The Cal-look Lounge
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 20:31:31 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Thank you for your support!
Search:     Advanced search
350646 Posts in 28563 Topics by 6811 Members
Latest Member: Bren
* Home This Year's European Top 20 lists All Time European Top 20 lists Search Login Register
+  The Cal-look Lounge
|-+  Cal-look/High Performance
| |-+  Cal-look
| | |-+  shim under or above the barrel?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: shim under or above the barrel?  (Read 14207 times)
Martin S.
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 990



« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2016, 16:40:09 pm »

I want some of what you're on if you think short rods are the way to go in a bug engine, har har  Tongue

TYPE 4 engines.  Grin
Not big strokes but short rods for torque to push heavy buses.


Now there's a real performance engine, sheesh, VW Vans?? Undecided

From CIP1 website where you can't even buy rods as short as he's using in the 2276:

'A note about rod lengths. We offer 4 different rod lengths because rod ratios are very important. Most engine builders today agree that longer rods produce more power, and less ware on internal engine components then shorter rods. Top engine builders try to achieve a rod ratio of approx. 1.6-1.8 to 1. A 82mm stroker crank should have a rod that is 145mm (5.7inches) to achieve a 1.76 rod ratio.' http://www.cip1.ca/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=C13%2D8310%2DARP
Logged

Cal Look white 68 Bug with AJ Sims EFI Turbo 2332. 194hp 240tq @ 5500 rpm 3psi boost.
DaveN
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 420


« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2016, 17:00:38 pm »

Why don't you build two engines.  One with the recommended 5.7" rod and one with the Porsche length rod. dyno them and show everyone your results?
Logged
Martin S.
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 990



« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2016, 17:13:05 pm »

That would be a good magazine article. Most people already have their mind made up by the time they start paying the engine shop for machining, etc. For myself, I went with what my engine builder recommended.  Cool
Logged

Cal Look white 68 Bug with AJ Sims EFI Turbo 2332. 194hp 240tq @ 5500 rpm 3psi boost.
1946vw
Full Member
***
Posts: 105



« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2016, 18:45:09 pm »

If I had to make a list of the ten most important specifications in a racing engine, connecting rod length would rank about fiftieth. Back in the days when Buddy Morrison and I built dozens of small-block Modified motors, we earnestly believed that an engine needed a 1.9:1 rod/stroke ratio. Today every Pro Stock team uses blocks with super-short deck heights, and we couldn’t care less about the rod ratio. A short deck height improves the alignment between the intake manifold runners and the cylinder head intake ports, and helps to stabilize the valvetrain. These are much more important considerations than the rod-to-stroke ratio. There’s no magic – a rod’s function is to connect the piston to the crankshaft. Period. David Reher
Logged
Martin S.
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 990



« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2016, 18:52:02 pm »

Wow I didn't see that coming! Totally agree about the short deck height. But I don't get your intake manifold and head port reason. I like it because it makes your engine efficient (burns everything and thus runs cool) and creates POWER without having to advance timing. The tighter the better. .035" seems reasonable for a bug motor. Wink
Logged

Cal Look white 68 Bug with AJ Sims EFI Turbo 2332. 194hp 240tq @ 5500 rpm 3psi boost.
nicolas
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3996



« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2016, 19:55:48 pm »

Ok, maybe a bit of a trivial question, but i am weighing the pros and cons on a solid 1mm shim under the barrel or a copper 1mm shim on top between barrel and head.
which is better, are there benefits doing one or the other?



Nicolas, one thing I learned about 20 yr ago was to machine the chamfer off the top of the cylinders, to increase seating area. No matter copper gasket or not.

i could do that, makes sense as far as seating surface goes. i'll dig into this deeper.

