Upgrading from 1776 to 2110?

My suggestion: Change out the cylinders to 94mm.

Get the barrel bases machined down to the 90.5/92mm register size. You can do this, I'm building a 2276(94 x 82) this way that was a 2213(90.5 x 86 stroke). The barrel bases are thin, and can easily be cracked so be careful.

You'll have to get the heads opened up for 94mm but no big deal. I think a 1915(94 x 69) with the cam, rockers, exhaust, and TBs you have would be right at the limit of your exhaust. 120-125 hp, and a NICE upgrade. You probably don't even have to split the case if you do it my way...

A 2110 would probably get choked by that exhaust. But if you must keep it, build a 1915. The cylinders(Mahle please not AA) will easily last 40,000 miles. Is that enough longevity for you?

40,000 miles longevity would be fine. I'm going to split the case anyway at some point to reseat the oil pickup tube. Definitely Mahles.

If you do end up stroking your motor, pay attention to rod length. Stock rods are 5.394" for use with the 69mm stroke. A 78mm stroke usually uses a 5.4 rod, and an 82mm stroke usually uses 5.5 rods. These last two will require cylinder spacers unless you get uncut barrels. But that always seems to be too difficult and complicated.

Make sure you get "B" pistons, the cylinders are all the same.

FYI, Scat still makes machined spacers. I believe they are one of the only ones that still make them. I ordered some stuff(spacers and piston rings) from them recently and I wish I had sooner. They are really good on the phone. Yes, you CAN talk to a person!

If you do split the case, you can do anything you want. You could get a more aggressive cam. Make sure you mark the lifters and return them to the same position IF you re-use the cam and lifters. ALWAYS replace them both if you replace the cam.

You can just get the case opened for the 94mm barrels, since you're splitting it. If the oil pickup is loose, you can clean up all the oil and JB Weld it in place, and peen the case with a ball-peen hammer around the pickup tube. Sometimes the case has a sloppy fit around the oil pump, and a shmeer of Permatex Aviation case sealant around the pump suction hole might be all you need.

When you get the heads flycut for the 94 barrels, pay attention to two things: parallel of cylinder sealing areas and combustion chamber volume. You may want to reduce the chamber size and up the compression depending on the cam/lifter combo you have. Compression ratio of 9:1 static would be a MINIMUM for me, especially since you have EFI and it will never go lean.

I'll post photos later of the 94mm barrel spigot uncut and cut, maybe that will help you make your decision there.

Above all, take your time(I know you do!), mock it up a few times, and have fun.

You can definitely use stock length rods with an 82 mm crank, and indeed I like the combination better than with 5.5 rods (it's snappier). My 2276 had (and will have, on Project X) stock-length rods. My 2234 (92 mm x 84 mm) has stock-length rods with an 84 mm stroke (which is about the limit). I'm a short-rod fan-boy, and you already have the stock-length rods and pistons and rings that are working for you.

It's super-easy to undergo the "while I'm in here" thoughts, but I'd resist. Well... I wouldn't resist, but a smarter man (like yourself) should. Opening an engine up is an invitation to replace nearly everything, and thar be dragons thar. Resist, and you can take a nice vacation with your wife to.... um.... Maui. So, forget it - change EVERYTHING! Get a 82B cam and some Carrillo rods. JPM makes some killer 94 cylinders out of some super-iron that stays round, and he sells some nice custom JE gas ported pistons and rings. That should only be about $5000- $7000 extra.

... which explains why I'm still working and all the rest of you are retired. That, and my newfound tendency to be a one man urban renewal plan for Morton, IL. Don't be like Stupid Stan. Do the sensible thing.

You should change the cam, however, for a W120 or the Web equivalent. IMHO, a 2110 with a W120 and about 9:1 CR is the sweet-spot for these cars, and it allows you to just reuse your rockers. It's pure Goldilocks: not too hot, not too cool, not to hard, not too soft.

The Vintage Speed exhaust might be what I'd change, but you can do that at any point now or later. If you do change it, I'd get a 1-5/8" sidewinder and some matching heater boxes (if you want to retain heat).

