Hello! Log in or Register   |  Help  |  Donate  |  Buy Shirts  See all banner ads | Advertise on TheSamba.com  
TheSamba.com
 
Squish and rpm
Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Forum Index -> Performance/Engines/Transmissions Share: Facebook Twitter
Reply to topic
Print View
Quick sort: Show newest posts on top | Show oldest posts on top View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Zed999
Samba Member


Joined: March 04, 2018
Posts: 925
Location: UK
Zed999 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:37 am    Post subject: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

I'm in the process of planning to reorganise my low revving 2.4l type-4 camper engine. It has a large deck and it would be a bit of a game to get it stock and retain it's stock cam CR.

The engine falls off a cliff at 4000rpm which is fine with me as it has bags of low rev torque. It has been suggested to me that the higher the revs, the more gain from squish and that at the revs my engine operates at I'd have to be very perceptive to notice a difference and would be better off turning a blind eye to the deck and simply changing the cam for one with more exhaust duration.

Any comments?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
nextgen
Samba Member


Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 4612
Location: CONGERS, N.Y.
nextgen is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:57 am    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

Well, your reorganizing plan, is another way of you want to rebuild your engine.

Right off I will tell you, what ever your plan is forget keeping the stock cam.


Right off it should be removed due to being inefficient and has a history of wearing out .

On my 914 which was a 1.7 I used the stock heads, made the engine a 2.0. stock stroke. Also added a cam. Amazing difference.

Your bus is a stock 2.0 you have 71mm stroke stock. You are already ahead in the game in the torque dept.. Get advise what cam to use.
_________________
site: www.nextgen-usa.com
email: [email protected]
or
[email protected]
The Type IV Upright Conversion Manual
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Gallery Classifieds Feedback
sled
Samba Member


Joined: February 16, 2005
Posts: 5432

sled is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:35 am    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

Zed999 wrote:
It has been suggested to me that the higher the revs, the more gain from squish and that at the revs my engine operates at I'd have to be very perceptive to notice a difference and would be better off turning a blind eye to the deck and simply changing the cam for one with more exhaust duration.

Any comments?



I find it hard to believe that under 4000 rpm proper squish/quench would not be beneficial...

with a tighter squish you are going to get a much higher quality air/fuel mix and subsequent burn, resulting in more TORQUE and less timing required. A huge deck height makes for a lazy and potentially incomplete burn. The better the burn, the more compression that can be used...resulting in..you guessed it, more TORQUE.

just tear it all down and rebuild it correctly with a different cam and the right squish clearances.

also, there is no reason that type 4 can't spin north of 4000 rpm so you're leaving performance on the table.
_________________
drive your split.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Instagram Gallery Classifieds Feedback
theKbStockpiler
Samba Member


Joined: July 07, 2012
Posts: 2316
Location: Rust Belt
theKbStockpiler is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:57 am    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

Squish is all about low RPMs.
_________________
My beetle is not competing with your beetle. I have the yellow beetle in my town. There is a red one, a green one ......
Use all safety devices including a mask.Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Zed999
Samba Member


Joined: March 04, 2018
Posts: 925
Location: UK
Zed999 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:39 am    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

Nextgen : It's 2.4l - 104 x 71

Generally, well the cam is original and hasn't worn in 40 years but yes I accept that I should have changed it when the motor was built.

Changing just the cam would be very quick and easy and it's an attractive proposition.

Changing just the deck to restore squish would be cheap but take more organising. The attraction is leaving the bottom end in one piece.

I hope to gather info to help me make up my mind. I now have one chap who has done a LOT of experimental racing mods to a/c VW engines saying squish is more and more important as revs rise and Stockpiler saying exactly the opposite!

I'm not short of torque, 180ft/lbs at the flywheel. It's a camper, I'd like the engine stay mild and low revving for touring and engine life. Stock 2l is done at 5,000rpm, my 2.4 is done at 4,000. That kind of makes sense. A bit of cam might take it back to 5,000rpm but the question still remains re revs/squish.

It's true that I would like to do as little as possible to the engine, I don't have the facilities for starters, don't have the budget and don't have any other vehicles which is why I'm trying to side step dealing with the deck height. Just changing the cam sounds like a lazy weekend even in a car park. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Zed999
Samba Member


Joined: March 04, 2018
Posts: 925
Location: UK
Zed999 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:52 am    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

sled wrote:



I find it hard to believe that under 4000 rpm proper squish/quench would not be beneficial...

just tear it all down and rebuild it correctly with a different cam and the right squish clearances.

also, there is no reason that type 4 can't spin north of 4000 rpm so you're leaving performance on the table.


