The Cal-look Lounge

Given two engines of the similar size, would you rather have a larger bore or stroke? Would you run same the cam and heads on them or pick a different combo?

Example:

74 stroke X 90.5 bore
69 stroke X 94 bore

or

82 stroke X 90.5 bore
78 stroke X 94 bore

How about for a full weight sedan vs a lightened car? I know I left out a lot of variables. just something to think about.

--louis

I like the big bore because it helps unshroud the valves so the heads breathe better. I also wouldnt use a stroker crank shorter than 78mm... its difficult to get the deck height set, A pistons are too tall, B pistons are too short. And lastly, if you are gonna bore it out, might as well go 94. Same price, mo powa!
All this applies unless you are building a STF motor, or you are a goofy, period performance nut like I am, thats why the GTV will eventually get a 1679cc, my '67 a 1835cc, and some other car I build down the line will get a 2180cc (hey, when you come across NOS 92mm birals, you use them!!) ;)

The two examples were more to illustrate the different ways you can get close to the same size engine. Okay, lets throw in another variable. How about we limit the carb choices to a 40 duals or 48 duals. (Make is unimportant here.) Could even get real weird and limit it to a single center mount too. There are a lot of ways you could change this to make the combos behave differently.

Say you take the 82 x 90.5 combo w/ the 40s. That sounds like a good motor for a bus or TIII. Put 48s on there and put it in a light bug and its a different animal. Would you rather have 48s on a 74 x 88 or a 69 x 90.5 (or even 94)? And we have not even gotten into cams.

--louis

from what i know a larger stroke will lead to more torque. that is a very simplistic vieuw but it holds true to some point. but you also asked about cams and heads. that changes a lot depending on the combo you use. a cam like a W110 works really well in a 1641 but you get something like a tractor engine if you put it in a 2276 engine. in an engine that has the same cc's but a different stroke and PC, it also can matter as with the different combo the speed of the pistons changes also. so it does matter. but what matters even more is the heads and cam combo. if the heads can't flow the air and fuel there is no way the bigger cam can work in any engine. as it is said before the power is in the heads.
just look at the different combo's  that are built. Jim Ratto's and Greg Brinton's engine are both 78 x 94 and for instance gary bergs car was a 82 x 90.5 engine. they don't differ much in cc's from eachother, but they will work differently and there powerbands will be at different rpms.
hope this isn't too far off, but there is more to take into account  ;)

Bigger bore breathes better  ;D

It is all pretty much wide open. I am just trying to spark some conversation about different combos. It mostly started after reading the rags to ripper engine article and thinking what would be better. It or a 69 x 92. How all the components work together in an engine has always fascinated me.

--louis

The age old question....

So much of it depends on rod length, which determines piston acceleration and velocity.

I think a street car, with all its weight, needs long stroke to give it the torque. Think about how weak a stock motor feels, when you encounter a grade, even if it has Kadrons. A lot of this has to do with the stroke and also cam (on a stock motor, you're also restricted by the carb and the tiny manifold). If you add displacement by stroking it, the motor will gain more torque, through simple leverage, but also, the cylinders are going to pull fuel/air charge in "harder."

Ferrari engines, along with a lot of v12s, use much smaller pistons than a comparably sized v8 with larger pistons. They tend to breath pretty well and can get up high in the rpms. I know we are talking about different sized 4cyl engines so that probably doesn't apply. Just a random thought.

--louis

Im not totally sure what you're getting at. Given what I said earlier, Id obviously like the 94x69 motor over a 88x74... unless its some goofy, period correct thing Im building ;)

For a sane person (unlike myself ;) ) there are only a few motors worth building, IMO:
1600. Cheap to build and keep going. Can be quick if done right.
1915. Best bang for the high performance buck, by far.
2165. If you want a stroker and want to keep the engine narrow (for early cars), or trust a welded and stroked VW crank over a chinese one piece. (I dont advise going past 78 with welded strokers, but thats a different story)
2276. Great big motor. Excellent rod ratio with short rods. Motor stays stock width. Structural integrity of the case and crank is retained. Larger strokes require longer rods, then the motor gets wider and it is harder to get the ideal rod ratio back.

Those are the base displacements. Add whatever cam, rockers, heads, carbs and exhaust to get the motor to do what you want it to do.

They also have 4 or 5 valves per cylinder!!