Why don't you build two engines.  One with the recommended 5.7" rod and one with the Porsche length rod. dyno them and show everyone your results?

yes, that is also an option. i am more then likely going to rebuild this thing within the next few years and if i can come up with a good set of 5.5's or 5.6's i might give it a ty. why not.
for now however i want to get this engine build and hopefully be able to taste at last PG tips turbo engines  Grin
Logged
Martin S.
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 990



« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2016, 23:36:23 pm »

Why not? There are a few reasons for a street engine if you want to do a proper job with the cooling system. The cylinder tin had to be extended using another set of cylinder tin as donor metal and the shroud had to be modified, stretched and tweaked to fit on the cylinder tin and not have huge air leaks. The header needs to be cut and stretched out to fit the wider motor as well as the intake manifold. Plenty of extra work is involved! Here's a pic looking very frankensteinish...
Logged

Cal Look white 68 Bug with AJ Sims EFI Turbo 2332. 194hp 240tq @ 5500 rpm 3psi boost.
Bruce
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1414


« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2016, 06:12:44 am »

I can remember Mark Herbert was a fan of short rod motors.
The piston dwell time at TDC and BDC was less with a low rod ratio.
I think the big reason Mark liked them was that piston acceleration rates are higher with a short rod, so this will force a port to flow better than if you had a long rod.

For Nicolas' original question, go with the shim under the cylinder.  The shim on the top just creates twice as many surfaces that can have a sealing failure.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2016, 06:15:08 am by Bruce » Logged
neil68
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 538



« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2016, 07:30:55 am »

I would put copper on top then to keep as much of piston as possible in cylinder at BDC

For my 2332 cc with Mahle cylinders, I used copper head gaskets for this very reason.  When checking the piston skirts, more cylinder shims wouldn't have been the best idea, as the piston would have pulled out the cylinder further.
Logged

Neil
Der Kleiner Rennwagens
'68 Beetle, 2332 cc, 204 WHP
12.5 seconds @ 172 KM/H (107.5 MPH)
Dynojet Test:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9B_H3eklAo
Martin S.
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 990



« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2016, 00:51:32 am »

I can remember Mark Herbert was a fan of short rod motors.
The piston dwell time at TDC and BDC was less with a low rod ratio.
I think the big reason Mark liked them was that piston acceleration rates are higher with a short rod, so this will force a port to flow better than if you had a long rod.


Bruce, do you believe that? Huh
Logged

Cal Look white 68 Bug with AJ Sims EFI Turbo 2332. 194hp 240tq @ 5500 rpm 3psi boost.
Taylor
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 576



« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2016, 11:12:01 am »

If I had to make a list of the ten most important specifications in a racing engine, connecting rod length would rank about fiftieth. Back in the days when Buddy Morrison and I built dozens of small-block Modified motors, we earnestly believed that an engine needed a 1.9:1 rod/stroke ratio. Today every Pro Stock team uses blocks with super-short deck heights, and we couldn’t care less about the rod ratio. A short deck height improves the alignment between the intake manifold runners and the cylinder head intake ports, and helps to stabilize the valvetrain. These are much more important considerations than the rod-to-stroke ratio. There’s no magic – a rod’s function is to connect the piston to the crankshaft. Period. David Reher
Wow I didn't see that coming! Totally agree about the short deck height. But I don't get your intake manifold and head port reason. I like it because it makes your engine efficient (burns everything and thus runs cool) and creates POWER without having to advance timing. The tighter the better. .035" seems reasonable for a bug motor. Wink

Martin, you missed the most important part of Brian's quote.  The part that said it came from David Reher.  He's not talking about the space from piston top to cylinder top deck.  He's talking about NHRA pro stock V8 block deck.
Logged
Martin S.
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 990



« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2016, 15:52:59 pm »

Ok now that makes more sense to me. The priority for those engines is the intake. That's not the same as for a VW engine where the priorities could be increased cost or fitting the motor in the car. We're lucky that modifying the rod length, along with barrel length is fairly straightforward. You're simply missing out on power/rpm if you don't go for it. My engine builder had a one track mind and that was to build it the best with the parts I felt like paying for. He said I could easily open up / match the intakes, bolt on some dual carbs and go win some races with the engine.
Logged

Cal Look white 68 Bug with AJ Sims EFI Turbo 2332. 194hp 240tq @ 5500 rpm 3psi boost.
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!