| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Matthew
Samba Member
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: Fort Pierce, FL
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| vwracerdave wrote: |
I would build a simple 69 X 88 = 1679 with dual kadrons/ICT's, stock valve heads with a fluff & buff, Engle VZ-14 cam, SVDA, and 8.5 compression. I'd run a stock geared 67-68 swingaxle or 69-72 IRS transaxle. Early Bugs are lighter then later Bugs so I'd stay with a '67 or earlier. I'd run 165's up front and 195/65's in back. I absolutely would not build that stupid Hot VW mileage engine. They spent more in exotic parts then they'll save in fuel cost.
less. |
I'm intrigued by this one. How long could that vz14 go between valve jobs? I know the fast ramps cause increased noise and wear, but how bad would it be?
_________________
1965 Beetle sedan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spencerfvee
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1292
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
my self i never liked a vz 14 cam for the street . it would depend on how hard you drive . if you beat on the motor . all the time .no valve job will last lol. what i am trying to say. is its how you drive . spencerfvee
| Matthew wrote: |
| vwracerdave wrote: |
I would build a simple 69 X 88 = 1679 with dual kadrons/ICT's, stock valve heads with a fluff & buff, Engle VZ-14 cam, SVDA, and 8.5 compression. I'd run a stock geared 67-68 swingaxle or 69-72 IRS transaxle. Early Bugs are lighter then later Bugs so I'd stay with a '67 or earlier. I'd run 165's up front and 195/65's in back. I absolutely would not build that stupid Hot VW mileage engine. They spent more in exotic parts then they'll save in fuel cost.
less. |
I'm intrigued by this one. How long could that vz14 go between valve jobs? I know the fast ramps cause increased noise and wear, but how bad would it be? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spencerfvee
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1292
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
heres my 2 cents . how about polishing all parts glass smoth with a buffer polish the .crank .and rod bushings .cam . lifters. crank gears. timming gears oil pump gears and shaft. push rod ends and lifter bores a formula vee trick . . one over looked thing is crank alinement with cyls. by cuting the bore holes a little bigger on the case and heads . so that the cyls and pistions aline with the crank. a old dean lowery trick. shimming the distributor drive gear end play . you would be shocked at how much that drive gear goes up and down in the case. even worst if one for gets to put the spring in .allso take the end play out of the distributor shaft. use a deep sump to keep oil off of crank .all above frees up HP just my two cents spencerfvee
| danielsan wrote: |
I chase MPG just to do it but you are building for mpg and hoping to come out ahead of the game you can't go wrong with:
1. Dynamic balancing -- free power and better mpg through efficiency
2. Synthetic gear oil
3. Synthetic wheel bearing grease
4. 35 cold psi in the tires
5. Single carb with working pre-heat (yes duals might be better but not if you want to keep money in your pocket)
Oh, and, I know I'll regret commenting on politics here but that 1.87 a gallon link leads to an article which leads to consumer report blurb which gets its data from the U.S. energy information administration so why not go right to the source?
Check out prices during June-July 2008 when gas was above 4 dollars and remember how great those Bush years were.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPM0_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W |
Last edited by spencerfvee on Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:53 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bill may
Samba Member
Joined: August 27, 2003
Posts: 13995
Location: san diego,ca
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
how about a mo-ped? i spent $45 for gas to go to octo from san diego to long beach. i had fun so it was worth it tho'. i do have a half tank left in my bus.
oval body,since metal weighs less than glass.lexan to replace all glass except windshield. 2 front seats in case 1 other person wants to hitch a ride. no rear seat.good condition 1600 single port. 4.12 RP with bus .82 4th.
_________________
1965 panel bus-Kermit
"Camping is cheaper than therapy"
www.sv2s.com
www.steeringboxscrapers.net
SBS #100
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=453617 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbbugs
Samba Member
Joined: September 16, 2002
Posts: 1714
Location: Behind the wheel
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm switching froma single 44 IDF to dual 48IDF's on my endurance roadrace car. We'll be running this Saturday in a 24-hour race. It's going to be interesting to see how much the fuel milieage will change. Last year we ran a 1904CC w/a single 44 IDF and burned 130 gallons in 24 hours. Our fuel bill this weekend is going to hurt!
