Thunder Ranch Engine Question

That's 1 of the things I don't like about BaT (or any auction house)- there's never any real details about what's in the car.  A 2 liter engine could top out at 5,000 rpm and make anywhere from 100- 125 or so hp (it would probably have killer bottom end/lower midrange power in such a light car!), go to 7500 rpm and make 180 hp (and be another whole bunch of fun! ) _{think big, evil laugh here!} , or anything in between, depending on the parts in it.  When floored in 3rd gear, how high will it rev to WITH POWER?  It will go 500 or even close to 1,000 rpm higher, but you'll have felt the acceleration fall off just a little bit, and that's the engine's redline.

Does it have Webers (40's or 44's) or Dellortos (40's or 45's)?  If you can give us an idea of where redline is a couple of us can make some (somewhat) educated guesses as to what may be in it.  I've never heard any details about what parts TR engines were built with, power levels or who built them, but that doesn't mean someone who's been here longer doesn't have more info.

Sorry I can't be of more help.  Al

Have a Look...

ReV

@ALB posted:

That's 1 of the things I don't like about BaT (or any auction house)- there's never any real details about what's in the car.  A 2 liter engine could top out at 5,000 rpm and make anywhere from 100- 125 or so hp (it would probably have killer bottom end/lower midrange power in such a light car!), go to 7500 rpm and make 180 hp (and be another whole bunch of fun! ) _{think big, evil laugh here!} , or anything in between, depending on the parts in it.  When floored in 3rd gear, how high will it rev to WITH POWER?  It will go 500 or even close to 1,000 rpm higher, but you'll have felt the acceleration fall off just a little bit, and that's the engine's redline.

Does it have Webers (40's or 44's) or Dellortos (40's or 45's)?  If you can give us an idea of where redline is a couple of us can make some (somewhat) educated guesses as to what may be in it.  I've never heard any details about what parts TR engines were built with, power levels or who built them, but that doesn't mean someone who's been here longer doesn't have more info.

Sorry I can't be of more help.  Al

Al, thank you, Sir.  I believe I have Weber 40s.  To your comments, I’m going to map out as best I can the performance in relation to the RPMs.  

@R Vosari posted:

Have a Look...

ReV

Wow -- thank you!

My googling didn't uncover this; so far I've found some anecdotal stuff, but nothing this complete.  Did you have this saved, or did you locate it on line?  Would be interested to know if this is contained in a spot with more Thunder Ranch information.

FYI -- I've searched the now-defunct TR website for this detailed information, and couldn't find it.

@R Vosari -- now that I'm studying this,  many of the things that I can identify on the exterior of the motor match these items, so it's a good bet that this is my engine's configuration. 

What is the opinion of the experts on this forum regarding these specifications?  Anything that was a bad choice, or an easy change to something better?

For what it's worth, in one of the articles posted on the old TR website (looks like the publication was Windblown Witness, August 1999), the engine builder at Thunder Ranch was Steve Johnson.  I need to google him up next. 

My records show the page as having come from Thunder Ranch's webpage circa 2014. I saw your car in NJ some years back on a visit to Rudy Van Gelder's Studios... at that time it did not have the graphics...

ReV

@R Vosari posted:

My records show the page as having come from Thunder Ranch's webpage circa 2014. I saw your car in NJ some years back on a visit to Rudy Van Gelder's Studios... at that time it did not have the graphics...

ReV

Thank you for the additional information.  Yes -- it did sell from a dealer in Paramus, NJ, in 2022.  https://bringatrailer.com/list...955-porsche-550a-11/

@Wulfrik (John) posted:

What is the opinion of the experts on this forum regarding these specifications?  Anything that was a bad choice, or an easy change to something better?

I do not wish to be unkind. If you like the engine, then stick with what you've got.

The heads have small valves (35.5 x 30) and the spec sheet makes no mention of them being ported, so it's almost a sure thing they are not. There is no mention of the crank being counter-weighted, so it almost assuredly is not. I have no idea what a Schneider #2 or 3 cam is, but If that engine made 120 hp, it was on the world's most optimistic butt-dyno with the full OCCF (Orange County Correction Factor) in the calculation.