Not the 60s versions. I am not really looking at a specific engine combo. More just starting a conversation on the different ways you can build the same size engine and what the different characteristics are going to be. Well, that and its rainy here today and I am bored at work. As for the engine sizes you listed, it used to not be so cookie cutter. You read some of the older mags and there were a lot of different combos being run. Now days it seems everyone has a 12 sec 2276. give me the engine size for almost any engine in a car featured this year in HVWs or Ultra VWs and I can probably tell you when parts they used without even looking at the mag. Is there no innovation in VW engine building anymore?

--louis

Ferrari engines use 180' cranks and small single cylinder displacement to allow these motors to make horsepower thru elevated rpms (we all know hp is a product of RPM). The smaller bores allow smaller "lungs" which are easier to fill at elevated rpms, even with relatively sedate valve timing. Multiply all of those "small lungs" by 12 and you have a big hp engine. With a VW we are limited to 4 cylinders to make power, so to make any power and torque, you have to make those cylinders big, and the makes it so much more difficult to fill those big lungs at high rpm.
There is a definite science to it.
In fact there is a formula that can be utilized to determine valve area required to make a level of horsepower at a given rpm.
For a Volkswagen street car, that you don't want to wind up to 7500rpm to make power, just build it as big as practicality allows. Obviously, 94mm's are the way to go, no matter which crank stroke you use.
When somebody asks me what to build if they are on a budget, and aren't familiar with building big cc VW's, I ALWAYS suggest a 1914. They run hard if cammed right, and are a simple motor to build.

Those engines were designed from the get-go to be free revvers. The Volkswagen?? Not so much!!
There were alot of "interesting" engines back then, because the VW high performance industry was still teething. I think I can safely say that now, we have it pretty much down packed as to what works and what doesnt. A N/A race car was doing pretty good if it made 200hp 35 years ago, and that motor was like a grenade with the pin pulled!! Now we have street motors making that much power, and more, on pump gas, that you could drive across the country!!

Okay, so what is the next step in the evolution? Monster 3 liter NA motors with Berg 58s? Or should we all just go turbo?

--louis

Turbos? Bahhh. IMO, the VW engine is reaching its peak in evolution. Think about it, its design dates back to the 1930's and its been hot rodded (first by Porsche) since the late '40s. Its been tweaked and tuned for almost 60 years! There isnt much left to do that already hasnt been done. I dont mean to piss on your campfire, but thats just the way I see it. I dont think that many of us are here because we want the latest and greatest in technology ;)
I think there is more power to be found in valvesprings, cam design, and heads... Multiple valves per cylinder.

yeah really... once you've got over 150hp or so in a Bug...how much faster do you want to go?
I think there are so few "street" motors out there that have reached the magic 100hp per liter number, that it's a pretty good indication that the poor little Volkswagen has reached its hp peak.... so many "real" competition motors have been able to cross the 100hp/liter border since the 1940's.

louis.... I think alot of the "copycat" motors that you are seeing (and I am glad you have brought this up) are the result of the industry taking a shift from where it was 15-20 years ago. Open any Hot VWs in the last 18 months or so....look at the ads...they are all catering to the "Rennkafer" phenomenon. Fifteen years ago when I used to take my car to Bug shows and the drags at Sears Point, I was sometimes the only car there sporting 48IDAs. Or maybe 1 of 4 street cars that were racing. Now I haven't been to Sac in years and years, so I don't know, but I bet there are mile long lines of street cars racing. So the industry has taken note and figured out they can make money capturing the desire of so many guys that want to do the "Rennkafer" thing to their cars.... 
Back in the 70's and 80's there were no such thing as off-the-shelf CNC ported "wedgeports"....sure you could buy Street Eliminators but they needed hours of hand work. My point is guys can satisfy their "I want it NOW" needs today. They can just click online, 82mm crank, 5.400" race rods, 94mm p/c set, FK89 cam, 48IDAs, CNC heads, turbo muffler....click...bing bang it's a 200hp motor at your doorstep.

they are all catering to the "Rennkafer" phenomenon.

These days there are very few "street cars" in RKF. But yeah I agree with you. If you go on the Samba there are advertisements for 3 or 4 engine builders/head porters guaranteeing 200+ hp engines that will run on street gas.

--louis

What kind of motor are looking to build, louis?