The conversation with the builder, who has become one of my best friends, was about squish. His view was that it would be quite a lot of effort for me to sort the deck and if that's all I did I would be disappointed with the improvement on my low revving engine and wish I'd changed the cam for a mild one with more exhaust duration. Not to get more revs, but to free it up in it's present rev band and stop it dying at 4,000. I wouldn't need to rev it higher, but it would be better up to those revs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
slalombuggy
Samba Member


Joined: July 17, 2010
Posts: 8401
Location: 30 minutes from nowhere
slalombuggy is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:24 am    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

The reason your power falls off a cliff is because you have a great big lazy burn making it very inefficient. Closing up your deck will make your engine much more efficient, get you better mileage and probably run cooler since combustion will take place in the head, not in the tops of the cylinders.

What is going to make is so much work to change the deck height on your engine?

brad
_________________
Lucky Monkey Landspeed Racing
Proving that you can spends ridiculous sums of money to go slow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
nextgen
Samba Member


Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 4612
Location: CONGERS, N.Y.
nextgen is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:54 am    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

Zed, I agree with your builder 100% we are talking about, most likely the least aerodynamic vehicle on the planet.

Keep in mind when you change the cam you will be doing the rings also , most likely in a T-4 engine the bearing will be fine but in a bus you never know.

2.4 cam and heads, Don't worry about RPM's , It will last and the torque is the best feeling.

I have 71 mm stroke in my bug, Love it. I was told the 66mm revs faster but I don't know if the bug is faster, same engine.
_________________
site: www.nextgen-usa.com
email: [email protected]
or
[email protected]
The Type IV Upright Conversion Manual
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Zed999
Samba Member


Joined: March 04, 2018
Posts: 925
Location: UK
Zed999 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:01 am    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

slalombuggy wrote:
The reason your power falls off a cliff is because you have a great big lazy burn making it very inefficient. Closing up your deck will make your engine much more efficient, get you better mileage and probably run cooler since combustion will take place in the head, not in the tops of the cylinders.

What is going to make is so much work to change the deck height on your engine?

brad
2.4l with 1700 heads. For 1.5mm deck, to retain the CR I need to find at least another 17cc. If the deck is more than the 3.5mm I hope it is, I'd need to find even more - abot 4cc for every 0.5mm. Having already weakened the heads for the 104s and already enlarged the chambers I'd need to dish the pistons to find as much as possible/safe, take some more out of heads opposite plugs as well as having existing or new barrels cut down. The AA barrels are for 71-76 crank and need cutting down for 71.

To fit a cam I could essentially leave one half of the engine complete. Very easy. Pull out push rod tubes and pop the followers in on the undismantled side. Type-4 does have some advantages.

So if I did the deck, I'd almost certainly do the cam, but if I did the cam, would there really be much ADDITIONAL advantage doing the deck for an engine that rarely sees over 3500rpm. Hence the squish/revs thread. If squish has most benefit at revs I don't use there might not be much point. If squish is a low rev benefit that's the game changer.

I get 21mpg after afr tuning, better than 19mpg before and not too far off 23mpg for a stock 2l in a bus. That's UK gallons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Zed999
Samba Member


Joined: March 04, 2018
Posts: 925
Location: UK
Zed999 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:19 am    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

nextgen wrote:
Zed, I agree with your builder 100% we are talking about, most likely the least aerodynamic vehicle on the planet.

Keep in mind when you change the cam you will be doing the rings also , most likely in a T-4 engine the bearing will be fine but in a bus you never know.

2.4 cam and heads, Don't worry about RPM's , It will last and the torque is the best feeling.

I have 71 mm stroke in my bug, Love it. I was told the 66mm revs faster but I don't know if the bug is faster, same engine.

Do the rings for cam? Why? 12-15,000 miles only, no case breathing, clean oil after 5000 miles, 165psi on all cylinders, chrome top ring. Seems good to me.

