The Cal-look Lounge
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 19, 2024, 22:35:25 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Thank you for your support!
Search:     Advanced search
351056 Posts in 28638 Topics by 6845 Members
Latest Member: DonA
* 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
| | |-+  Minimum requirements for a cal-look engine
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Minimum requirements for a cal-look engine  (Read 12692 times)
Pekka
Full Member
***
Posts: 102



« on: March 11, 2007, 09:40:08 am »

OK, before anyone gets any ideas, I'm writing this very much tongue in cheek  Tongue (but still dead seriously)  Grin

I'm trying to build my cal-looker to fulfill the cal-look regulations but I'm on a shoestring budget and have very little extra time too. Family, kids, starting a business etc. you know the drill... As there has been a lot of "that's not cal-look" and "this is not cal-look" comment flying across this board, I'd just want to make sure I'm safe  Roll Eyes

So what in your view would be the minimum requirements for an acceptable cal-look motor?
Logged

I sent the club a wire stating, "Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member."

- Groucho Marx
Lids
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3527


show me the chedder


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2007, 09:54:24 am »

1776 plus twin 40's, this is a minimum.
Logged

If there's enough horse shit around, there must be a pony!
Buy your ciderberry here.

http://www.thatcherscider.co.uk/
Diederick/DVK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3692


They're never done till they're sold


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2007, 11:21:06 am »

I think a 1679cc with IDAs would do as well...
Logged

Diederick
 -
Proud member of:
DVK ~ Der Vollgas Kreuzers
Sander/DVK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 631



WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2007, 11:30:07 am »

Minimum 1776cc, thats it.
Logged

Der Vollgas Kreuzers
Fastbrit
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4731


Keep smiling...


« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2007, 11:45:55 am »

Minimum 1776cc, thats it.
So you're saying that all the original Cal Lookers, with their 88mm x 69mm engines, were wrong! In reality, a 1679cc (1700) with counterweighted stock crank, stock rods, Engle 110 cam, ported factory dual-ports, Bosch 010 distributor, dual 48IDAs and set of dual quiet-packs would be the archetypal "Cal Look engine" and would cost relatively little to do. And it would look oh so cool...  Cool
Logged

Der Kleiner Panzers VW Club    
12.56sec street-driven Cal Looker in 1995
9.87sec No Mercy race car in 1994
Seems like a lifetime ago...
Lids
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3527


show me the chedder


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2007, 11:58:53 am »

Minimum 1776cc, thats it.
So you're saying that all the original Cal Lookers, with their 88mm x 69mm engines, were wrong!

Yep Wink Huh
Logged

If there's enough horse shit around, there must be a pony!
Buy your ciderberry here.

http://www.thatcherscider.co.uk/
Sander/DVK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 631



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2007, 12:11:26 pm »

Minimum 1776cc, thats it.
So you're saying that all the original Cal Lookers, with their 88mm x 69mm engines, were wrong!
No, not the original lookers, but if you want to built a looker these day's, I think that a 1776cc replacement is a minimum. Thats my thoughts about it Wink

What I try to say is that a 1679cc with 48IDA's is more Old School.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2007, 12:16:00 pm by Sander/DVK » Logged

Der Vollgas Kreuzers
besserwisser
Full Member
***
Posts: 135


« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2007, 12:37:15 pm »

A cal-look motor is not judged by size,it´s the attitude that counts. I know of several 1600+ engines with 120+ horses with both ida´s or dellortos. A streetdiven 1600 that is capable of 14sek on the quartermile is cal-look to me. In fact the whole issue of Cal-look is attitude but lately it´s been missconscrewed to some written rules that takes away all the joys of new and exiting ideas. Ther are more than one way of skinning a cat. My personal opinion only.
Logged
Zach Gomulka
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6991


Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.


« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2007, 17:39:37 pm »

The 1600 I built for my '67 gave many bigger motors a run for their money. I dont think displacement has anything to do with it. If you strap 50hp of NOS to a stock engine and that gets the job done for you then that is cool by me. To each his own.
Logged

Born in the '80s, stuck in the '70s.
Diederick/DVK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3692


They're never done till they're sold


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2007, 18:29:22 pm »

That's what i meant KS!
That particular setup still appeals to me very much  Grin

Too bad it doesn't count for the 1600 class otherwise i could give those guys some whoopass  Shocked Wink
Logged

Diederick
 -
Proud member of:
DVK ~ Der Vollgas Kreuzers
christophe
Full Member
***
Posts: 241



« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2007, 22:10:21 pm »

Minimum 1776cc, thats it.
So you're saying that all the original Cal Lookers, with their 88mm x 69mm engines, were wrong! In reality, a 1679cc (1700) with counterweighted stock crank, stock rods, Engle 110 cam, ported factory dual-ports, Bosch 010 distributor, dual 48IDAs and set of dual quiet-packs would be the archetypal "Cal Look engine" and would cost relatively little to do. And it would look oh so cool...  Cool
That's one thing I wonder about those "small" engine with 48 IDA on.How was/is the street driveabilty(i'm not sure of this word Roll Eyes)of those engines?
Logged
Diederick/DVK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3692


They're never done till they're sold


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2007, 23:11:08 pm »

if i may guess... i suppose they ran small venturis and a w110 will give you quite some bottom end. so i suppose the setup KS mentioned would be fine.

am i mistaken?
Logged

Diederick
 -
Proud member of:
DVK ~ Der Vollgas Kreuzers
Zach Gomulka
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6991


Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.


« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2007, 23:21:30 pm »

I ran 36 vents in the 44s on my 1600, of course it also had big valve heads, etc. If the stock valve size is retained, then small 32mm vents would be better.
Logged

Born in the '80s, stuck in the '70s.
Dokke/DFL
Full Member
***
Posts: 199


« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2007, 23:22:32 pm »

Minimum 1776cc, thats it.
So you're saying that all the original Cal Lookers, with their 88mm x 69mm engines, were wrong! In reality, a 1679cc (1700) with counterweighted stock crank, stock rods, Engle 110 cam, ported factory dual-ports, Bosch 010 distributor, dual 48IDAs and set of dual quiet-packs would be the archetypal "Cal Look engine" and would cost relatively little to do. And it would look oh so cool...  Cool
That's one thing I wonder about those "small" engine with 48 IDA on.How was/is the street driveabilty(i'm not sure of this word Roll Eyes)of those engines?

I don't know about 1679 cc but 1776 cc with IDA's runs very wel en I never had any problems
Logged
Jon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3214


12,3@174km/t at Gardermoen 2008


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2007, 23:48:22 pm »

You just needs a smaller venturi to create enough vacuum for the carb to work... I wouldn't worry.
Logged

Grumpy old men have signatures like this.
Cheesepanzer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 431



« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2007, 02:38:50 am »

When I think of a traditional cal-look engine, with a budget, I immediately think of what's on an engine rather than what's in it.  For example, if you're on a budget, a stocker with some modifications would be considered "cal-look" in my book if it had the following:

header extractor with a single or dual QP
Original Bosch 009 or 010 and blue coil
Santana degree crank pulley
A set of Solex Kadrons
Set of 1.25 rockers and HD valve springs.
 
This will be a budget engine for sure but shows that you're cal-look and working....

Plus, it will be rock-solid reliable and sound nice.

Good luck and have fun!  Grin
Logged

62 Beetle (street/strip build)
63 Type 2 Single Cab
Cornpanzers
The Ideaman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 625



« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2007, 02:48:57 am »

A few years ago, at the Pomona swapmeet, I bought an unknown engine because it had ida's and Skat Traks on it.  Turns out it was a 1679 with ported stock valve heads and an engle 120.  When we cc'd it out, the little motor had 10.8 to 1 compression ratio.  Cleaned it up, but never ran it.  Wouldn't have run on California pump gas nowadays.  Took it apart, and now pieces of it are in my 2110 and heads are going on my 1776.
Logged

It is the soldier,
Who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped in the flag,
Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.
Diederick/DVK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3692


They're never done till they're sold


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2007, 10:40:45 am »

Ward, i'm working on that setup  Wink Grin

Luke, too bad you didn't run that 1679 setup. Were the pistons and barrels machine-in or slip-in? Contact me if you still have some parts lying around...  Wink

I liked Mank's specs a lot as well:

1679cc Engine Specification

AS41 New crankcase
88mm Thick Wall Mahle Pistons and Cylinders
69mm counterweighted crankshaft
200mm, 12lb, 8 doweled flywheel
Engle FK8 camshaft
JMR 044 cylinder heads (40mmx35.5mm), polished and ported
Autocraft 1.4:1 rockers
Berg chromoloy pushrods
Dual 48 IDA carbs on tall manifolds
Berg 26 mm oil pump
Scat deep sump
Berg 440e Equaliser crank pulley
Kennedy 1700lb pressure plate
15/8” Phoenix merged header
2 ¼” muffler (A1)
HP1 Fram external oil filter
009 Distributor

130 bhp@6,000 rpm recorded on the JMR dyno May 1997

Sounds pretty strong!
Logged

Diederick
 -
Proud member of:
DVK ~ Der Vollgas Kreuzers
Jon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3214


12,3@174km/t at Gardermoen 2008


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2007, 11:05:24 am »

This is confusing... some say cc is what makes a cal look engine, some mention parts... but no one mentions performance? Isn't the big deal here that the engine has a certain degree of enhanced power pr cc?

So if you have a 1200 with 70 hp that's cal look...
Or a 1600 with 130 hp is a cal look engine....

With this kind of tuning, its impossible to avoid a cal-looking engine.... except if you go with turbo.     
Logged

Grumpy old men have signatures like this.
alex d
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1033



« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2007, 11:09:07 am »

 I don't mind if it is a type 1 or a type 4, if it has IDAs or DCNFs or Kadrons...if it's fast enough to make you smile at every stop light and make the drivers around you go WTF Huh, THEN, it is cal-look,
Logged
lowfastbus
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 752


WUNDERWAFFE


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2007, 12:21:38 pm »

I like the 74mm crank with 85.5mm pistons idea alot, so much that I'll be trying it on a engine soon...
Can be done on a very limited budget...( no machining etc...) and you'll end up with a 1700cc engine.
Logged

http://dragvws.skynetblogs.be
WUNDERWAFFE
The Knuckle Buster
SilverPig
Full Member
***
Posts: 100


Alles klar?


WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2007, 12:25:18 pm »

I'd guess since it's called "cal-LOOK", there has to be some kind of appearance issue in the equation. Otherwise it could have been cal-performance, or cal-speed. That said, the whole idea has to do with whooping some V8 ass at the streetlights, so focusing on the engine is not at all wrong. I like the idea of a small displacement IDA screamer....which means IDA's are minimum requirements for a cal-looker. Amen!
Logged

Say hello to my little friend!
Diederick/DVK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3692


They're never done till they're sold


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2007, 14:20:01 pm »

I don't think we're going to agree upon this here  Roll Eyes

Silverpig, sure a cal-look has to have the look. But that doesn't imply that it cannot have the looks AND a nice quick small displacement engine. Sure IDAs are nice, but not everyone can afford them so other carbs can make for a nice alternative.  Undecided
I do however reckon you should at least run dual carbs unless it's a buggy.

Jelle, do you then know where to get a 74mm crank for a limited budget?
Logged

Diederick
 -
Proud member of:
DVK ~ Der Vollgas Kreuzers
lowfastbus
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 752


WUNDERWAFFE


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2007, 19:27:03 pm »

I orderer a DPR rewelded one, really strong and very reasonable priced at 350€ or something like that...
If you're interested in one send me an PM, I like them very much and also use one in my 'big' engine...
Logged

http://dragvws.skynetblogs.be
WUNDERWAFFE
The Knuckle Buster
quickkafer
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 77


German-Pride.com


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2007, 21:19:31 pm »

I say that it needs to be Type 1 based, and needs to match the understated appearance of the car.  No cosmetic "bling" accessories such as billet or neon dress up parts, and a subtle use of chrome if any.  It needs to look clean!  I know many old school Cal-Look guys that used all sorts of crazy carbs on their engine.  I think the bonding thread is that they (my buddies) were all dual carbed. 

If accessorized, I think you've got to look at Santana Pulleys, Race Trim, empi, deano dynosaurs & berg parts from that era.

Type 4 motors, turbos, Nitrous, EFI, are all awesome go fast performance items but not what I consider Cal-Look.

Just 1 man's opinion...  Grin

Scott Faivre
Logged

SOB/RFH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 329


Have fun!!