Upgrading this would mean starting over with a new crank and heads, which means almost an entirely new engine.

@Stan Galat posted:

I do not wish to be unkind. If you like the engine, then stick with what you've got.

The heads have small valves (35.5 x 30) and the spec sheet makes no mention of them being ported, so it's almost a sure thing they are not. There is no mention of the crank being counter-weighted, so it almost assuredly is not. I have no idea what a Schneider #2 or 3 cam is, but If that engine made 120 hp, it was on the world's most optimistic butt-dyno with the full OCCF (Orange County Correction Factor) in the calculation.

Upgrading this would mean starting over with a new crank and heads, which means almost an entirely new engine.

Exactly the analysis I was looking for, Stan! If I read you correctly, there isn’t any low- hanging fruit for performance gains. As such, I’ll leave those behind for now.    

As I do want to travel about Florida with the wife unit, I am going to look for reliability enhancements, then.  From my reading here, two things that seem to be mentioned for this are electronic ignition and crank fire ignition (I believe those to be separate items?)

I'm with Stan on this. It probably has about 80 hp with stock unported heads. If you like the power, leave it alone.

If an engine is built properly, you don't need a huge 30mm oil pump. If the clearances are loose, then maybe. The CB dry sump pump has a 21mm pressure stage, which is the same size as early stock VW. 26mm is the more common aftermarket size. Big oil pumps cost horsepower and actually create more heat.

If you want more, it's gonna cost you. All you need is a ride in mine, then you'll want more.

@DannyP posted:

I'm with Stan on this. It probably has about 80 hp with stock unported heads. If you like the power, leave it alone.

If an engine is built properly, you don't need a huge 30mm oil pump. If the clearances are loose, then maybe. The CB dry sump pump has a 21mm pressure stage, which is the same size as early stock VW. 26mm is the more common aftermarket size. Big oil pumps cost horsepower and actually create more heat.

If you want more, it's gonna cost you. All you need is a ride in mine, then you'll want more.

I agree with Danny 100%. I’ve ridden in his Spyder, and it rips!

I’ve been in the aircooled VW scene since the late 1980’s, and after reading the spec sheet posted, I had to google  Schneider Cams and Tuttle’s head, as I have never heard of either.  If you decide to upgrade, do yourself a favor, do some reading on TheSamba.com, in the High Performance section.  There are some very opinionated people there, but you can gain a lot of good knowledge, and probably avoid a bunch of  pitfalls by heeding some of the advice.

Or you could take the easy way out and give Pat Downs a call.

Pat builds a stock spec 125-horse 1915. He builds it on 044 Panchitos heads with 40mm x 35.5mm valves—small valves and small ports for better velocity. Those valves are still bigger than the spec sheet offered. But you don't know if they're bigger or smaller than what's actually in your engine.

Why not pull your valve covers and have a peek? You want to see heavy-duty aftermarket rocker arms with no wavy washers. You probably* want to see dual springs. And you want to see "044" cast into the surface of the head. If all that's there, and the engine runs strong from 3000-6000 RPM before starting to fade, then in might be capable of the advertised 120 hp.

==

*Dual HD springs were a standard 10 years ago for a hot street Type 1 set to spin over 6k; newer thinking allows for single heavy duty "beehive" springs but those are rare and fiddly to set up.

@Lane Anderson posted:

Or you could take the easy way out and give Pat Downs a call.

Where is the sport in that?  

Wow --  after reading all of the great input from y'all, I've lost large chunks of my day reading engine performance stuff on Samba, calling Schneider Cams, looking at engine prices, etc.!   

@DannyP -- No, I'm not really okay with the power, so I'm willing to spend. 

@Stan Galat -- the folks at Schneider aren't able to tell me what a #2 or #3 cam & gear are.  They don't recognize that labeling. 