This is a subject I usually like to give my 1½ (Canadian) cents on, so here it is-

Upgrading to 94's, which does work, is a lot of work for not necessarily a lot of gain.  For someone's first major engine project I'd say go for it (great experience) but I know you're waayyy beyond that.  Lots of people have used the 94's with the bottoms of the barrels thinned down to fit in the 90.5/92 case register, and as Danny said, you just have to be careful to not damage the cylinder bottoms.

I like the idea of splitting the case, since it will be out of the car and you already have the heads and induction to make it make some fairly serious power with significantly more displacement, a 2110 is pretty easy to do.  A hone on the barrels (provided there is a local machine shop) , new rings and away you go.  You could use the rods you have- 82 mm cranks with either 5.394 or 5.4" rods have proven to be a great combination and should come out to very close to stock width, requiring minimum shimming, and with the W110 and adding 1.25 rockers it'll be a torque monster!

At that rod ratio (1.68) the pistons won't last forever, but you're not worried about that.  If you go with Danny's route (5.5" rods) it only changes the rod ratio to 1.71 so either way works.  It'll go to 5800 or close to 6,000 rpm with power and be killer!

Or- leave the short block alone, sell it or put some ported stock valve heads on it and put it under the bench.  Since you're buying the stroker crank, start with a new case, 94's, an 86B or CB2288 (and 1.4's of course!), and with the Panchitos and a 1 5/8" Sidewinder it'll be a monster!  The only issue with be the combustion chambers- you'll need 58-60 cc's to make it work with .040-.050" deck height.  What's the cc's in the heads now?

Hope this helps, Mike (or did I just muddle it up even more?)-  Al

PS- I left the FK8 out of the recipe because Engle's cams haven't had the best specs lately- better to go with something that's a little closer to what they say it is.

Oh- and my apologies for the sinceitsapartitis- I have it bad!

You might include this item also

Mike it's running good, right?

The absolute worst thing you could do is leave it alone and just drive it around Maui like a compleate idiut. Buy all means, pull that engine out, tear it down and get to work!

I vote for a "Monster Type IV" with about 3 liters' displacement. Should be able to do that over the winter...during the off season.

.

I was thinking somewhat along the lines of Ed's wise counsel.

Now that you've got the thing running smoothly from sea level up to the lower levels of the stratosphere, you must be bored silly.

You need some serious power to eat up those endless straight, flat, and featureless stretches of Maui's long-distance highway network.

.

@edsnova posted:

Mike it's running good, right?

The absolute worst thing you could do is leave it alone and just drive it around Maui like a compleate idiut. Buy all means, pull that engine out, tear it down and get to work!

I vote for a "Monster Type IV" with about 3 liters' displacement. Should be able to do that over the winter...during the off season.

Is there an “off season” in HI?

@dlearl476 posted:

Is there an “off season” in HI?

February 23 - February 27 there's a chance of rain... 🙂

Thanks for all of the great advice. I'm going to absorb it, check the options against my budget (how much before Marianne notices that something is up) and try not to overbuild. I kept up just fine with the old targa and wasn't totally left in the dust by the 930 so I don't want to get crazy (again). I'll post back on my thinking for your feedback.

Thanks so much again!

With an 82 crank, I think there is no choice about splitting the case.  The case will have to be clearanced for the crank.

Michael is correct, there is work to do inside the case when running anything more than a 76mm stroke.

It truly would be easier to buy a new case already clearanced and opened for 94mm barrels. But you'd have to Hoover mod it all over again. FYI, Scat lube-a-lobe lifters have a camshaft lubricating spray hole in the middle, and have very WIDE oil grooves instead of the usual two narrow VW grooves. They are recommended for Webcam cams. I was unable to drill the case I'm working on, there wasn't enough material to drill the extra oil gallery.

Unlike Stan, I like a longer rod(LOL!). My 78 stroke 2165 has a 5.4" rod, but the 2276 I'm building has 5.5" rods.

The 94mm cylinders require about a .020" cut which makes them 0.040" smaller in diameter to fit into the 90.5/92 case hole.

