The Cal-look Lounge

hello,

i read the "cal-look bibel" every 2 month again and again. one thing i can't understand is the time on the quarter mile they run, for example:
greg aronson: 14,17 sec with a 1700cc engine with stock gear box ( normaly at that time i think was a 110 cam and 40/34 valves with 48 ida in this combo)
and later a 1800cc engine runing 13.5o
dave rhoads: 12.40 with a 82x88 engine 40/35.5 valves 130 cam and 10.1:1 compression ratio

this engines are build more than 30 years ago with no big spezial tricks and they are more powerfull then today....?
are this early cars very light or what is the trick?
i dont think that greg aronsons 1700cc engine make more than 110 - 120 bhp, today cars with that power run in the low 16 maybe high 15 or i'm so wrong?
can somebody explain?

dirk zeyen

I think some of it had to do with higher octane gasoline back then and some probably had higher compression ratios then 10.0:1.  Another reason could be car set-up...most of us ran on 165X15 tires compared with 205/70's or 205/65's.  A "short" tire will launch better with a 1700-1800cc motor then a taller tire.  Also, it was common to have close-ratio gears back then...something that's sometimes "overlooked."  For myself, I tried as hard as I could to get my car as light as possible.  Then there's the issue of having drag strips everywhere back in the day, so we got plenty of time to fine tune things. 

i think that the time and knowledge put in those (old) engines is more then most people put in it today.This is I think because options where very limited by means of availabity of performance parts.They had to invent the wheel themself.Today people just go bigger because it is available and as the americans say there is no substitute for cubic inches.We now get the horsepower easier then back in the days allthough I don't think most people are going the length of getting the most of their engine but go for durability rather then full on race engines.

michael

Dirk, I often wake up in the middle of the night wondering the same thing. "40mm intake running in the low 12's" Wow. Goes to show bigger hole is not always the answer. Like Sarge said too, the fuel back then, lots of 10 and 11 to 1 motors. Couple this with correctly set up rear suspension, light weight car............walla! Lots of seat time too. Remember, the cars you talk about born here in the O.C. These guys raced a few times a week. I for one am on board with takin' a little weight out of er'

The one car that I just can't get over is Dave Conklin (hope I have the correct last name) and his black 67' 2 liter, 10 to 1, NON welded 40mm intake!!!! the thing ran in the 20's at Carlsbad years ago. What a trip to see. It's consistent too. Later Casey.

all was better in the sevnties...tht's all :D

Ohio Pump Gas.. ;) ;)

I've often wondered about this as well.  Displacement was less than today.  The average performance cylinder head had smaller valves and port sizes.  Merged headers maxed out at 1 5/8".  IDA's were run with 37 or 40mm venturis.  Early engines ran 88 bore, and it was "wild" to run 92's.

I think it all came down to port velosity and the right part combinations.

But it is weird to consider a 74x88 engine pushing a 1600lbs car into low 12's or high 11's.  And it takes a 2300cc's, 44x38 welded heads and "big" parts to do it today.

Better part quality back then !

guys like Sarge weighed less back then

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Frank

Seriously,

I think it has to do with Better Fuel (High Octane), High Compression Motors and alot less Security stuff, Cars where Ultra Light and no huge Cages...

Frank

You MUST be right, the only thing that hasn't changed since the seventies is the laws of physics.
The guys back then just had better heads, just think about it, you couldn't buy the wrong head of the shelf...  but the right head could be made for you. And with them you received the porters recommendations for the rest of the engine. How could you fail?
It just comes down to know how

You can still get this service today , but it comes at a cost...

how high was the octane back then?
you can still buy fuel with 100 octane but it's leaded fuel

I use 4 STAR leaded petrol every now and then, it makes quite a difference to my 1776, :D good boost in horse power over unleaded.
I've never adjusted the timing to suit!

Does using leaded have any negative effects?

hello,

thanks for the information.
head job is one thing another is lightwight, but one thing is often overlooked: the smaller rear tires (165/15).
less diameter means to me something like a cheap way to shorten the gear ratio, today many guys running 205/70-15 with stock or near stock gear ratios, perfect on the freeway but on the track.....bad bad bad.
my rear tires are 195/65-15 but if i put on this ugly 195/50-15 it fells like somebody put a turbo on my car, ok i have a stock 4.375 ratio gear box no close ratio but the difference is fu..ing fantastic ;D ;D ;D

dirk zeyen

I cant speak for the others but Daves car i know well :)  When he was racing it regularly[twice a week or more] it weighed 1750lbs with him in it,all it has missing from stock are the bumpers,rear seat,front indicators,and the side chrome :D   It still is the same compression  10.1/1 as it always was[since 1980] all that changed is a few years ago,he added 1.25/1 rockers instead of the stock 1.1/1 VW :o  it comes down to a good set of heads,a well put together engine,the best suited gears in the trans[geared for 26inch tall slicks] and constant test n tune.


cheers richie,uk

PS heres a thought for you,Dave had different length rods for different tracks,do people try things like this now??????????????

oh and of course changed the heavy steel wheels for BRMS :D

cheers richie,uk

In another thread, Keith says that this old mouse engine were also grenade engine. Powerful, but not as reliable as big guns we have nowadays.