_________________
Drag bus! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2MOVmKdhX4
58' double-door panel
57'tubeframe dragbug
73' Super Beetle CrapCan roadracer
and an 04'F150 to tow them with
Contrary to popular Samba Folklore, the 010 is Not the sliced bread of VW distributors
www.jbbugs.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spencerfvee
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1292
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
good luck hope every thing works out for you let us know how much fuel you use for the race spencerfvee ...
| jbbugs wrote: |
| I'm switching froma single 44 IDF to dual 48IDF's on my endurance roadrace car. We'll be running this Saturday in a 24-hour race. It's going to be interesting to see how much the fuel milieage will change. Last year we ran a 1904CC w/a single 44 IDF and burned 130 gallons in 24 hours. Our fuel bill this weekend is going to hurt! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spencerfvee
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1292
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
the mo-ped would not work in ohio right now its only 25degs out lol... you make a good point getting the weight out of a bug or vw maybe all fiberglass fenders hood eng. lid use of alum. where you can some thing to think about spencerfvee
| bill may wrote: |
how about a mo-ped? i spent $45 for gas to go to octo from san diego to long beach. i had fun so it was worth it tho'. i do have a half tank left in my bus.
oval body,since metal weighs less than glass.lexan to replace all glass except windshield. 2 front seats in case 1 other person wants to hitch a ride. no rear seat.good condition 1600 single port. 4.12 RP with bus .82 4th. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Windisch
Samba Member
Joined: September 02, 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: Fraser, Michigan
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
People can't (generally) talk politics because most people would rather be right than open minded. Sometimes talking means shutting your mouth and listening too.
Direct injection does play a role in what is being achieved in today's cars. Because fuel is injected directly into the chamber, there is no fuel condensation to worry about, so cold start emissions and fuel consumption are dramatically reduced. It also allows for increased compression ratio because the fuel can be controlled separately from the intake valves. Of course, most engines now also can control when and how long the valves are open by controlling the advance and retard of the camshafts.
But, as has been stated, today's cars are actually heavier than they ever have been. My friend has a 2 door hatchback Focus. It weighs a little over 2600 lbs. Wiring, modules, extra crash bars, air bags, sound deadening, all this stuff adds weight. Cars had to get more efficient, or they would be getting worse mileage than they were 30 years ago.
_________________
*ASE Recertified Master Automotive Tech*
1984 Mexican Beetle
2013 Chevrolet Volt DD
2005 Pontiac Montana SV6 (the loser cruiser)
Heidebreicht Chevrolet
http://www.heidebreicht.com/HomePage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spencerfvee
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1292
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
not that i would do it . but what if some one put one of these new motors that gets over 40mpg into a 1965 bug. the milage one might get could reach 50 60 MPG maybe spencerfvee
| Paul Windisch wrote: |
People can't (generally) talk politics because most people would rather be right than open minded. Sometimes talking means shutting your mouth and listening too.
Direct injection does play a role in what is being achieved in today's cars. Because fuel is injected directly into the chamber, there is no fuel condensation to worry about, so cold start emissions and fuel consumption are dramatically reduced. It also allows for increased compression ratio because the fuel can be controlled separately from the intake valves. Of course, most engines now also can control when and how long the valves are open by controlling the advance and retard of the camshafts.
But, as has been stated, today's cars are actually heavier than they ever have been. My friend has a 2 door hatchback Focus. It weighs a little over 2600 lbs. Wiring, modules, extra crash bars, air bags, sound deadening, all this stuff adds weight. Cars had to get more efficient, or they would be getting worse mileage than they were 30 years ago. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[email protected]
Samba Member
Joined: August 03, 2002
Posts: 7124
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
a modern engine in a vintage VW will likely get good MPG in town, but not on the hwy. The aerodynamics are just not there, but the weight is great for stop/go.