Lots of varying opinions on the Samba about combinations for increasing HP with the motor.  Three things generally recommended are additional carburetion (I have that), and better exhaust (I have that, too). The third thing  was better heads. 

@edsnova mentioned Panchito 044s used by Pat Downs, so I've been looking at their stuff today.  I learned a lot reading about them on a google search, too.  Loud and clear was that the head and cam must be matched, and I read about compression ratio and deck clearance, among other things. 

Of course, it's far more complex than that, but it's now something for me to pursue.  It seems clear that I need to upgrade my heads, no matter what.

Now. ...if you want to make power you could just slap on a set of Panchos and high ratio rockers and see what happens. That's the sort of thing teenaged us might have done, and it might even work...for a little while!

But if you want to have power and something that won't grenade itself in a few thousand miles, pay attention to what Stan says about balancing the reciprocating parts. It's a PIA and seldom done on an engine like a stock Beetle Type 1 that's going to peak at 4500 RPM, but it's pretty much essential for an engine that's making power 1000 RPM above that, or more, which is what you want in a Spyder. A counter-weighted crank, static balanced pistons and rods and a balanced flywheel imho is the minimum you'll want to have. Extra points for getting the whole thing dynamically balanced.

The good news there is you can buy all that done and done—and with a longer stroke to get you a lot more power once it's buttoned up. The bad news is now you'll be questioning whether your case is any good. Man, nothing is cheap or easy.

@edsnova posted:

Now. ...if you want to make power you could just slap on a set of Panchos and high ratio rockers and see what happens. That's the sort of thing teenaged us might have done, and it might even work...for a little while!

But if you want to have power and something that won't grenade itself in a few thousand miles, pay attention to what Stan says about balancing the reciprocating parts. It's a PIA and seldom done on an engine like a stock Beetle Type 1 that's going to peak at 4500 RPM, but it's pretty much essential for an engine that's making power 1000 RPM above that, or more, which is what you want in a Spyder. A counter-weighted crank, static balanced pistons and rods and a balanced flywheel imho is the minimum you'll want to have. Extra points for getting the whole thing dynamically balanced.

The good news there is you can buy all that done and done—and with a longer stroke to get you a lot more power once it's buttoned up. The bad news is now you'll be questioning whether your case is any good. Man, nothing is cheap or easy.

Oh, don't think I'm not tempted to do what you suggested in your first sentence! 

So... to summarize, to make more power:

• You'll need better heads with dual valve-springs
• You'll need a cam, which means you need new lifters
• You'll probably need a new cam gear if you get a cam big enough to make power with the heads
• You may (or may not) need new rockers depending on what cam you choose, but if you plan to rev high enough to make use of a bigger cam and heads, you'll want better rockers
• You'll need pushrods because you've changed everything regarding your valve geometry
• You'll need a new crankshaft (one that's counterweighted)
• You'll need to balance the entire rotating assembly
• You'll probably put new bearings and a new clutch and pressure plate in it.

In short - you may be able to reuse your case, connecting rods (although I would get new rods with better rod bolts as well), and pistons/cylinders (although you'll re-ring it if you have it apart) which means you're reusing almost nothing.

It's all in the combination - parts need to play well together to be satisfying. To me, it seems like it would make a lot more sense to just order a new engine from Pat Downs and keep the one you have for a spare or sell it.

Your mileage may vary.

Im late to this party, but i have a bunch of original brochures and engine info i believe from when i got my spyder.  Will post them up.

I saw Magnus checking out my car.

Tuttle's Parts Exchange looks like a place to get OEM spec rebuilt stuff.

Schneider VW-2 cam has .435 lift and 280 duration (236 @ .050)

@ford356outlaw posted:

Im late to this party, but i have a bunch of original brochures and engine info i believe from when i got my spyder.  Will post them up.

Thanks, Raffi!!  Great stuff!  I've got some questions for you, so I'll message you directly.

@edsnova posted:

Tuttle's Parts Exchange looks like a place to get OEM spec rebuilt stuff.

