of it. I never felt like it was underpowered. It really is the perfect combination of power/torque and fuel economy. I know Stan's car pretty well - it's 100% and has so many extra touches, it's very nice.

Barry. Like John Leader, I drove a built 1776 for some time (well over 20,000 miles!) with the 3:88 gearing. In fact, I drove it to Los Angeles and back last year for Knotts = 3200 miles.. and I pushed that baby at 75-80 mph all the way there (well below redline), and all the way back. That engine is very much like Stan's.. and it remains on the road to this day with the second owner, Justin. I heard it run this weekend at a car show, and it is serving Justin quite well now in it's FOURTH YEAR of use & I would wager that it has well over 25,000 miles on it and 60% +/- of that are highway miles above 70-75. No engine/tranny problems, no carb problems.. nothing but plugs, oil, valve adjustments and gas filters.. that is reliability.

The key to the right engine combo is in gearing, carbs and exhaust. From my view Stan's would be a good choice. Maintaining the dual ICTs is a piece of cake and if you are looking for a long distance car, they are a supreme pick.

Stan's car is a low mileage, 'new' car. I'd jump on it for the very purposes/use you cited.

Jim Ward

A 1776 is often a great choice for a combination of reliability and performance.
The cylinder walls are the same thickness as a standard engine, and the fin area is the same so it should run cool.

Most 1776cc engines will be able to rev to over 5000 RPM, so a good counterweighted crank is a good idea. A larger, 'stroker' engine will generally have a counterweighted crank as standard.

For a 1776, a new AS41 case (full flowed for filter and cooler) , counterweighted crank, Engle 110 cam, nicely ported standard heads and bolt up rocker shafts, along with a pair of 40IDF Weber carbs
should provide at least 90HP, and enough go for many people.

If you need something larger then go for it, what sort of mileage do you think you will put on the car ? Above all, choose a reputable builder, or for a 1776 maybe learn and do it yourself ?

Another option is the 1914cc engine, standard stroke but 94mm cylinders instead of 90.5. These have a life expectancy of around 60K miles (many people think) where the 90.5mm cylinders (1776) have a life of 100K+ (many people think). Having said that, 60K is a good interval to remove your heads to check guides, valves etc, so you could have the cylinders and pistons changed for new ones at the same time inexpensively.

If you are planning to do less than 15K miles per year, want a reasonably priced engine and don't mind having your engine worked on every 4 years, I'd go for a 1914.

By the way, if engine spec is the only thing stopping you buying Stan's car, then buy it. I think you'll find the power more than adequate for the requirements you mention. If it isn't, then an engine swap on a speedster is quick and easy, and you could sell the 1776 to go towards a bigger motor, so you won't be missing out. It's more important to get the right car (and Stan's sounds great). An engine is so easy to swap in one of these things, it's almost a consumable. You could also have the 1776 taken out to 1914cc for minimal outlay.

I have owned a 1776 with 3:88 gears in my prior speedster. The power was very adequate, keeping up with traffic easily. My new IM has more than enough power with its 2110 and 3:88 gears. I would recommend the best value (Stan's car vs. New) as this car is exceptional by all accounts in execution and aesthetics. Since you have minimal Speedster ownership experience, make sure its right for you and the compromises that make them so endearing are not too much to handle before you go out and pony up to new/retail. You can always sell
Stan's car and come out pretty much in the black, and THEN invest in a new one after you really know what works for you. Csse in point, my new IM is a roadster and as much as I prefer the looks of the speedsters, the roadster is a better choice for me as I use it quite often and it is easier to drive (outward vision) than a speedster with the top up.

Good Luck,

Dan

Thanks, guys. I am travelling to L.A. and San Diego next Monday (May 16) to check out JPS and Thunder Ranch re what their cars are about, then drive one or two, if possible. I also want to check out the options, then get price quotes. Bill Steele has kindly offered his advice and I plan to talk to him after I get back. Bill said he did a lot of research before he bought his car, so I would take his advice seriously, as I certainly do yours.