This post is more a mental exercise to discuss different engine specs, combos, trends. I am not really looking for a specific engine out of this post. But since you asked, ;) for the '67 I keep vacillating between a couple of different combos:

The vintage option. Would be great drive. I like this one when I am in a vintage/inexpensive mood but I think I would want more power after a while.
74 x 88
w120
Single Port heads w/ stock valves, port & polish
Kads
100ish hp
1 3/8 header
stock geared tranny w/ welded 3rd & 4rth

The middle ground. More expensive since I don't have IDAs. Still a reasonable engine to build. This is right out of the HVW engine book. Maybe 14s with this engine?
78 x 90.5 or 94
w125 (Actually probably a web 110)
40 x 35 heads
IDAs
140/150ish hp
1 1/2 header
stock geared tranny w/ welded 3rd & 4rth

When I am suffering from Baddest car in the Valley syndrome I like this one: Much more expensive though, but I am sure it would be a kick in the pants and would probably be close to my ceiling for a street car. The engine or tranny I could have done by next summer. The rest will take another year or so:
82 x 94
Web 86c
42 x 35 (37?) heads
IDAs w/ 42 vents
190ish hp with the right set of heads
1 3/4
Berg 5 close 1-4 stock 5th.

It all comes down to home much do I want to spend and how long do I want to wait to save up the dead presidents to pay for it. None are real original except maybe the first one. Course I could always use the set of 94mm squishie pistons and 86b cam I have had sitting around for about five years. I just hate the idea of being locked into a head porter. 

--louis

I had this exact motor in my '67 in the early 90's. Except 44IDFs.

78 x 90.5 or 94
w125 (Actually probably a web 110)
40 x 35 heads
IDAs
140/150ish hp
1 1/2 header
stock geared tranny w/ welded 3rd & 4rth

For a driver, it was probably the most fun out of all of them, maybe it was just because it was the first "big jump" for displacement under my young right foot. But this was the motor sheep and I went to Phoenix with, and it ran very well. The ability to blow by slower traffic on Interstate 5 was what impressed me so much, compared to the 1641 it had replaced. It would run very happily at around 3800rpm on the highway, under 180F, get 23mpg, and if I just tickled my toes against the gas pedal it would roar up to 4500rpm in an instant. It really was just a sweet driver.

Somebody explain to me why stroke is going to make more torque than bore.  I've heard the argument time and time again that "the longer arm is a bigger lever" and stuff like that, but I'm not so sure that I believe it.  Here's why:

The torque you are going to get out of a motor is going to be the cylinder pressure acting on the crank.  When you put a longer stroke crank in the motor, the journal is going to be further from the centerline at 90* after TDC, giving you the "longer lever" argument.  The catch is, on a gasoline motor the majority of the cylinder pressure is just a few degrees after TDC (~13* or so if I remember back to when I used to know this stuff).  So when you have this 6.5mm "longer lever" (82mm - 69mm/2 (stroke is back AND forth)) and you apply it to the peak cylinder pressure at 13* or whatever after TDC, then what kind of mechanical advantage do you have left?

If you go with bigger bore, you can develop the same cylinder pressure but apply it over a much larger surface area.  As a bonus, the bigger bore leaves more area between the cylinder wall and the edge of the intake/exhaust valve, letting it breathe better and increasing the volumetric efficiency.

So the way I see it, bore and stroke both make bigger CC's, which is great.  Stroke makes the motor wider, so anything over 86mm really starts to run out of real estate inside the case and can also make the motor super wide (I know, you can put a 92mm crank in blah blah, and short rod this, and pin height that, I'm just going general here).  Bore keeps the motor narrow, improves VE, and allows more room for even bigger valves if needed, and consequently even BETTER VE.

As far as advancements, you aren't going to spin this relics to 9,500rpm and have them live on the street, turbos are a plumbing headache, sound like popcorn machines, and have all the asthetic appeal of a big spider humping the back of your car- you can go with a CB style deal with injection but that's just $$$$, and you still lose the simplicity and character of an old VW.  So if you aren't going to spin them any higher or pressurize them, the only way to go is BIG, and I think Jeff Denham has knocked this one out of the park.  His pump gas street motor is making gobs of power and mountains of torque all while being set on "snooze".  If he ever popped that thing apart and went RennKafer style on it with a big gulp camshaft and C12 compression it would blow people's minds (not to say that it hasn't already).

For me, I think the way to go are big lazy motors- build it big, build it lame, it will make big power effortlessly and drive around the planet on kerosene and not eat itself in the process.

Let's hear what you have to say, this is just my opinion and that's all- just an opinion.  If you do debate/educate me, please keep the engineering equations out of it, I prefer to speek in layman's so we all know what's going on.