Schneider VW-2 cam has .435 lift and 280 duration (236 @ .050)

Thank you, Ed.  I know that there was a lot of talk recently here on another thread about cam lift and duration.  I'll search to see how this spec compares with what y'all were saying were the most preferable in this regard. 

It's comparable to an Engle W-110 cam which is basically a "stage 1" kind of thing. Judging by claims and dyno tests on similar engines, your setup should yield about 75 rwhp, which is in the 90-95 range at the crank. Should peak about 4800 RPM with stock heads & stock valves.

Thunder Ranch puffing it to "120 hp" is pretty standard in the hobby. To my knowledge, only a few builders—among them the late Roland Rascon, Pat Downs, and Jake Raby (who no longer makes Type 1 engines)—rated their builds honestly. Raby used to include the dyno sheet with his engines. The 1914 (actually 1915) motors he made for Beck/Special Edition looked like

As of right now the standard head/cam combo for a 120-horse 1915 is a set of Panchos with 40mm intake and 35.5mm exhaust valves, plus a .460-ish lift, 260-ish duration (@.050) cam with HD lifters, 8.5 compression ratio (or higher), like this CB "Builder's Choice" kit.

Again, since it won't make all that power until it's up over 5000 RPM, it's important to balance/counterweight the crank and other internals. And it's important to note this too: a lot of guys would rather drive a car that feels stronger just off idle, like that old Buick Electra 401 ci nailhead land barge we used to ride in. The bigger the cam in these engines, the more power they make at high revs, the less of that off-idle "snap" they have. My 1915 Spyder works fine just tooling around but it doesn't really wake up until the tach passes 3000. I think that's cool for authenticity—makes the car drive more like they really were—but most people would rather have more power lower down.

That is why Vintage is making its stroker 2332 engines the way they are. It's to make a Bug engine drive more like the 1970s American V8s the customers grew up driving.

@edsnova and also the fact that all the 6, 7, and 8 speed automatics people drive today NEVER really let the engines rev, they are all inclined toward economy.

My Spyder starts to really pull around 3000(141 lbs./ft., peak of 147 is at 3500), and has decent torque down to 2500(113 lbs./ft.). That is due to 10.2:1 compression. Below that, umm, NO.

It's not good to demand much from these fragile engines below 2500, other than tooling around.

Downshift, my brothers! Keep it on the boil!

@Wulfrik (John) posted:

Thank you, Ed.  I know that there was a lot of talk recently here on another thread about cam lift and duration.  I'll search to see how this spec compares with what y'all were saying were the most preferable in this regard.

@edsnova posted:

... Schneider VW-2 cam has .435 lift and 280 duration (236 @ .050)

The Schneider VW-2 cam at .435" valve lift will work well in a smaller (stock stroke) engine with stock heads and with 236° duration @ .050, it will rev with power to about 5,000 rpm.  With either Kadrons or 40 mm Webers on it I'm sure it would easily rev to 5500 (and probably higher- it may even go close to 6,000 if pushed) in 1st and 2nd gear, but with peak power being somewhere around the 5,000 rpm mark, revving it constantly like that is just beating the engine up and wearing it out faster.  This is a combination that will make reasonable power (70- 95 or so hp at the flywheel- it will depend on displacement- a 69 mm stroke engine will be 1600, 1641, 1700, 1776, 1835 or 1915 cc's, depending on the size of the piston/cylinder set used) with decent bottom end/lower midrange torque (making it a really easy to drive engine, especially if it's an 1835 or 1915), be reasonably inexpensive to build, doesn't require much more maintenance than a stocker, is pretty hard to break (you really have to beat the sh*t out of it for a while before it will start to feel the effects), and is a win for both builder and customer (especially 1 new to VW's) so you can understand why this combo is popular.

Ed- The Engle W100 cam is more like the Schneider VW-2, both having similar dur.@ 0.050" numbers. The Engle W110- 248° dur @ 0.050" and close to the same lift at the valve- will typically go to 55-5700 rpm, depending on the rest of the parts.  It's a step up from the W100.