That uncut cylinder came damaged, it has a crack in the skirt from inadequate packing. I've already gotten the new cylinder, got it machined, and have now built the long block.

Patience with parts is needed today, I tore this motor down in January, and I'm close to finishing now, six months later.

Ok, I'm going to be the lone voice crying out in the wilderness and say WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING!!!  You live in Paradise and have a spectacular car in which to enjoy it.  Please drive it!

Build the hot motor separately while driving the car.  You can swap it out over the weekend and sell the old motor to cover expenses AFTER you've sorted the new engine.

End rant.  We now return to our regularly schedule programming.

Gentlemen,

You're making the mistake of underestimating Mike. He built the 1776. He did the freaking Hoover mods on it himself. He knows what he's getting into. I've always been a giant fan of starting over, but I can see the wisdom of just making this one bigger, assuming he can do it without machine work or a lot of clearancing.

I've got two question for the Maestro, @Michael Pickett

1. Did you buy a super-case for the original engine?
2. Talk to me about the rod journals your 69 mm crank. VW or Chevy journals?

If Mike has a super-case - he can reuse everything he's got, except for the crank and cam, without any machine work on the case. If the case isn't pre-clearanced, and the connecting rods are VW sized... I'd start over.

Again, for the kids from Pekin - the 2110 with a W120-like cam is the absolute sweet-spot for these cars. They run cool, they run forever, and they make good power. They're just more of what makes a 1776 a sweet little engine.

As it turns out, they are about 19% more. That's a significant amount of "more" for pretty short money.

I have absolutely no doubt Mike can do this. If the case is clearanced, rock on. But if it's not, there's quite a bit to remove to fit an 82mm, even with smaller(Chevy 2") journals.

If you do end up with an 86b Webcam do me a favor: Use 1.5 rockers and CRANK the compression up. I'm at 10.2:1 with absolutely no overheating, pinging, etc...

The 86b LOVES lift and compression.

What I lack in skill and knowledge, I make up in recklessness (and a willingness to try again). Some answers:

- Not a super-case. It's an AJ-144762

- VW journals

My first instinct was to just build another engine while driving the 1776 (ala @Lane Anderson).  Any thoughts on the virtues of the CBP 2110 builder's choice engine kit?

https://www.cbperformance.com/product-p/1183.htm

Or, picking and choosing parts from a variety of sources?

Stan, sounds like a preference for Chevy journals?

The 86b is nice, but I'd not use that much cam in this engine.

Pat Downs told me (and the numbers bear out), "there's no point in lifting Panchito valves over .500". It's super-tough to get a long duration cam that doesn't lift over .550", even with "1.4s" (which often measure close to 1.5:1). It's not just big compression and big lift that the 86b likes -  it's big heads as well. What you are proposing seems (to me, anyhow) like a bit too much of everything for a 2110 with Panchitos.

... unless he ran it with the 1.25 rockers he's got. @Robert M has a Pat Downs 2180 (I think) that uses a big CB cam (a 2292, if I'm not mistaken), Panchitos, and 1.25 rockers. He also runs a Vintage Speed exhaust, and the engine made nice power in a pretty hot climate. With a cam that big, it's going to need about 10:1 compression, which may mean fly-cutting the heads.

It just starts to get spendy pretty quickly, and the more stuff you change, the closer you get to just starting over. I think Mike wants to keep from starting over.

If I was trying to stay on the sane side of the street, I'd stick with the 1.25s and get a nice cam with gentler ramps, but with enough duration to have some punch. Type 1s like duration, assuming they have the flow to support it. A W120 doesn't run out of gas until 6500- 7000 RPM, and is pretty easy on the lifter bores and cam lobes. Running the CB duals is fine, there's no need for 650 springs and all the attendant issues that go along with them. I'd run duals even with the W120 - I tried it with HD singles, and broke one.

You can run CB lightweight lifters with a Web cam, as long as it's ground on an EP12 blank.

No matter what, I'm interested in seeing what happens. It's super-fun to spend other people's money.