_________________
Please do NOT send me Private Messages through the Samba PM System (I will not see them). Send me an e-mail to john at aircooled dot net
"Like" our Facebook page at
http://www.facebook.com/vwpartsaircoolednet
and get a 5% off code for use on one order for VW Parts ON THE NEW WEBSITE, vwparts.aircooled.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigbore
Samba Member
Joined: December 19, 2003
Posts: 2713
Location: Wasilla Alaska
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well i tell you guys what last summer in my stock 71 westy FULLY loaded for a week long camping trip with my mom running up to the arctic circle with a bone stock 1600 DP don't know how old I didn't build the engine it was in the bus when I got it but it was just tuned for the trip. 2 times in the trip it got 30 mpg  I wasn't expecting that let me tell you. once I thought maybe I did the math wrong well it happened 2 times most of the time we were getting 23 to 24 mpg and that is great fully load for camping. it just comes down to driving style I don't care how pissed off other drivers get around me I pull over and let them by and if that is not good enough then too bad most of the time I do the speed limit but I have been very impressed with the engine in this 71 in have there is a tag on it the builder was northwest engine exchange I have never heard of them but the engine has been great I have been running it for 3 years and I don't know how many miles are one it before hand.
I think the reason for the high mpg the run of road it happened in was going in to a little town off the highway it was dirt road for 145 miles very slow going in then 145 coming out thats is when the 30 mpg happened going in then coming out.
_________________
where its cold and snowy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spencerfvee
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1292
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
that is super good milage for as bus . spencerfvee
| bigbore wrote: |
Well i tell you guys what last summer in my stock 71 westy FULLY loaded for a week long camping trip with my mom running up to the arctic circle with a bone stock 1600 DP don't know how old I didn't build the engine it was in the bus when I got it but it was just tuned for the trip. 2 times in the trip it got 30 mpg I wasn't expecting that let me tell you. once I thought maybe I did the math wrong well it happened 2 times most of the time we were getting 23 to 24 mpg and that is great fully load for camping. it just comes down to driving style I don't care how pissed off other drivers get around me I pull over and let them by and if that is not good enough then too bad most of the time I do the speed limit but I have been very impressed with the engine in this 71 in have there is a tag on it the builder was northwest engine exchange I have never heard of them but the engine has been great I have been running it for 3 years and I don't know how many miles are one it before hand.
I think the reason for the high mpg the run of road it happened in was going in to a little town off the highway it was dirt road for 145 miles very slow going in then 145 coming out thats is when the 30 mpg happened going in then coming out.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skaunejohan
Samba Member
Joined: September 27, 2009
Posts: 11
Location: terra scania(skauneland)
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| [email protected] wrote: |
a properly setup single will get better MPG than duals. There is more time for the fuel to fully vaporise. BUT I think that would require a larger carburettor, like a 30mm venturi.
|
how is the fuel consumption with a progressive that is properly tuned?
I have driven "new" cars from the 70s-80s like vw golf mk2 with a progressive carb that had great fuel consumption as long you add manifold heat and it would really move when you needed it to.
it seems to rule out type 4 engines for best fuel consumption since you cannot use a centermount on them???
btw sorry for the little offtopic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spencerfvee
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1292
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
my friend uses a progressive carb on his 69x94 motor with a scat c35 cam . and gets 30 mpg on trips and 22 to 25 most of the time. to me theres nothing wrong with useing a progressive carb . there has been one person who posted about his MPG with a type 4 motor . it seems he does well on MPG with his type 4 motors . over seas there seems to be a lot of guys useing type 4 motors in there vws . i dont know what there MPG is maybe they can post what there MPG is spencerfvee
| skaunejohan wrote: |
| [email protected] wrote: |
a properly setup single will get better MPG than duals. There is more time for the fuel to fully vaporise. BUT I think that would require a larger carburettor, like a 30mm venturi.
|
how is the fuel consumption with a progressive that is properly tuned?
I have driven "new" cars from the 70s-80s like vw golf mk2 with a progressive carb that had great fuel consumption as long you add manifold heat and it would really move when you needed it to.
it seems to rule out type 4 engines for best fuel consumption since you cannot use a centermount on them???
btw sorry for the little offtopic |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catbox
Samba Member
Joined: May 16, 2007
Posts: 520
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the reading that I have done on my current engine build I will be getting better mileage from my 2332 than I did with my 1600 dressed with Kadrons and an extractor.