Which bearing? Funnily builder wants me to do the cam so I can inspect the centre main I reckon. the saddles were all parallel and uncut and case halves flat, when it was built. He's tooled up to bore type-4 cases so he would have if it needed, I think he's just greedy for info and loves autopsy, he's not even working anymore! The thing is engine builders (he's built thousands) don't often get the chance to dismantle them unless something goes drastically wrong but his wife is very ill and he can't commit to it. If he could he'd be on it like a shot despite trying to retire.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
slalombuggy
Samba Member


Joined: July 17, 2010
Posts: 8401
Location: 30 minutes from nowhere
slalombuggy is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:49 am    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

I have a friend getting 27mpg with a 2.3 in a 2300kg Westphalia towing a small trailer.

brad
_________________
Lucky Monkey Landspeed Racing
Proving that you can spends ridiculous sums of money to go slow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Brian_e
Samba Member


Joined: July 28, 2009
Posts: 1516
Location: Rapid City, SD
Brian_e is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

21mpg with that much low end, and no need to rev it isn't great.

.040" deck, 8.3+cr, and a Web 73 or 86 cam.

Just do it all, so then you know its correct instead of wondering "what if". It will it make a far more efficient, higher revving, cleaner burning, and easier to tune. The added throttle response and more power are added benefits.

It must have a pile of spacer right now to get the compression that low. Shouldn't be too tough to pull some out and get it closer. Dish the pistons before you go carving the heads out, especially the non-plug side.

Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Instagram Gallery Classifieds Feedback
nextgen
Samba Member


Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 4612
Location: CONGERS, N.Y.
nextgen is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

Zed had no idea you did that much to the engine. But Brian has some good numbers. Your builder sounds like he has a good background, so just run the numbers by him.

Here is a great post on T-4 Cam.

Alstrup is quite knowledgeable on T-4's Your side of the Pond.

https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=567668
_________________
site: www.nextgen-usa.com
email: [email protected]
or
[email protected]
The Type IV Upright Conversion Manual
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Zed999
Samba Member


Joined: March 04, 2018
Posts: 925
Location: UK
Zed999 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

Brian_e wrote:
21mpg with that much low end, and no need to rev it isn't great.

.040" deck, 8.3+cr, and a Web 73 or 86 cam.

Just do it all, so then you know its correct instead of wondering "what if". It will it make a far more efficient, higher revving, cleaner burning, and easier to tune. The added throttle response and more power are added benefits.

It must have a pile of spacer right now to get the compression that low. Shouldn't be too tough to pull some out and get it closer. Dish the pistons before you go carving the heads out, especially the non-plug side.

Brian
Thanks for the reply Brian (and everyone else Smile ) you're right about "what if", it's only "what if" that's got me planning this in the first place...
No spacers unfortunately, as said above the cylinders come long as standard so you can build 71-76 crank by machining them down, which wasn't done. How I wish I could simply remove shims...

I think I can find maybe 10cc in the pistons so maybe cam, up the compression a bit and I could leave the heads. Though it seems to me that they have a huge squish area and dishing the pistons would be counter productive unless the dish shape mirrored the head chamber?
Maybe a sloping cut into the head, sort of semi hemi opposite the plug and a matching bigger dish in the pistons? Who knows? Not me!

I'd still like to understand the revs/squish thing. My imagination says my lazy motor has time to burn the fuel at low revs but at higher revs wouldn't cope so well simply because there is less time for the burn to cover the distance in the big chambers my big deck have created. That leads me to think squish is more beneficial at higher revs/would allow it to rev higher.

It's not really about mpg, I've spent more kitting out for afr and on carb parts than I'll ever save in improved mileage but I still did it...just because.

A few years ago I had a 1,000 sq ft workshop to do this stuff and a car to drive while I was doing it. I'd have made changes one at a time just to see what happened. Now I don't even have a driveway and kitchen table so I want to get it done in one hit as quickly as possible, working in the back of the camper.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Zed999
Samba Member


Joined: March 04, 2018
Posts: 925
Location: UK
Zed999 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

nextgen wrote:
Zed had no idea you did that much to the engine. But Brian has some good numbers. Your builder sounds like he has a good background, so just run the numbers by him.

Here is a great post on T-4 Cam.

Alstrup is quite knowledgeable on T-4's Your side of the Pond.

https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=567668


Thanks for the link. I expect a lot of bus owners end up with over cammed big valve high hp motors that really don't do what they wanted. Been there done that. It's a pity that thread faded out andh the op was so cagey about the cam he didn't like.