Chevy journals are 50.4mm. Porsche 356 journal cranks have 53mm. VW Beetles have 55mm journals. Honestly, with only three journals supporting the crank and the whipping and flexing going on, I would NOT go for smaller journals. The crank is already heavier when going for a stroker, but it is at least better balanced.

Just get a pre-clearanced case in the bore size you desire.

Builder's choice kits are nice, and I believe you CAN substitute some things. I know I certainly would, but that's me: I'm a picky motorhead sumbitch. I believe they will work with you and you can omit parts(I'd swap cam and rockers for sure).

If you do get new heads, make sure you get the appropriate CNC port-matched manifolds.

The CB 2110 Builder's Choice uses a CB (Eagle) 2246 cam. That cam has 260° dur. @ .050", and lifts .411" at the cam. With 1.25 rockers (which always measure out to be more than 1.25:1), it lifts .514" at the valves. If you look at Panchitos flow numbers, there's almost no difference in flow between .500" and .600" - lifting more just breaks more parts and creates more heat.

For reference, an 86b also has 260° duration @ .050". It has lower cam lift because it's ground to be used with 1.4s. With 1.4s it lifts about .536", which is still within the sweet spot of the Panchitos. The problem is that my CB 1.4 rockers measured 1.47:1, which means .563" of valve lift.

Given Pat's love for long duration cams with Panchitos heads, I may walk back from my comment that the 86b is too much for Mike's perfect engine. Pat is specing a cam very, very similar to the 86b in duration (but not lift) for the 2110 kit.

I don't mind the cam CB selected, because it's very 86b-like, with slightly lower lift using the 1.25s. It plays nicely with the 28 mm lightweight lifters, which are the absolute gold-standard for lifters in my estimation.

Pat knows his parts. This looks like a great combo, but it would need a 1-5/8" Sidewinder and port-matched manifolds to get to 150 hp.

I love it.

Of course, Stan, you're right, IF Mike stays with Panchitos.

I think they're perfect in his 1776, and even better in a 1915. I totally agree about the suitability(or not) of an 86b in Mike's engine. An 86b with 1.3 ratio lifts .49" or so, right in the Panchito sweet spot. With my 1.5s, the lift is .571"(I think).

Once an engine gets bigger than 2.0 liters, I'd use different heads. Even on a 2110. This is really the whole reason I suggested 94 barrels and nothing more. Mike's 1776 is perfect for what it is, and swapping in the 94s isn't that much work: machine the heads, machine the barrels and bolt them on. Of course that elephant in the room(the loose oil pickup) still needs to be dealt with.

It is puzzling why rockers(CB) don't measure out what they're supposed to be.

This is one area where I love Pauter and Berg: their stuff is exactly as advertised.

And like you always say: buy once, cry once.

Mike, I hope you have a decent local machinist on the island. Do not buy your barrels machined from Low Bugget, you'll probably never see them. Pistons and cylinders are $450-500. $200-300 should get both the barrels and heads machined. Balance the pistons while you're at it, and rock on. The pistons I just got were all right on, less than 1 gram. The last set was 6 grams off. Maybe throw in a new cam and main bearing set and a rear main seal. Take care of the oil suction tube.

You may have to relieve the cylinder openings in the case for the bigger pistons: check fit and clearance before you split the case, then split it and clean the heck out of it.

@DannyP posted:

Michael is correct, there is work to do inside the case when running anything more than a 76mm stroke.

It truly would be easier to buy a new case already clearanced and opened for 94mm barrels. But you'd have to Hoover mod it all over again. FYI, Scat lube-a-lobe lifters have a camshaft lubricating spray hole in the middle, and have very WIDE oil grooves instead of the usual two narrow VW grooves. They are recommended for Webcam cams. I was unable to drill the case I'm working on, there wasn't enough material to drill the extra oil gallery.

Unlike Stan, I like a longer rod(LOL!). My 78 stroke 2165 has a 5.4" rod, but the 2276 I'm building has 5.5" rods.