 ;D

Just like my 2275 was the prototype for the modern Cal Look/ Hot Rod VW motor when i built it 15 yrs ago... Jeff Denham's & Steve Dalton's  2.8-3.1L motors are the prototypes for the next generation of N/A street performance motors. I would be willing to bet that within the next 5-10 yrs 4" bore motors will be commonplace.  250 hp on 91 octane gas ? These guys are doing it right now..I found it amusing on the other forum that Steve D.'s performance @ LV dyno day did'nt raise an eyebrow. They did'nt understand that history was being made. Steve later made a jet change & it pulled 204hp @ the wheels, with the belt on ,91 oct Cali gas & at about 4000 feet or so elevation. Think about it..  That was the most impressive feat I have seen in a long time. I hope the CB performances & Gene Berg Enterprises of the world take notice & start making the stuff to do it available @ a reasonable cost.   Sorry to spill the beans for you Steve  & sorry for rambling    Bill

Okay, the cat's outof the bag Steve. Spill the beans on what you got in that motor.

Oh, and I hardly ever read the CLF so I missed the thread on the Dyno day. Have to go check it out. Maybe someone will show up with one of these motors for the next engine build off.

--louis

Wow, that makes a lot more sense to me.  I thought he was doing it with a 2332.

Not only is your motor the prototype for most of the modern Cal Look / Hot Rod VW motors, but your car is pretty much the prototype for the current trend in Cal -look style with stock trim, brms & 48s. Mason's black car would be the other car I would credit with kicking off this movement that has sort of culminated in the DRKC cars of today. I am curious what you would build today if you were starting off with a blank sheet of paper.

--louis

Heres another 2 cents worth, at this rate you'll have a quarter soon!! ;)

The vintage option. Would be great drive. I like this one when I am in a vintage/inexpensive mood but I think I would want more power after a while.
74 x 88
w120
Single Port heads w/ stock valves, port & polish
Kads
100ish hp
1 3/8 header
stock geared tranny w/ welded 3rd & 4rth

1) This motor will cost alot of money for the power you'll get out of it. 88's cost more than 94's, and that 74 crank costs the same as a 78. 2) It will end up wide because you will have to shim the barrells out, or if you run B pistons (good luck finding those!) you will have to cut the cylinders way down to get any squish in the chamber. 3) Unless its a stocker, why build a motor with SP heads?? Dual ports cost the same and of course have the capability to breathe MUCH better than any single port, any day. 4) The cam is way out of wack with both the headflow, and the carbs. Its a 6500-7000 rpm cam in in something that will struggle to get to 5500. As soon as the cam turns on, the motor will lay over because its sucking air through that tiny single port straw and stock valves. It will never come close to 100hp. Make it a dual port, drop in a Engle 100 x 1.25 cam, and you will LOVE it. Better yet, save a grip of cash and stroker motor headaches, and build a 1915 the same way. 100hp, and loads of torque from idle up to 5500-6000. Single port Kadrons are great for waking up a tired stocker, and thats about it.

Actually, this motor came from Dyno Don who ran one like it in the '70s. The 120 cam is designed for 1000 - 5500 so actually fits well with a maxed out set of SPs which as you say would top out at around 5,500. The small bore works with the stock sized valves, single springs and a 1 3/8 exhaust. Run a non-counter weighted crank, not needed if you don't rev above 5,500, and a 10 lbs fly wheel. The Kads with a single throat per intake port help keep the flow high. A bigger stroke or a bigger bore would be a waste with the small intake ports on the SP heads. The motor would rev like crazy, produces lots of torque and kill a lot of other bigger motors off the line. By the time you got to fourth gear the engine is done though. Again, it is all about the combo, but I agree, it is getting 100 hp the hard way. Still, I think it would be a lot of fun in a light car or even a buggy.

--louis

Yeah, I know it came from Dyno, and I respect him, but there are better ways to do it now.
I think you have the 110 and the 120 mixed up when it comes to powerband. On the chart Mark Engle emailed to me, it says the 110 is for 1500-5500, and the 120 is for midrange on up. But like Ratto says, I take that with a grain of salt. In fact, the 110 is better for more revs than that. I shifted my 110 cammed 1600 at 6300, and it would easily kick the 6500 limiter in 1st and 2nd. I believe that any VW motor, reguardless of displacement, will do the same. The only difference is that the big motor will make more down low. My 1776 with a Engle fk65 (like a 100 but designed for 1.4's), would even make power up near the 6k mark. So why put a high rpm cam in a low rpm motor?? The rule of thumb is here, use the smallest cam you can that still gives you the top end you want.
10lb flywheel and non c/w crank?? Sure it will rev up REAL quick, but your bearings will be beat to a pulp in no time!! There is no downside to using a c/w crank, so why wouldnt you?
My old 1600 made 93hp with the belt on, went 14.87@88mph, and I drove the thing everywhere- in Phoenix!. Sure, it wasnt a torquer, but it did the job, and quite well I think! I really want to build a clone of this engine, it was great fun, didnt cost a bundle, was reliable, and got 30mpg on the highway. This is how I'd do it now, with a few minor updates...