What I really wanted was an original useable early 1700 cam but the ones we had were toast. Why? Well many seem to think they're all the same but looking at them these early ones have much pointier lobes and my old stock 1700 Westy went like hot snot once the revs were up a bit. Smile Not very technical I know, but I kinda wanted that performance crossed with the 2l low rev torque and hoped with a 1700 cam and 2.4l I might get near enough. I was a bit obsessed with not over camming it and there seemed a big jump up to even the mildest after market cams. I guess at that time I was distracted by divorce and didn't realise just how poor the 2l cams were even compared to the early 1700 ones it would seem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Splitdog
Samba Split Personality


Joined: February 16, 2004
Posts: 4139
Location: Planet VW
Splitdog is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

On my type-1 bug motor (turbo) I wanted at the most .060" DH. With a 7.1 CR, it necessitated a 78cc chamber. 68 in the heads, 10 in the pistons. There is no squish. Semi-hemi was the only way to get this much volume. Runs fantastic on or off boost.
_________________
CH³NO²

Z = z² + C

Der Blitzkrieg Kafers

#notacallooker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Gallery Classifieds Feedback
sled
Samba Member


Joined: February 16, 2005
Posts: 5432

sled is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

apparently no one who has chimed in as of yet on the benefits of a tight deck is to be believed? maybe waiting for one of the samba performance aficionados to chime in

here is a tidbit I pulled from an outside source but applies to our engines just the same, might clarify a couple things.

"The Squish Effect
Since wedge-style combustion chambers rely on the squish or quench area to create turbulence in the combustion chamber, an intriguing effect occurs in the combustion process. To better understand this process, imagine that the intake valve opens and a rush of air mixed with fuel enters the combustion chamber area. The piston comes screaming up toward TDC at 5,000 rpm (almost 3,000 feet per minute) as the intake valve closes. As the piston reaches TDC, a virtual hurricane of fuel and air is squished out into the chamber from this tight area between the piston and the head. While this turbulence sounds bad, the opposite is true. This turbulence has the effect of more thoroughly mixing the air and fuel into a much more homogenous mixture that tends to burn much more quickly and efficiently.
One way to produce maximum power from an engine is to use the least amount of fuel necessary to create maximum power while attempting to burn all of it. Given this, if you can evenly mix the air and fuel into a homogenous mixture with an extremely fine mist of fuel, you will make outstanding power.
Unfortunately, the opposite is also true—varying pockets of lean and rich mixtures within the cylinder when the spark plug fires will cost power and the combustion process will not be as smooth. Excessively lean or rich pockets within the chamber directly affect the rate of combustion and the amount of pressure applied to the piston. Rich mixtures tend to burn slower, while lean mixtures generally burn at a faster rate than a “proper” air-fuel mixture. If modifications to the chamber or piston affect these rates, the ignition timing will also need to be changed to optimize power.
What is the proper air/fuel mixture? In the last few years, the answer has been changing as the area between the combustion chamber and the top of the piston becomes more efficient. For example, the classic air/fuel ratio has always been 12.5:1, meaning 12.5 parts of air for every one part of fuel. But many race and properly designed street engines can make best power with air/fuel ratios now approaching 12.8 to 13:1.
So now let’s introduce a tighter quench space into this equation. All of the respected engine builders who we’ve talked to are firm believers in minimizing the quench clearance. According to Ken Duttweiler, the tightest quench he recommends is around 0.050-inch. He has built engines with far tighter clearances than this, but much of this depends on the piston-to-wall clearance. All pistons tend to rock slightly as they transition through TDC and this rocking motion reduces the piston-to-head clearance. Smaller-diameter pistons with tight piston-to-wall clearances don’t rock nearly as much in the cylinder bore compared to larger-bore pistons with wider piston-to-wall clearances.
Since piston clearance plays such a big part in piston-to-head clearance, it is possible to run a piston-to-head clearance tighter than 0.040-inch if you feel brave. Noted horsepower hero John Lingenfelter says that clearances of 0.037 to 0.040 inch are possible, but you must know what you’re doing. The late Smokey Yunick also recommended a quench clearance of 0.040 inch as a safe but critical clearance.
Advantages
So what are the benefits of all this squishing and quenching? The benefits are small, but >> often important. Pump-gas engines that run on the ragged edge of detonation, for example, can greatly benefit from a tighter piston-to-head clearance to reduce rattle. That sounds contradictory since increasing compression should lead to increased detonation. All the engine builders we spoke to mentioned that tightening the quench (reducing the piston-to-head clearance) to get it under 0.050 inch will increase the static-compression ratio, but this tighter clearance also creates a more powerful squish effect. This additional turbulence creates a more homogenous “soup” in the chamber, reducing the harmful effects of lean air/fuel ratio pockets. With all other variables being equal, this contributes to creating an engine that is less prone to detonation.
We tried this on a recent dyno flog of a 383ci small-block. To keep the compression at around 9.5:1, we used a set of 0.050-inch head gaskets that created a wide piston-to-head clearance of around 0.060 inch. CHP engine flogger Ed Taylor swapped in a set of 0.040-inch Fel-Pro head gaskets and then tested the engine again. We witnessed only a marginal gain of around 2 to 3 hp (less than 1 percent), but it’s doubtful that the marginal increase in compression was responsible. Clearly, tightening quench with a thinner gasket had something to do with the increase in power. Tightening the quench area often results in the reduction of ignition timing requirements. This can then lead to a reduction in negative work (the cylinder pressure rising while the piston is still approaching TDC). This often is evidenced by a gain in low- and mid-range torque.
There is plenty of discussion about the net effect of squish and quench. While it’s doubtful that this will ever amount to more than a few horsepower in any street application, it does offer some distinct advantages when it comes to increased engine efficiency, better fuel mileage, and driveability. If you’ve ever wondered why certain engines run better than others, this could be one reason why."