« Reply #25 on: March 13, 2007, 21:31:30 pm »

Guess I am out of the leuge then....I have a type 4 motor....It runs well....It has been alive since 1991 in upgraded forms........It has been  fetured in the mags as a cal-look car a few times..........It runs low 12's and no fockin trailer around it.........It has been street raced regularly...............It look like a type one and has all the concidered richt stuff like Berg linkage, MSD coil and dist..............Hey it can even run on idle for an hour and not overheat...............So if all else is "by the book" I fall out on the fact that I have a type 4 motor, and most of the parts are bought from FAT/Greg Aronson and I even helped them develop a few things....................guess I was wrong!!!!! Shocked

On a positive note. I love to drive my VW with no problems and think that Happiness is a Hot VW!! So the minimum requirement of a Cal-look motor in my book is that it run flawlessly without hesitation, whitout popping, without oil leaking!!! And it does not make a lot of noise...till the butterflies goes WOT!!! Cool
Logged
Rick Meredith
DKK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5312


We can't force ya to have fun


« Reply #26 on: March 13, 2007, 21:55:57 pm »

without oil leaking!!!

Hell that lets out about 99.9% of us!  Grin
Logged

67 Beetle - The Deuce Roadster of Cal Look
Jordy/DVK
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 464



« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2007, 22:01:02 pm »

 I can get just as excited about an Oval on "balloon tyres" with a double carbed 1200 as about a yellowish convertible with a type 1 turbo engine...
 It depends very much of the car that carries the engine... It's all in the combo..

 For a modern looker of there days a 1641+ is a minimum I think...


 About type 4's:
 I personally don't have any problems with a type 4, as long as it's made to look like a type one.
 A DTM shroud on a type 1 looks more wrong to me than a proper T4/Type-1 conversion...
Logged

Proud member of:
DVK ~ Der Vollgas Kreuzers
  "The Full-Throttle Cruisers"


1951 medium brown splitwindow beetle (resto in progress)
1968 Cal-look(-a-like) (my daily driver)
Eddie DVK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 866



« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2007, 23:38:36 pm »

SOB/DBR:
Quote
Guess I am out of the leuge then....I have a type 4 motor....It runs well....It has been alive since 1991 in upgraded forms........It has been  fetured in the mags as a cal-look car a few times..........It runs low 12's and no fockin trailer around it.........It has been street raced regularly...............It look like a type 1 and has all the concidered richt stuff like Berg linkage, MSD coil and dist..............Hey it can even run on idle for an hour and not overheat...............So

excatly,

Why are so many people against a typ 4 engine, it s a strong reliable engine which easely makes 100hp.
And with a typ 1 shroud(cali conversion) it looks the same as a typ 1, I bet a lot of people here wouldn t even spot the difference with a typ 1 engine.

But he thats my opion.

Kind Regards Edgar


« Last Edit: March 13, 2007, 23:40:26 pm by Eddie » Logged

Regards Edgar

" Type 4, it is a completely different engine. You have to drive one to understand! "
Sarge
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4345



« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2007, 23:43:07 pm »

OK, before anyone gets any ideas, I'm writing this very much tongue in cheek  Tongue (but still dead seriously)  Grin

I'm trying to build my cal-looker to fulfill the cal-look regulations but I'm on a shoestring budget and have very little extra time too. Family, kids, starting a business etc. you know the drill... As there has been a lot of "that's not cal-look" and "this is not cal-look" comment flying across this board, I'd just want to make sure I'm safe  Roll Eyes

So what in your view would be the minimum requirements for an acceptable cal-look motor?

I think most of us started out in your situation...little money, little time.  As for minimum motor requirements, the idea of Cal-Look is SIMPLIFY...meaning clean, simple, and functional.  Avoid the louvered aluminum firewall trim, the clear distributor caps, the slip-in 88's...concentrate on building something that's reliable, leak-free, and simple to work on.  Size wise, 48IDA's have been run on 1500cc motors successfuly (it takes some doing, but it has been done).  A lot of the old DKP cars were 1700cc (69X88 machine-ins) with IDAs, an Engle 110 cam and some 40mm intake valves...ran damn good, too.  Most importantly, build it the way YOU want it...your the one who's going to be driving it, right?
Logged

DKP III
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!