And I think also that, back in the days, peoples take more time to build there engine. They don't have as much perfo parts as us. They took time to adapt originals parts to hi performance use.
Now, you go to a shop, buy a 82mm crank, 94mm pistons, an alu case already bore and machined to accept this big cranck, take a set of those nice 044 cnc heads with 42*37 valves. That's pretty much simple! You can also order them from your armchair by Internet!

hello ritchie,

different lenght roads is interresting, so dave is a man we can ask about the best road-ratio, not many people tryed different roads in the same engine. but hasen't he changed the heads, today there are 42/37.5 valves i read somewhere (maybe DKP-site). i'm interrested if he could fell a big difference in changing his heads. in the good old days they run smaller valves and good head jobs and i think this works better then todays cnc ported monster valved heads.... :o

dirk zeyen

i am not an expert, but i don't think CNC is the all-make-good-solution in heads.

you can get lucky that the head fits the engine combo right out of the box, but in most cases it comes down to porting and adapting. and it really doesn't matter what you start from... in rough black and white thinking. it is a bit more logical to start with a CB cnc head that allready has 44x37 valves insted of welding up stock duals. it can be done just as good, but there are other benefits as well.
plus if Dave raced his car twice a week it is about 50 times more than our 2 times a year... and he can indeed finetune his engine way better.
but i really like to know more about these engines as well. if only for the fact that CR is not always that big of a boost in HP. sometimes i read about very similar engines, but with a totally different CR, but HP isn't that far from eachother.
i always have to think about the first dynoday of VWtrends. Bill's  car only has 8,6 CR and reached the number 2 spot ( a hair away from first) and yet he had one of the lowest CR's of all the cars.

Wasn t this on the orange and white gary berg drag beetle decklid

"They re is no substitude for a good head job"

That was Clyde's car, but the wording is correct.

he has his ideas on rods,but am not sure he wants to share them ;)    The head were a recent upgrade,same old heads just needed freshening up after years of use and they tried a 42 intake valve,with new seat and porting,slightly different trans ratios to suit and changed rods ;)   it has only been to vegas like this and with me driving[i proberly weigh 80lbs more :D  ]  and i was slower :(   it should get a couple of outings to the trck this year so we will see if the changes helped or not :)

cheers richie,uk

One overlooked factor today is weight.  Few people today consider how heavy their parts or cars are. 
Back then, you could get a Berg Mg sump, Mg intake manifolds.  Today, everyone wants to bolt on a 13lb overkill sump, and big Beef manifolds.  205/70s weigh more than 165s.  Fake BRMs, double the real thing.  There's a current topic in another forum about a guy who wants to lay 10lbs of braided steel fuel line from the front to rear where less than 2lbs of Al tubing would do the same job. 
An 84 crank weighs more than a 74, 94 P&Cs more than 88s, 1 3/4 exh more than a 1 5/8.  Fatboy muff more than a QP.  Full bumpers more than Tee bars (or none at all!)  One could go on all day.  No wonder today's tanks need so much hp.

Very true Bruce, and I made mention of this a year or so ago....how much attention do guys today pay to how much their cars weigh after all the "in" things are done to them?

I can think of a few cars that have all the look, but because of their weight, don't have the go of some simpler cars, with smaller cc engine. IF I ever build another "hot rod" VW,....IF......, it will weigh less than a stock Beetle, fueled-up at the curb. Cut unsprung weight to a minimum, build a welter-weight cc motor and go flying. Kind of like a Cal Look bug "R" model... ;D

better air quality ? the ozone layer was in far better condition then.

russell, you forget to mention we have to cope with higher temperatures due to global heating as well!

hello,

less weight is a very impotant thing: 5kg/ps means
1) 700kg and 140ps
2) 800kg and 160ps
3) 900kg and 180ps
so if you want to safe some money build your cars as light as possible and you run fast enough with a smaller engine!!!
for this year i will change my rear windows to some makrolon windows and put everything out of the car i don't need!!!