If I were to buy Stan's car, do you feel a hardtop would be worth keeping? I have limited room in my garage (other than the ceiling); but I could certainly install a pulley device, as described by a lister here on the site (forget who)if I had to.

If I decided not to keep the top, what would the chances be for selling it? I know it was made for Stan's car specifically, but do you feel it would fit any other JPS (or VS, CMC, etc)? As for the engine, I drive a minimal amount of miles per year. With added longevity, ease of mtc and good mpg, I am becoming very interested in Stan's car. He had previously registered it here in Calilfornia, so I don't feel re-registration would be a problem.

If you can get a hard top, get it and keep it. Store it on a pulley etc. The hard tops are pretty neat addition. If you decide you hate it,can't store it etc., you will likely find a taker in this group.

As you are visiting TR, please say HI to all down there from us (Steve and Angela). I gather from your posts you are looking at a 4 cylinder engine. We have the TR spyder with the 6. My first real long trip was from Oregon to the Knotts show and back. Got 27 and 28 mpg out of the car at 70-75 ish. Okay sometimes 80ish... Good thing because it was not until half way thru the trip that I realized the tank was only ten gallons. I thought I had a 13 gallon tank... So when I stopped and put in 9.8 I was pretty much running on fumes!

Tom's TR speedster is pretty nice, hope you like it!
angela

Thanks, Steve. I will keep you and the others posted on my odyssey.

Most guys that post about engines have logged in here and it seems that a non-Mexi-crate 1776 is fine for what you describe as your driving needs.

What usually happens is a stock 1776 gets amped up a bit, like Stan's engine and then you get a truly reliable, well-mannered engine with some spirit.

I upgraded my 1776 three times and each time was a fascinating esperience, from ho-hum to "Now that's what I'm talkin' about!"

One final (for now) question: Is there any quality difference between a Brazilian (is this what you are calling a "Mexicrate"?) engine and the original VW block as manufactured in Germany? An out of state seller said that the VW blocks were "seasoned," and therefore were superior to the newly manufactured blocks.

Barry, you can get original VW blocks from Mexico and Brazil. Although built by VW (and supposedly to the same specs or standards), there's a definite difference in the original VW Germany materials. Almost across the board all VW Germany parts are superior to what's being currently manufactured; that's why you pay a premium when you can find them. A Mexi-crate engine is a factory built engine by VW Mexico so if the block says Brazil on it it's not a Mexi-crate. Also, as a clarification, I don't think you can get an OEM VW 1776 cc crate engine; you can only get the stock displacement(1600 cc).

Nice clarification as a 1776 is not stock, but common to this application. Not to try and start a fire-storm here, but I think I'd consider an engine with a few thousand miles on it before I'd consider a 'new' out-of-the-box-1776 offering.

Nice Stan,
Concise and defining... for the record,my 1776 build was $4,200(+/-) My mechanic was able to sell my first set of duals to a guy with a Karman Ghia for nearly what I paid.

Exhausts are a learning experience and I usually leave one a year in some culvert around town.

It is all about balance. If I know I am going out for a bit of 'expression' on the freeway, I tie a 200lb. hog in the trunk for ballast... pretty good for keeping the nose down and the looks I get as I squeel by are priceless!

OK, I've got a vested interest here, but I'd like to weigh in on this (and not because I have a car to sell.... although I do).

While it is true that VW never produced a 1776 Type 1, what some builders are putting in cars can accurately be described as "mexi-crate" motors. What is being referred to is a 1600 cc hydraulic cammed engine that has had the stock pistons and jugs removed, and reassembled using 90.5 pistons and jugs. Nothing else about the engine changes.

As everybody is surely aware, this is not a good route to take for an engine that is expected to produce decent power and live a long and happy life. The cam, heads, and carburetion are not optimized for the larger displacement, and the inherent problems with the hydraulic cam and lifters remain.

While a

Stan I commend you for such an incredible post; it never ceases to amaze me how much I learn here every day. Thanks!