help with bus

[[email protected]]

Have received different advice on 71 versus 72 bus motor. Local mechanic says stay away from 1.7 liter , it runs too hot and to use dual port 1600. Other guy says 1.7 is the way to go. Any opinions on this ? I am building a westy. alos do deep sump oil pans do any good for cooling ?

Jeff

[[email protected]]

Your gonna have a hell of a time putting a 1.7 in a bus designed for a 1600 upright and visa versa. What year bus is it going in?
Deep sumps may cool your engine, but very very little. The benefit of a deep sump is to add oil capacity to the pathetic 2.5 quarts that you can pour into an upright motor. On my 70, Dormobile, I have a full flow setup with a filter and a deep sump. You loose a bit of clearance but it is nice knowing that if your a quart low, your not halfway out of oil!
Bussmuggler

[[email protected]]

Thank you, I guess In phased it wrong, I have a choice between 71 and 72 westy. I am leaning toward the 72 and would ahve bought it until this guy said, "don't they run too hot, take the '71" Hence my question on the deep sump, I ealize it is not like an oil cooler but I figured thta if the 72 is hotter a lit bit of extra cooling would do. All the magazine ads claiming cooling improvemnent, is thta just BS?

[Amskeptic]

If I had to choose between the '71 and the '72, it would be the '72 all the way.
You get much more robust engineering.
The Type 4 engine is the pinnacle of the air-cooled engine technology. It is far better able to handle the weight of the Bus out on the highway, and it has a vastly superior lubrication system as well as better cooling capacity. The story about the 1.7 intrinsically running hot is absurd. In almost every case, a damaged Type 4 engine is because of ignorant maintenance or repair. In the '72 Bus, that 1.7 does not have the dreaded air-injection system with the seriously retarded timing at idle ( 10ATDC ) that the'73-4 Bus has. Here is the very most important cause of overheating in any air-cooled VW: dirty engine, missing or damaged seals, incorrect timing and valve adjustments, vacuum leaks, lean carburetion.
You take care of those issues, and you have a bulletproof highway car in the '72 Bus.
(p.s. the Type 4 sounds better)
( my '73 Bus has 435,000 miles on it's original heads, case, crank, flywheel, etc.)
see gallery
Colin

[Type2meister]

The 71 is known as the "ultimate" year of bus. Here is why. First year of disc brakes, last year of beetle engine. The beetle engine is WAY cheaper for parts and WAY easier to work on. It has a removable rear apron so that the engine slides straight out.
Now the 72 is the opposite, it has no removable apron so the engine has to come out the bottom. The other thing that sucks about the 73 is the fact that it has no access hole underneath the rear matress to get at the engine! The access hole came in 73, and you need it to get at those pesky dual carbs! 72 is also the first year for those UGLY big tail lights. I have always thought 72 as the worst year for busses. This is my humble opinion!

[ChrisM181]

I like both years, I have a 71 Westy and love it, my Uncle had a 72 bus and loved it. I have a 1.7 liter type four in my sandrail, nice engine. Go with which bus is cleaner and the one that you think drives better on the test drives.

[wgargan]

72, waayyy better engine,as far as torque goes. bigger stronger, may run hotter, but at least it's not desighed to push a little tiny bug.
lc

[static]

I would say to get the 1971, unless the 1972 is really pristine.

When the 72 blows up, you can get used tinware from England and put a normal 1600 upright engine into it. The Europeans still had 1600 engines in their busses up till 1979.