DPR c/w 8 doweled crank
Forged pistons
12.5lb flywheel
FK7 cam w/ 1.4s (similar to the 110x1.25)
40 Dellortos w/ CB update kits
40x35.5 ported heads, dual springs
8.5:1
1 1/2" header, 2 1/4" muffler

Do you know how much fun it is to kick a strokers ass, or better yet a 5.0, with a 1600?! Its the reason why my plate read 1POINT6 ;D

i put this in my baby

78.4 x 90.5
w110/1.25
Single Port heads w/ 40-32 valves, port & polish
dual springs
stromberg cd150

11lb flywheel

1 1/2 header

hey mail me some more info on that engine if you will; i have a 1641 and it only runs 17. 56 so there is room for improvement!  ;)


no rambing Bill, this is very true. the hobby has no limits really, there have been a lot of parts made and tested in the last decades and it seems that a lot of these things are finally used in streetcars, but the guys who are setting a new benchmark never stopped testing and developing heads, headers, pistons,... and what not. it takes a long time to build very good parts that will last. and like you said, i hope they are affordable.

and i have been thinking that an engine is a reflection of what you want as well. i personally would not build a 69x94 engine. i would rather love to build a 82x88 engine, but i can't really explain why... except that dave rhoads has that combo  ::), that is also what makes it so great. maybe we need to do a revival of the 1776 vs 1776 engine wars like Jim told us about. but this time set for a volume and build engines around that cc with different combo's. i am thinking out loud here. but it brings us also back to the top 10 idea that came up a couple weeks ago.

love this post, it really talks about what we live for.

Wow,this is deep.
Now you guys got me confused 69 c/w crank with 94 or 76 with 90.5,hahaha ;D

Unless you just into oddball engines like Zach and I are, then if your going to stroke it go 78 or larger. Build the biggest engine you can afford. The 69 x 94 would be a good engine if you can't afford a stroker or already have a 69 c/w crank. Then you can step up later to a stroker crank and have a 2165 (78 stroke) or a 2278 (82 stroke).

Switching gears, did anyone else read the article in the new Ultra VWs about the garnnet split originally built by Mike Gagen? Engine specs:
82 X 94
w120 /1.25
44 X 35 heads
5.352 Rods
1 3/4 header
8:1 compression
Stock geared tranny

Best time of 13.2

That sounds like a really nice setup engine for the street. I would probably bump the compression up a little and go with slightly smaller heads 43 X 35. Though that short rod probably helps with the 44 intakes.

--louis

I was part of the initial bunch of folks who were involved with Mike on the buildup.  Got him the crank back in 2001.  Under the red paint is some ups brown.  Have a pic of it somewhere in one of these discs.  Sure do miss that guy sometimes.  He's now playing with roadracing Porsches.

Thats pretty much it. Its simple and it gets the job done. A couple things I forgot... tall CB "Big Beef" manifolds, and an 010. I would put a 4.12, 3.78, 1.26, .89 trans behind it on 205/70's. Keep the car as light as possible!
When my car ran the 14.87, it was very light (1630lb with me, race weight), and it had 1.48 3rd, 1.04 4th. I think with more seat time I could have whittled that down to mid 14's, my 60' times were horrible! But I still drove it everywhere, it was my only car. I have no doubts that the combo I listed above would still get into the mid to low 15's, and be a much more comfortable car to drive with stock gears and a few more pounds of insulation.

This doesnt sound like a bad motor, but might as well go for the 94s. And if you go 94's, take advantage of the big bore and use some 42x37.5 heads with a 1 5/8" header. There is nothing wrong with the 125 cam, but I think the big motor would benifit from more lift. You could use 1.25 rockers, or go the FK8 route with 1.4s. Its much gentler on your lifter bores. Or the FK45... its a rampy cam, but that helps it make fantastic torque. Just get your lifter bores bushed! Sorry for keeping it all Engle, its what I know! I think that combo would be good for over 150hp, and get you into the low 13's in 3 gears on radials.

Then Steve Tims is your man. Fast turn around, great heads, and affordable too. His heads are on my friends 1915 that runs 13.8's, in 3 gears, pump gas, radials...

