TheSamba.com :: View topic

Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:53 am

notchboy wrote: theizzardking wrote: SGKent wrote: If you want reliability and more power keep the T4 motor. If you want easy access to parts put in a T1 motor. If you want perfection buy a new car. If you have too much time on your hands get a new girlfriend or take up golf. :)

it's posts like this that really make me miss this place, i missed ya sarge, in a non-gay way, lol

Hey dont call him sarge. He dosent like that :lol:

:D Besides, how to you get sarge out of SG? Last I checked sarge was SGT.

Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:35 am

theizzardking wrote: yeah that motor does sound tired, lol, my semi-built type 1 motor from jerry at NW connecting rods does 70mph on the freeway all day long and drives up and over large/long mountain passes doing 60, you need to remember that the type 1 was used in vw buses since the very beginning, the type 4 in the broad history of buses was relatively short lived, only running from 72-80.5 or so, i'm sure someone will correct me as to the correct dates, imo there is nothing wrong with a type one motor in a bus and mine works just fine.

i've never been up against a fresh type 4, but my type 1 slightly modified either keeps up or murders my buddies with the later bays, and for all intents and purposes that's good enough for me, i'm not looking to win any drag races.

the only mods for power i've done is dual carbs and a super torque cam, everything else is bone stock except for the full flow, and i also run a complete '79 westy interior in my bus as well, so weight differences should be negligible......

and that's my take on it, i can't make a 100% statement as type 1 vs type 4 because I've never been able to have 2 that are in the same condition side by side , so it's tough to say imo, and i'm sure on paper type 4 is much better, i just have never come across a type 4 that runs as well as my type 1 if that makes any sense. lol

really i would just suggest riding around in some more type 1's before you jump to the conclusion that type 1's are no good for buses.

Ok, next time I am back in Seattle we have to hook up and try out each others Buses. Its been a long time since I drove a bus with built up type 1 and I don't think you have driven a CS w/ Ljet

Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:48 pm

From my understanding the type IV is built like a brick shit house that's why the parts are so much more expensive and why rebuilds are more expensive and why they can go longer without a rebuild.

I've never heard of a reliability issue with them either.

I'm not knocking type 1 engines at all. I had a 72 when I was 19 and never touched the engine and drove it every where. Plenty of power except for the hills. Mind you it was bone stock.

But don't be fooled into thinking the type IV's aren't any good. That's a joke.

Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:28 pm

I'll take the other side of that argument. From my observations, unless you spend some major $$$ on a custom reinforced head, they break too easy and can take the engine with it. Ask me how I know.

Yes...the bottom end is built like a brick house...I'll give you that.

Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:38 pm

Westy Steve wrote: From my observations, unless you spend some major $$$ on a custom reinforced head, they break too easy and can take the engine with it. Ask me how I know.

That's news to me. I've never heard type IVs having that issue. I've heard of them dropping seats and burning valves, but that's usually because they have a million miles on them or from poor maintenance.

But I don't know a tenth of what a lot of these guys know.

Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:51 pm

No slur on the T4. I own one.

I even think Ljet is spiffy, though playing 'find the vacuum leak' gets a little wearing.

And while the t4 may have a granite bottom end, there's pretty much only two or three folks who have done any post-OEM engineering on it. Whereas Type1 continues to be improved on by hundreds right up to today.

So while I may use up a Type1 engine in 100,000 miles pushing a big box down the road, I'm probably not going to get more miles than that out of a rebuilt T4 mill.

I suppose the T4 purists might tell me that the 'quality of life' with a T4 during those 100,000m will be better, but I am not entirely convinced. Its tough to just jump from one engine type to another and have faith that you're not going to spend the majority of your time by the side of the road.

A tough call, either way.

M

Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:24 pm

No slur on a Type 1 engine, because I run one in a 71 - but I'm reasonably sure that a Type 4 engine will run cooler pushing a Bus at 70 mph than than is the case on an a Type 1 powered Bus.

And when it comes time to slow down, slow down. A CHT gauge is a nice upgrade.

- Andrew in Austin, TX -

Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:32 pm

not really - a 2.0 generates more heat that a 1600 DP. But both can be flailed all day long at 60 mph without overheating them. A 2.0 does get much hotter at 70 than 60. I rarely push mine that hard because I can see the head temps increase. My 1600 DP head temps were as cool at 85 as they were at 60 but the bottom end would pound out bearing saddles in 50,000 miles or pull a head stud etc. - and the engine was balanced - it is just the design unless one wants to drop in a lot of money.

Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:59 pm

nodrenim wrote: I'd leave my 200 pound girl friend home!

i would do this first. then use the money you save to fix the bus.

Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:26 am

Fwiw, my 78 was converted before i purchased it and the po retained the 091 transaxle. When i took it out for a test drive, i couldnt push 50 over any sort of grade. However, having owned several buses in the past (including a 71 westy and a 78 transporter) i knew that 50 wasnt typical for a 1600dp, So i bought it and swapped the transaxle for a 3 rib from a 68 dc, retaining the nosecone from the 091.

Now, i drive my bus where ever i need to go, and sure, it takes a while to get up to speed, but i cruise between 65 and 70 all day long. I just got an oil temp sensor and will be getting a head temp sensor so i can report on those later. People will tell you that the late buses are too heavy for the 1600, but the weight difference is really not that much. A fat girlfriend as someone suggested.

Once finished, i took my converted bus on a 3000 mile test drive from salem, ma, down 81 to tn, over the mountains to charleston, sc, then back to asheville, nc, then back over the mountains into tn, back up 81 to 84 to 90 to 128 and back home. I killed a generator, but hobbled it together with electrcal tape and made it home. Sure, maybe i will have to rebuild it a couple of times in the same span that a t4 would last, but i can do that over the course of a week with minimal investment. Or i just pop in my backup motor that even built up a bit, still costs less than the t4 build.

The 78 bus that got my started in vws had the stock 2l and it was relatively fast and torquey, but i remember fixing it an awful lot and it was more expensive to maintain. they are great when everything is keyed in, its just a matter of getting it to that point!

My .02 :)

Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:35 am

Desertbusman wrote: If I was installing one in a late bay I'd use the standard 3 rib/T-1 package and mount it in the late bay just like it mounts in an early bay. Trans nose mount and engine rear moustache bar. No center mount.

DBM, just out of curiosity, why would you forgo the center mount? I have that in my bus and havent had any issues yet. As my previous post indicates, i used a 3 rib w/ the later bellhousing to use my starter and have the extra support. Is it a case of having too much support? :?

Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:43 am

The reason I'd do it Ken is because the stock T-1/002 combo was always just a trans nose and engine mustache bar mount. They didn't need the mid mount. But no harm in it.
What bothers me is when some think the rear mount isn't needed.

Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:35 am

Desertbusman wrote: What bothers me is when some think the rear mount isn't needed.

agree :)