Even though it is being built as a performance minded build, the efficiency that is being put into the recipe of the engine will allow it to pull down better milage than the original.....As long as I take it easy on the gas pedal.
This will be in my daily driver 1973 super.
_________________
"...these cars were preferred by the racers because the strut front suspension results in far superior handling than the regular torsion bar front end..." - Keith Seume. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[email protected]
Samba Member
Joined: August 03, 2002
Posts: 7124
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
A progressive is almost a perfect MPG carburetor. If I was designing one from scratch the only change I'd make is the primary a little bit smaller. But its pretty good, 30mpg should be very easy.
| skaunejohan wrote: |
| how is the fuel consumption with a progressive that is properly tuned? |
_________________
Please do NOT send me Private Messages through the Samba PM System (I will not see them). Send me an e-mail to john at aircooled dot net
"Like" our Facebook page at
http://www.facebook.com/vwpartsaircoolednet
and get a 5% off code for use on one order for VW Parts ON THE NEW WEBSITE, vwparts.aircooled.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
veedubcrazy
Samba Member
Joined: February 14, 2005
Posts: 1883
Location: La Porte, Tx.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I get 30+ mpg's in my '67 now. Here is the engine combo: Low compression 1641 with an E100 cam. All else stock. Internals are balanced. Running stock gears with speeds between 60 to 63 MPH. Thats it. Very happy with how it runs. Plus side, its a '67! 
_________________
1967 Deluxe Sedan & 1969 Stroker!
www.bayareavwclub.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theastronaut
Samba Member
Joined: November 19, 2007
Posts: 1073
Location: Anderson, SC
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's my accidental "mileage build". Got 36.25 mph highway, '64 bug, stock trans, 165 tires. Ran 10.80's at 63 mph in the 1/8 mile too so it wasn't terribly pokey either. The hoduh kids didn't like getting beat to the next redlight by a bug.
Running when wrecked '71 Super Beetle with stock 1600 DP. $300.00
Sold car for $250.00. -$250.00
Dual 36mm Dellortos and manifolds. $175.00
Rebuild parts for carbs. ~$100.00
Linkage, air filters from CB Performance. $ 75.00
Stock muffler, opened up baffles and added two extra tips. $ 45.00
Traded for lightened flywheel. $ Free
1.25 Rockers. $100.00
Rotory electric fuel pump. $ 55.00
Total is around $600.00 bucks, and I put 47,000 miles on it. After I put the 1679cc in the '64, I sold the 1600 engine for $300 and kept the carbs, flywheel, and muffler. So subtracting the $300 I sold it for, the engine only cost .0064 cents per mile, got 30 mpg in town, and 36 on the highway. Probably the cheapest engine I'll ever own. 
_________________
Strive for perfection in everything. Take the best that exist and make it better. If it doesn't exist, create it. Accept nothing nearly right or good enough."
-Sir Henry Royce, co-founder of Rolls-Royce
'64 Sunroof OG Bahama Blue
'66 Bug
Pro-Touring '66 Chevy C10 Short Fleet Big Window Build |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spencerfvee
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1292
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
hi john . you made me rethink my milage motor . about what carb to use . could one sleave down the venturi on a progresive primary if so what size venturi would you use and jetting . allso your imput on the EMPI progressive carb .allso what type of intake manifold for a progressive weber would you use. brand name would be great thanks spencerfvee.......
| [email protected] wrote: |
A progressive is almost a perfect MPG carburetor. If I was designing one from scratch the only change I'd make is the primary a little bit smaller. But its pretty good, 30mpg should be very easy.
| skaunejohan wrote: |
| how is the fuel consumption with a progressive that is properly tuned? |
|
Last edited by spencerfvee on Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:40 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spencerfvee
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1292
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
if you can let us know what you get for milage on your new motor . thanks spencerfvee
| catbox wrote: |
From the reading that I have done on my current engine build I will be getting better mileage from my 2332 than I did with my 1600 dressed with Kadrons and an extractor.
Even though it is being built as a performance minded build, the efficiency that is being put into the recipe of the engine will allow it to pull down better milage than the original.....As long as I take it easy on the gas pedal.
This will be in my daily driver 1973 super.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