I once had the opportunity to drive 2 different friends' Beetles built very similarly- stock geared 4.125 transaxles with almost identical Engle W125 cammed 78x90.5 engines.  The only real difference was rod length- one had used 356/912 length rods (135? mm) and the other 140 mm rods.  Both cars had great (and what seemed like very similar under full throttle through the gears) power and even might have run similar ¼ mile times on the track, but the car with the shorter rods just felt a little snappier, and seemed just a touch more responsive and fun to drive around town.  The longer rod engine just felt a little lazy.  Both engine had 44's, compression ratios were within 1 or 2/10's of a point and both sets of heads, while done by different people, looked like the standard porting at the time.

Unless you're building an 8 or 9,000 rpm screamer, my money's on a short rod engine.  I think a Porsche rod 74 or 78 mm stroke engine, cammed to make power to 6,000 rpm with Panchito heads would be a blast to drive in a Speedster.

I know the collective wisdom is that a 69 mm counterweighted crank (and some 74's) will fit in a stock case, but even with a stock stroke you have to check.  With my Berg 69 mm crank, the welded on counterweights hit the case at the flywheel and middle main bearing structures.  It didn't take much work to get clearance, but it's a good idea to check.

@Stan Galat- I have used a W125 (very similar to and I think it's what the 2246 is patterned after) in a 1750 (ported 40x35 heads, 44's, 1½" S&S merged) and it was a great street engine.  It idled and putted around town like a stocker and then at 4,000 rpm look out!  More than once people couldn't believe the engine idling was what it was.  In over 2 liters there'd be enough bottom end/lower midrange that close 3rd and 4th gears wouldn't be needed (but would still be that much more fun- all the more reason to join The Way Of 5).

I never did get around to trying 1.25 rocker arms on that engine- valve lift with 1.1's on the W125 is about .460", and as you said, to optimize the head's potential the lift should be up around .500".

Yoda out (time to go back to bed it is!)

@Stan Galat posted:

The 86b is nice, but I'd not use that much cam in this engine.

Pat Downs told me (and the numbers bear out), "there's no point in lifting Panchito valves over .500". It's super-tough to get a long duration cam that doesn't lift over .550", even with "1.4s" (which often measure close to 1.5:1). It's not just big compression and big lift that the 86b likes -  it's big heads as well. What you are proposing seems (to me, anyhow) like a bit too much of everything for a 2110 with Panchitos.

... unless he ran it with the 1.25 rockers he's got. @Robert M has a Pat Downs 2180 (I think) that uses a big CB cam (a 2292, if I'm not mistaken), Panchitos, and 1.25 rockers. He also runs a Vintage Speed exhaust, and the engine made nice power in a pretty hot climate. With a cam that big, it's going to need about 10:1 compression, which may mean fly-cutting the heads.

It just starts to get spendy pretty quickly, and the more stuff you change, the closer you get to just starting over. I think Mike wants to keep from starting over.

If I was trying to stay on the sane side of the street, I'd stick with the 1.25s and get a nice cam with gentler ramps, but with enough duration to have some punch. Type 1s like duration, assuming they have the flow to support it. A W120 doesn't run out of gas until 6500- 7000 RPM, and is pretty easy on the lifter bores and cam lobes. Running the CB duals is fine, there's no need for 650 springs and all the attendant issues that go along with them. I'd run duals even with the W120 - I tried it with HD singles, and broke one.

You can run CB lightweight lifters with a Web cam, as long as it's ground on an EP12 blank.

No matter what, I'm interested in seeing what happens. It's super-fun to spend other people's money.

Here are the specifics for my 2110 motor. Stan was pretty spot on except for the exhaust. I have an original exhaust from an original 356 that was modified to fit my motor. It runs very well and I have no overheating issues. I do run a Setrab external cooler with a 190 degree thermal switch.

2110 is a sweet spot IMO, just build a new one and take out the engine when your ready that way you can keep driving till then finally keep it for a spare, or sell it at that point as a turn key setup ...

fwiw a 1915 with 8.5-1 static compression ratio, Engle W125 with 1.1 ratio rockers (.460 lift), balanced internals and lightened flywheel, and a 1 5/8 4-2-1 Sebring exhaust is, to me, a pretty nice engine.

