Motor questions

[ekacpuc]

Its time to overhaul my motor in my 71 squareback but I have a few questions.

I'm either gonna go 1776 or 1835 with thick walls. I know the seat of my pants won't likely notice a difference but the price difference is $10.

I have mofoco 040 heads that are getting fixed and are basicly new, put maybe 2k miles on em in my bug.

I also have weber ict carbs that run great.

So one question is would a w110 be too big for a heavy car like mine? I was thinking of using about a .040" deck for a 8.4:1 cr if I use this cam.

I built a 1776 with a c25 for my baja and it drove great and pulled hard but didnt really have the fun factor I hope for in this build.

I'm not interested in ratio rockers but do have a solid shaft kit I'll use.

Also just incase my t3 crankcase isn't fixable I do have a universal as21 (good case std mains and std thrust). Has anyone used those adapters that bolt on to the oil pump studs for the rear engine mount? Any thoughts? Do they work? I'd rather use my t3 case but if its shot I'll have to use the universal one.

What do you guys do to cap off the dipstick (t1 location)?

I think that's it for now.

[VWCOOL]

Build a 1916.
Same price, but more cubes and grunt to get the weight going

[W1K1]

I have a 1904cc 74 x 90.5 in mine

build it like a bus engine, the type 3 weighs as much as a bus at 2200lbs, you want the torque to come on just off idle to get you movin
_________________
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/archives/manuals/jim_martin_engine_build.php

1973 super
1965 squareback 1500E
1971 bay window westy- subi swap

[Erik G]

[ataraxia]

[ekacpuc]

1916? I don't like the idea of 94mm cyls in a type 3. I hear they last 50k miles in a bug.

I'm trying to avoid buying a new crank and rods (1904). Otherwise I would stroke it (either a 1904 or 2007). It also would make me run a large deck with my heads (55cc chambers).

The valve guides backed out on the heads. I even spent the time to set up valve geometry.

I didn't realize the squareback was so heavy. I'll keep the cam small, I'm thinking cb perf cam #2239 then.

[VWCOOL]

[Max Welton]

[ekacpuc]

68 t2 2500lbs but they get heavier in 71. Squareback is a lil over 2200lbs. I'd say its pretty close..


I wouldn't buy a Chinese crank, a dpr runs $320 for a stroker crank, out of mu budget. Also if I did stroke it I'd send my rods to rimco for a set of thier super rods.

I'm a believer that 94mm isn't as great because they have the same amount of fin space as stock. IMO the difference between 85.5 to 94 is more than the cooling fins can handle. I know its a great debate but that's where I stand. However I would slap a set in a bug and not worry. Even 92mm thick walls make me worry for that same reason.

Thanks for the replies guys!!!

I can't go stroker because I have to go through the b.s of getting a bonded title. I'm using a tax return to do it. Even though I have a good job I just don't have enough $$ left over to title it ($450) after bills and a kid.

[ekacpuc]

After thinking about it I may go with the 94s. Its pretty easy to change out, if they don't last long I'll just swap in 92 thick walls

[Sqrbckguy38]

The 94s aren't bad, but given the choice between them, I'd take the 90.5 thick walls or 92s. They run quiet nice in a t3, you just have to be very critical about your air leaks for cooling. Make sure all the cooling tin is in place and it won't give you any problems. The power difference in am 1776 to an 1835 in one of these isn't really noticeable if they are built the same.
_________________
It's not the fall that hurts, it's the sudden stop at the bottom.
69 Square needs love, even after 15 years
70 Fasty former dd, now my daughter's
67 Beetle, Opal

[VWCOOL]

yep try the 94s and if they get 24.670743 percent blowby in 21 mins and 36 seconds like it says on the Internet, you can fit the 92s