My engine 82x94, ida´s, fk8, 1,4rockers, original unported 40x35 heads, 1 5/8 header made 154hp@5400rpm w/o cooling. Best time 13,6/159kmt.
I´m exited to see what results i will get next summer with head porting, 44mm inlet valve and match ported intakes.

My engine 82x94, ida´s, fk8, 1,4rockers, original unported 40x35 heads, 1 5/8 header made 154hp@5400rpm w/o cooling. Best time 13,6/159kmt.
I´m exited to see what results i will get next summer with head porting, 44mm inlet valve and match ported intakes.
[/quote]

Who is doing the heads for you Johnny? Have you gotten the car through the tech inspection yet btw?? Sorry for the off topic...

This thread has a topic?  :D

--louis

I have looked at his stage 2 heads. (The sig heads are a little out of my price range.) The other option are a set of DRD's L6+ heads. Looks like a good head for the price. I will probably end up with something between the 2nd and last engine. 82 x 94 w/ a smaller cam than the 86c. I will have to look at the FK line. I don't know to much about them. Hopefully I will be able to start getting the parts together right after the first of the year.

--louis

i agree with bill. these 94 bore is small. any idea or info on jeff and steve´s 3 litre monsters?? hope they are not confidential.

how much to put in a motor like 3 litre??

So before rumors start flying, here's the beans.  I don't have a 3-liter, it's not even a 2.8- but it is darn close.

86mm crank by my man Jose at DPR (2" chevy/buick journal)
101.6mm P&C (4" for Yanks like me)
             =2789cc      =170ci
CB h-beam rods 5.5"
FK45
9.7cr
Angle-Flo heads
1 3/4" -> 1 7/8" -> 2" step header because the flanges I had were only 1 3/4, otherwise I would have just gone straight 2"
Header was hand built by me for better or worse.
2 1/2" flange
3" Walker Dynomax Superturbo muffler (actually really quiet)
48IDA's w/ borrowed 45mm venturis (thanks John!)
Bugpack 10mm headstuds
old Scat 1.4's
blah
blah
blah
chrome pully bolt

What else do you want to know?  Like I said, the car drives super boring and mellow until you drop the hammer- then it just pulls and pulls.  I don't know how much it cost to build because I don't really care, however I did write down everything in a little black book and will add it up someday- but not today.

Realistically there are 3 hurdles to build one of these:
CASE- Wasserboxer or Bugpack/CB aluminum (both have pros and cons but that's more of Jeff's territory)
PISTONS/CYLINDERS- they aren't your mama's 190$ Mahle's, but when you compare the price of 94mm Wiseco's and a set of long barrells, it's not all that much more for a hell of a displacement upgrade- especially considering the 4" stuff I got from VeeDub Parts Unlimited in Huntington Beach, CA came with really nice finned long barrells and Venolias (i.e. quality sh1t)
HEADS- so once you clap your barrells on your 2.7/2.8/2.9/3.0/3.1 you really haven't spent all that much more than you would a quality 2332/2387.  The catch is, do you really want to put a 200hp set of heads on it, or do you really want this thing to romp.  There are a lot of really talented cylinder head guys that can help you decide on what casting to use, punch out the bore, move the stud holes, and make some serious HP.  Personally, I went with Jeff Denham for my cylinder heads and I couldn't be happier.  Whichever direction you go, you are going to need a set of heads that are going to move some CFM, unfortunately that's usually where the $$$ start to burn when you build a healthy motor.

Hmm, maybe during the winter I'll drop the thing out of the car and do a cam change and add some snap to the compression- or maybe I'll just keep driving the wheels off it month after month... yeah, I like that plan better.  ;D

Sounds like a really nice engine. Other than the P&Cs & heads sounds like a fairly normal two liter. I bet the heads and all the mods would set you back a pretty penny though. But after reading up on it a little more I age with Bill S., this will be the next step. How do you like that FK-45 for the street?

--louis

I forgot about the chrome pulley bolt...

Finally found the Desert Dyno post.


Naturally Aspirated Class
Sponsored By: SO CAL IMPORTS
Steve Dalton - Garden Grove, CA - 69 Beetle --198 hp / 188 torque


Holy cow, look at that torque number. I would like to see the full dyno readout on that. Where did it start to make torque? where did it drop off? And the FK-45 seems a bit small for that engine too. I wonder what it would do with a larger cam. Those kind of torque numbers you wouldn't really need a five speed to keep it in the power band. Bet it would pull stock gears nicely. That thing is a beast.