Claimed HP is 120 at 5500, torque about 125 at 4000. It's quite peppy over 3000 and  seems to like the air over 6000 rpm; I set the rev limiter to 6400.

It could be torquier in the 1200-2500 rpm neighborhood, and I suspect smaller primary tubes and a true merged header would remedy that some, and the better intake velocity of a set of Panchitos heads would do so even more. But overall it feels more than adequate in my 1550-lb Spyder. And that's with a 3.44 R&P.

The same jugs with Michael's Engle 110 and 1.25 ratio rockers would get him about .490 lift with a little less duration, so probably similar numbers to my engine, with maybe a wider torque band and a little more torque under the curve owing to the Panchitos and EFI. A really sweet combo.

Should Michael build a 2110 or more? If he wants more, I guess he should! More is more, after all. But I think Danny's initial advice is probably the second best idea—after leaving well enough alone.

@Michael Pickett

My brutha! I'm guessing your engine is fairly peppy and is pretty reliable as is. Just think of all the hundreds of various details, specs and tolerances you WOULDN'T have to worry about if you just kept the engine you have now and simply add the 1:1.25 rockers. Imagine if a 2110, with all the mods suggested, somehow does not meet a certain aspect your 2110 performance expectations. Where do you begin to change, modify or eliminate amongst those plethora of mods you've made and how much more $$$$ and time will it take.

Instead, enjoy the gift of each new day you awaken to, save those $$$$ and buy more Loco Moco breakfasts, more Poke Bowl lunches and more shave ice treats as you enjoy the aloha life.

...or not!

@MusbJim posted:

Instead, enjoy the gift of each new day you awaken to, save those $$$$ and buy more Loco Moco breakfasts, more Poke Bowl lunches and more shave ice treats as you enjoy the aloha life.

...or not!

Boy, isn't that the dilemma. Once you get the madness it's tough to just stay put.

We did get some great island news today. Our son and his lovely wife are due to have a baby boy sometime around Thanksgiving. Looks like Ada, my current assistant, will have competition for who gets Poppi's car when he's an old doddering kapuna. Maybe the 2110 is a bad idea and I should switch down to 1300cc.

.
Don’t know much stoichiometry
Don’t know much cam geometry

.

.

I wish I could like that 100 times, Mitch.

@Michael Pickett posted:

Maybe the 2110 is a bad idea and I should switch down to 1300cc.

You go wash your mouth out with soap right now...

My mother did that to us.

@Michael McKelvey posted:

My mother did that to us.

Yeah, I remember it happening a couple of times too...

I can still taste the soap.

my mom was ex gestapo,she used lye soap..this is in the 50s

Ouch, lye soap. My mom just made me go bring her a switch.

Mom's corporal punishment of choice was the wooden spoon.

It didn't come down on my backside nearly as often as I deserved, but it was still about 50x as many times as my brownnoser sister got. Mom switched to other punishments when I laughed at her, sometime around my 11th birthday.

Dad, on the other hand, was not to be laughed at - and laughing at mom in front of him was a sure way to make sure I never did it again.

@Stan Galat said- "Mom's corporal..."

Sounds like we had similar childhoods, dude.  I had a brownnosing brother, mum used the spoon (or whatever else was handy), and dad used his belt, which ended when I was about 11 as well- the last time I had welts over my butt, but refused to cry.  My brother, otoh, while I was getting it was screaming (and crying hysterically) while  yelling "I'll never do it again!" so loud that dad actually stopped in the middle of my @ss whipping and told him to "shut up! I haven't even hit you yet!"  We still laugh about that 1!

,

Yeah, a wooden spoon and a mouthful of ivory soap kept many of us on the straight and narrow, the only special counseling most of us would receive.

The last generation better seen than heard.

The last forced to memorize the nines table before being allowed out of grade school.

How ever did we survive such abuse and neglect?

Look at the helpless, dysfunctional, self-obsessed generation we became.

.