nicolas you want more information about dave rhoads engine, here we go 82x88, engle 130 cam, 40/35.5valves, compression 10.1:1 and 48 IDA 180bhp@7000rpm, if you want to know more you should ask fabs, this car was featured in a "christmas vw-trends" could be 1991 i have this issue but can't find it at the moment.

dirk zeyen

thanks! i may have that issue myself... time to dig it up.
but richie please tell us more about the car (at least the parts that are not top secret  ;) )

Hi nicolas,well what do you want to know?  ;)

 cheers richie,uk

I think weight is a factor but not the overall key.
As said engines were more carefully overthought and not yust thrown together 2.3 ltr`s. The people back then looked more at the detail and the details are essential for an high hp engine.
Don`t go crazy with the weight Dirk, remember we drive street car`s leave this plasticnut and makrolon all around theme to the big boys which want to go into the 11s or faster.
For me a cal looker has to be in a way practicale, so good driveable and LOOK GOOD !
And yes the 195/50 tires will have an effect, the car will look like shit... I am with that point that you will get a bit better time but for that cost`s ?
For me the overall-look is more a factor then going a bit faster. First time on the track at DDD1 I even throw out the rearbench and the passenger seat.
But the car then looked not good to me, so next time on the track with everything = same time...

When you have a strong and good build engine, you will even go fast with all that stuff that`s makes a car run smooth and look good.
For me THE reference is Olaf from our club. (Of course there are many other examples but that`s my personal reference) His best time is a 14,540 at Bit and this with an 1776cc orig. gearbox no slicks and all that stuff. Imagine what a close ratio would have an effect in this car...

(http://www.dflvwclub.de/getimage.php?imgsrc=images/gallery/events/2006/82.DAS Drag Day/IMG_0267-01.jpg)

And this car is no trailer cat ! Olaf drives it to every event, makes boils in the pan and drives home. Everything without lighter batterys or no damping cause it saves 0,5kg but you must drive with mickey mouses.

Just a very good build engine which even has an impressive torque. With 4 people (and even those were not the lightest ;) it went up the hills as there were no tomorrow...
I find it kind of sad that cal-look is devoloping into the trailer-race section. For me a Cal-looker is a street car that goes severall times on the 1/4mile to have fun, but is not build for that. It`s a fast driven STREET car.
Just my thoughts...

Driving impressions!   8)

thanks rchie, i am sure i will come up with more questions later, but maybe i just can ask them in person at VoWo.
 
but one thing that i like a lot about that engine is the use of 88 pistons. i can imagine when he build the engine that they didn't cost that much more as 90.5's but after all those years (and now with new heads) he sticks to the 88's. why? 42x37 is going to be a tight fit. i really like the engine.
another thing that i read (it is a 92 vwtrends issue with the feauture on the car and the 91 issue has the car in it's shiny glory on the cover but no coverage) is that he used stock rods for a long time. how good are they? i have read discussions before, but there seems to be a big leap between stock rods (on a 82 crank) and carillo rods which are still seen as the industry's standard.

hello felix,

olafs car is fantastic, but you do it the same way!!! and you are running 15.6sec in a notch with 1776 and stock valves and your car is more heavy metal ;D ;D ;D i run 195/65-15 at the rear and would them only change for racing( second set of wheels) passengers seat and rear seat are all in the car, but i use lighter cobra seats at the front. loosing wight is like a hobby to me, the makrolon windows are made myself, total cost are less than 40 euro and put in the car with rubber, if they are scratched after two years i will build new ones. my car never will be a trailer-queen!!! i can't spent much money on the car, so my engine-update has to wait, i build everything by myself, t-bars for less than 5 euro a pair and so one...searching for better times without much money :-X :-X :-X i must do it a different way.

@ nicolas and ritchie, i want to know more about daves engine maybe the secrets ;). if i'm right the berglar run at first a 82 crank with porsche rods, they are shorter than stock :o :o :o

dirk zeyen ( now drinking a beer, oh man nearly 20 years after my last english lesson writing english is not my favorit hobby but i will work on it)

dirk another beer and your english will improve greatly. if not for others at least it will for yourself.  ;D

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

cheers dirk zeyen

I agree wholeheartedly.  I've ridden in a car with no interior and plastic windows.  While it was a mid 12 second quarter miler, I didn't enjoy it for more than 10 minutes of cruising.  Zach knows the car well, as it was his roommate's, Travis.  However it was no lightweight.  The car had more tubing inside it than a Nascar racer.  How they put 800 miles on it in a weekend is beyond me.  I must be old.

Young dumb and full of ___. We put alot of miles on that car, it was his only ride for a long time.