--louis

Funny you should mention that, my now retired 2276 was almost exactly that:

82mm vw journal crank by DPR
FK45
9.5cr
94mm Mahle p&c
Steve Timms 42x37 non-welded heads
1 3/4 exhaust

I rolled over 50 thousand miles in the 4 and change years I had the motor in my car and I drove it EVERYWHERE!  It was my first 2-liter and it will always have a place in my heart.  It even made 186hp with 44idf's with muffler/no belt at the flywheel on pump gas.  I stuck with the 45 because it just drove really nice.  It didn't buck and fart down low and pulled hard from 3500 up to whatever.  Now in the new motor it pulls as hard below 3500rpm as the 2276 did at full steam, and once it hits 3500 it comes on like a madman.

Part 2
It made more.  I went down on the mains and put it back on the rollers and it put down 204.60 HP and 189.01 TQ- all on pump gas, with REAL muffler, fanbelt on, at Vegas altitude.  I have the graph here but no way to post it that I know of, however, it made peak HP at 6,000rpm and peak TQ at 4,500rpm.  The silly thing was making over 150 ft/lbs of torque at 2,500rpm.

As for the cam, it really was a complete guess.  It drives really nice and pulls my stock geared box just fine.  And the best part, it's not a beast at all- just a lame pump gas motor with a peanut cam and stock IDA's.

I didn't mean a beast to drive. I just meant those numbers are crazy. It sounds like a really cool motor. I doubt it is in my price range but I may check into it some more.

Thanks,

--louis

4" motors are the future. It is't hard to build either. I built mine in two weeks spare time and I am not any pro engine builder.
If CB made some minor changes to the case and heads it would't be much more expensive than a 2276.
I have more compression, cam and carbs so it is more on the hi perf side, but still fully streetable and on pump gas. It made 286 hp, just over 100 hp per litre.

So Louisb stroker cranks like 74 and 76mm are not recommended? ???

If not really why? ???

i think there are 2 general arguments against:
- it's more difficult to attain the desired deck height.
- you might as well go bigger.

I disagree with the thought about end of evolution.  4 inch bores, roller cams, and beehives are all fairly new develpments for street engines.  That being said,  i really want more info on building a 4" bore motor.  Must it be done with Comp eliminators or angle flows?  I wonder if it could be done with 044's?  I don't care about power at 7k, but torque is what moves a street car.  Sounds like Jeff D is the man to talk with about such a build.

There is nothing wrong with them. Just for the same price you can get a 78, 82, 84. There is also the thought that later, when you want something else, it will be easier to sell a 78+ than a 74 or 76 since that is what is in demand these days. The only reasons to use a smaller crank are, you already have one, you can get one for a killer deal, your building some sort of period engine, you just want one for whatever reason.

--louis

I was looking at the heads last night. I think a set of CEs of SFs would work. They already come with 48x40 valves too. Not that I am thinking of building one or anything.  ::) Is Denham on this forum?

--louis

Well, post your specs man. Don't be shy.  ;D

--louis

I just had an email from DRD. He can do his level 8 port to a set of CE heads w/ 4 inch bore for $2300 out the door. Not a bad price but a little more than I would want to spend right now. I think for this type of motor to be more common place, some manufacturer will have to step up and produce an off the shelf head with a four inch bore and the correct head stud pattern.

--louis

I used to run a 82x94 motor with an FK 87, 42x38 valves, 1.4 ratio rockers, 5.4 rods and IDAs with 40 chokes and third progression hole drilled.
The motor made 194 hp on a Stuska dyno at just over 6,500 rpm. The car would sit at 2,000 rpm in top, no bother. Drop the hammer and it would pull like a train when the power came on strong at approx 3,500 rpm.
Having run turbo motors on the street before, this engine almost converted me to the sole path of the IDA/big CC combo. I say nearly, as I still believe the turbo is way forward for real horsepower and drivability. But, hey, you can't preach that on this forum and not expect some flak ;D

http://cal-look.no/lounge/index.php?topic=1250.0

What an interesting post.  :) I will asked you some advices because I don't know what is the best to do

I'm planning to build after my 1600cc (yes only), a second engine but more exciting  ;D
I've talking with a French specialist about building a 78*90.5 ou 94. My goal is to have an engine that could be driven on the street and have fun on the strip. I hope make time like 14sec. I was planning to use a cam as a 86B with 1.4 or so.