you're leaving a lot on the table (not just simple horsepower) that could be fixed relatively easily.

if you have 3.5mm deck then bringing that down closer to 1.3mm is going to be a huge improvement.


this is what you need

Image may have been reduced in size. Click image to view fullscreen.

_________________
drive your split.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Instagram Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Splitdog
Samba Split Personality


Joined: February 16, 2004
Posts: 4139
Location: Planet VW
Splitdog is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:17 pm    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

I agree. Less deck is best. For a lot of reasons.
_________________
CH³NO²

Z = z² + C

Der Blitzkrieg Kafers

#notacallooker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Gallery Classifieds Feedback
sled
Samba Member


Joined: February 16, 2005
Posts: 5432

sled is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

Zed999 wrote:


I'd still like to understand the revs/squish thing. My imagination says my lazy motor has time to burn the fuel at low revs but at higher revs wouldn't cope so well simply because there is less time for the burn to cover the distance in the big chambers my big deck have created. That leads me to think squish is more beneficial at higher revs/would allow it to rev higher.




thats not really how it works, and generally with very high revving engines you do NOT want a tight deck because the pistons is traveling so fast it can actually cause the air/fuel to lock solid in the squish area (hydro lock)

I think maybe you're not quite understand how the 'fuel' actually burns in the cylinder and what we want it to do ideally. When the fuel burns it expands, which causes the piston to go down. elementary stuff yes, but we want the fuel to burn as quickly as possible (least degrees of crank rotation) but short of detonating. There is a difference between the fuel burning and exploding, which is detonation..an uncontrolled burn. Ok so if we can get all of the fuel to burn as quickly as possible, then all of its energy in the form of expansion can act upon the piston when its in the correct position, NOT still traveling up the cylinder. advanced ignition means we ignite the fuel BEFORE top dead center, essentially fighting the effort of the piston to rise. The less ignition advance the better. Two things can help us reduce timing, high compression and improved squish, both of which improve mixture homogenization..which in turn creates a faster burn. on TOP of all that, containing the mixture and burn in the smaller, more spherical shape of the combustion chamber, further improves the burn as the fastest shape fuel will burn is a sphere...NOT a pancake.

flame propagation could be its own topic entirely Shocked

now, if we mix the fuel and air better, preventing lean and rich spots, generally less fuel is required to be metered by the carbs to achieve desired AFR

so...with improved squish and resulting higher compression, fuel efficiency is increased, cylinder and head temperatures can decrease (the extreme end of a poor/incomplete burn is fuel actually burning as it exits the exhaust port), and torque/power goes up.

win win for all the kids playing at the party.



Image may have been reduced in size. Click image to view fullscreen.

_________________
drive your split.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Instagram Gallery Classifieds Feedback
mark tucker
Samba Member


Joined: April 08, 2009
Posts: 21808
Location: SHALIMAR ,FLORIDA
mark tucker is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Squish and rpm Reply with quote

squish helps everywhere, especialy at lower rpm applications.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Performance/Engines/Transmissions All times are Mountain Standard Time/Pacific Daylight Savings Time
Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

About | Help! | Advertise | Donate | Premium Membership | Privacy/Terms of Use | Contact Us | Site Map
Copyright © 1996-2020, Everett Barnes. All Rights Reserved.
Not affiliated with or sponsored by Volkswagen of America | Forum powered by phpBB