PS- And yeah, Thunder Ranch's estimation of 120 hp from a 1915 cc engine with unported stock valve heads (even with their VW-3 cam- whatever that is) is just a weeeee bit optimistic.  It doesn't matter what carbs are on it or how high you try to rev it- the heads aren't capable of anything close to that much power without additional flow work.

I found some cool info on electrical so i thought i would post it as well.

@edsnova posted:

It's comparable to an Engle W-110 cam which is basically a "stage 1" kind of thing. Judging by claims and dyno tests on similar engines, your setup should yield about 75 rwhp, which is in the 90-95 range at the crank. Should peak about 4800 RPM with stock heads & stock valves.

Thunder Ranch puffing it to "120 hp" is pretty standard in the hobby. To my knowledge, only a few builders—among them the late Roland Rascon, Pat Downs, and Jake Raby (who no longer makes Type 1 engines)—rated their builds honestly. Raby used to include the dyno sheet with his engines. The 1914 (actually 1915) motors he made for Beck/Special Edition looked like

As of right now the standard head/cam combo for a 120-horse 1915 is a set of Panchos with 40mm intake and 35.5mm exhaust valves, plus a .460-ish lift, 260-ish duration (@.050) cam with HD lifters, 8.5 compression ratio (or higher), like this CB "Builder's Choice" kit.

Again, since it won't make all that power until it's up over 5000 RPM, it's important to balance/counterweight the crank and other internals. And it's important to note this too: a lot of guys would rather drive a car that feels stronger just off idle, like that old Buick Electra 401 ci nailhead land barge we used to ride in. The bigger the cam in these engines, the more power they make at high revs, the less of that off-idle "snap" they have. My 1915 Spyder works fine just tooling around but it doesn't really wake up until the tach passes 3000. I think that's cool for authenticity—makes the car drive more like they really were—but most people would rather have more power lower down.

That is why Vintage is making its stroker 2332 engines the way they are. It's to make a Bug engine drive more like the 1970s American V8s the customers grew up driving.

Thank you very much for the additional info, Ed.  I'm keeping all of this great data from y'all in a file!  And, thanks again for helping me educate myself. 

@ALB posted:

The Schneider VW-2 cam at .435" valve lift will work well in a smaller (stock stroke) engine with stock heads and with 236° duration @ .050, it will rev with power to about 5,000 rpm.  With either Kadrons or 40 mm Webers on it I'm sure it would easily rev to 5500 (and probably higher- it may even go close to 6,000 if pushed) in 1st and 2nd gear, but with peak power being somewhere around the 5,000 rpm mark, revving it constantly like that is just beating the engine up and wearing it out faster.  This is a combination that will make reasonable power (70- 95 or so hp at the flywheel- it will depend on displacement- a 69 mm stroke engine will be 1600, 1641, 1700, 1776, 1835 or 1915 cc's, depending on the size of the piston/cylinder set used) with decent bottom end/lower midrange torque (making it a really easy to drive engine, especially if it's an 1835 or 1915), be reasonably inexpensive to build, doesn't require much more maintenance than a stocker, is pretty hard to break (you really have to beat the sh*t out of it for a while before it will start to feel the effects), and is a win for both builder and customer (especially 1 new to VW's) so you can understand why this combo is popular.

Ed- The Engle W100 cam is more like the Schneider VW-2, both having similar dur.@ 0.050" numbers. The Engle W110- 248° dur @ 0.050" and close to the same lift at the valve- will typically go to 55-5700 rpm, depending on the rest of the parts.  It's a step up from the W100.

PS- And yeah, Thunder Ranch's estimation of 120 hp from a 1915 cc engine with unported stock valve heads (even with their VW-3 cam- whatever that is) is just a weeeee bit optimistic.  It doesn't matter what carbs are on it or how high you try to rev it- the heads aren't capable of anything close to that much power without additional flow work.

Great stuff -- thank you!  The motor has 40 Webers, and starts to come on it's power band around 4000.  I'll need to see this weekend when it maxes out.   I'll report back.