But, after some talks, he advised me to build a 1915cc. According to him It's a better way to have a very strong short block for less money and use this money in better heads.
He gives me  3 choices of cams. A w125, classic and multi purpose. A webcam 86B with 1.4 or a Custom made cam of 295° with 1.4. This one will give more power than a 86B at 3500rpm but less at 6000rpm. Always compromises.... I like the W125 because it is a classic choice, it was designed in 1971!! but, cam with 1.4 will give me a better power band. Exact?

Heads will be 40*35.5 or 42*37 CNC with big beef or CSP manifolds. Carbs are 44IDF. I will run stock gear box with a superdiff. I can have 8*31 or 8*35.

Is it a good combo?

 ;)

Yeah, some heads with real cooling fins would be nice.

I think I have to side with Ratto on this one, how much power do you really need in a street car? Maybe Im just not the type who is trying to set the world on fire...

I would use a 120 with 1.25s. Its still a pretty small motor, you dont want to over-cam it.

Someone was probably saying that when the 40 horse came out.  ;)

It is just like what two liters are today. It has not been that long ago, 10 - 15 years, when building anything bigger than a 1835 was considered exotic and very expensive. As more and more people expressed an interest and more and more parts became off the shelf (After market big valve heads, aluminum cases, larger pistons, cheap stroker cranks & H beam rods) the price dropped significantly and now they are within the reach of almost everyone. I mean, how many builders can you now call up who have a ready made package that will make 180+ hp for around 4 grand?

I have been checking around today just to see what would be involved in building one of these big motors. Both the wasserboxer case and the CB aluminum case need significant modifications to work. The heads would be about double to triple what a set off "street" heads will run you. However, if CB made a few mods to their cases and CE heads you could have an off the shelf 3 liter for about the same price as a 2276 would cost you today. The pistons would be the only item that would probably remain expensive, but to be honest, $500 for a set of pistons is not that bad. And we all know a bigger motor makes its power at a lower rpm and with less stress to the engine.   

--louis

Hi j-f
from experience, I would suggest the Engle K8 for your 1915cc...with 40 x 35 VW heads, with modest ports. Be sure to add a merged header and run around 9.0:1, it will run very well with your 44IDFs. I have built this motor a few times and suggested it for friends too, very fast and completely driveable under all conditions. Have fun,

J-f, the french specialist seems to know what he is talking about. I built a nice 1914 for only a few thousand dollars and I spent the most money on very nice hand ported heads and 48 IDAs. My motor runs VERY strong. In fact, Jim Ratto was one person who advised me to build this motor a few years ago : ;D

I chose to use a webcam 86b and 40x35.5 heads. Stick with the IDF as im sure they are much less tempermental than my IDAs and go with the fk8

If I could do it all again I would raise my compression ratio higher than 8.3:1, maybe 9.5:1? And maybe retard my cam a little for a tad more bottom end power. Does anyone have an idea how a web 122/125 would run in a hot street 1914. .506/.478 lift and 262 dur. at .50

Is it a good idea to use split duration cams in N/A street cars? I like the sound of a engle fk42 for a 1914. This thread is cool. ;D

yes, this thread is very cool  ;D

The French specialist really know lots of things about VW engine.

But, I like to have your opinions about building a fast little street and strip engine  ;)

But, there is so much cam combos that is very difficult to choose one  :o. Stock rockers, 1.4 or 1.25, Engle w serie or FK series... Man, it's a mess.

it is a mess!!

but i would have opted for a 78x90 engine with either a FK8n or a W130... or a W125 i still have Jims 78 crank and was allready building a new engine with it. i was thinking of tearing the 1641 apart and clean up the heads, open the ports a little and go for the 78 x90 combo.
but just my honest opinion. why not invest in a 78 crank. you can buy a good one here on the lounge and a counterweighted 69 crank will be not much less... but i am not and expert ( i just like to think stroke and cylinders need to square up as much as possible.)
and it will need 42 dcnf berg specials on type3 manifolds or 44idf's.
but for now it will be the 'big' engine first. the other one will go into the squareback if it gets build. so i can cruise with the family to the south of france at a decent speed, fully loaded  ;)
but as i said this is a longshot.

JPM heads got even more cooling fins than stock.

Why a stocker rather than a strocker? Well, It's the title of this topic  ;D
Once again, the French vw specialist advice me to keep a 69mm because I will use a stock gearbox. And the power band of a 69mm is more adapted to a stock ratio gearbox. A longer crank will have a wider power band and you will need to adapt the gearbox.
A longer crank will give more torque.

I thought the heads, cam and such had much more to do with the power band of the engine than the stroke ???

a more torquey motor will allow for a more 'forgiving' gear stack (i.e. stroker= stock gears, 69mm= close ratio)