Hello! Log in or Register   |  Help  |  Donate  |  Buy Shirts See all banner ads | Advertise on TheSamba.com  
TheSamba.com
 
Stroker vs Big Bore
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Jump to:
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
Stripped66
Samba Member


Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Charleston, SC
Stripped66 is offline 

PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vw Folks wrote:
I absolutely agree that the 2 cars were meant for 2 different things but with all of the know-how that Porsche had why did they opt for the stroke and not for the bore? ( at least in the early cars )

Never even considered the type 4 engine. Bore obviously can equal torque.
Thanks for the explanation guys!


The 356 engine has tighter bore spacing than the VW 1600 engine; it is comparable to the 36hp VW engines. Porsche must have felt they were near the limit of how much they could safely increase bore and decided to increase stroke. You could also ask why VW did not bother increasing bore to gain any more displacement out of the 1600? Or stroke for that matter?

A good answer to this is that when VW decided to redo the Type 1, they increased displacement first by increasing the bore to 94mm, and keeping the stroke 69mm. A few years later, they increased the stroke to 76mm. This new "Type 1" engine was the Wasserboxer. Wink
_________________
66brm wrote:
Bodacious wrote:
Why not just make a custom set of wires with a Y splice in them. Then you could just run one distributor.

I don't think electrickery works that way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
DarthWeber
Samba Member


Joined: November 24, 2007
Posts: 7543
Location: Whittier,CA
DarthWeber is offline 

PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1950's early 60's technology. Maybe Porsche was worried about cooling the larger cylinders properly??
_________________
Mitey62 wrote:
Swapped the Compufire for a Bosch blue and some points I had sitting around, started 1st crank. Took her out for a drive, pulls harder, more RPM, and runs smoother. I think I'll be sticking with points from now on.

RockCrusher wrote:
JB weld the case halves....that'll keep the fretting to a minimum. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Jake Raby
Samba Member


Joined: August 23, 2003
Posts: 7433
Location: Aircooled Heaven USA
Jake Raby is offline 

PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oil temperature control.. The application of the Porsche engine is much different than the VW.. Seeing heavy loads for extended durations of time is what the Porsche engine has been doing since the beginning.

Larger bores generally have oil temperatures that are harder to control, especially if the engine becomes heat soaked.
_________________
Jake Raby
Raby Engine Development
www.rabyenginedevelopment.com
"I've never given anyone Hell, I just told them the truth and they thought it was Hell"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Facebook Gallery Classifieds Feedback
mark tucker
Samba Member


Joined: April 08, 2009
Posts: 23937
Location: SHALIMAR ,FLORIDA
mark tucker is offline 

PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stripped66 wrote:
Vw Folks wrote:
I absolutely agree that the 2 cars were meant for 2 different things but with all of the know-how that Porsche had why did they opt for the stroke and not for the bore? ( at least in the early cars )

Never even considered the type 4 engine. Bore obviously can equal torque.
Thanks for the explanation guys!


The 356 engine has tighter bore spacing than the VW 1600 engine; it is comparable to the 36hp VW engines. Porsche must have felt they were near the limit of how much they could safely increase bore and decided to increase stroke. You could also ask why VW did not bother increasing bore to gain any more displacement out of the 1600? Or stroke for that matter?

A good answer to this is that when VW decided to redo the Type 1, they increased displacement first by increasing the bore to 94mm, and keeping the stroke 69mm. A few years later, they increased the stroke to 76mm. This new "Type 1" engine was the Wasserboxer. Wink
so does the wasserboxer crank go right into a type 1 case? do we need to look for junk wasserboxer cranks/engines?are they all 76 mm? are they counterweighted? is the moon realy made of cheezze?oops sorry getten hungery. other than looking at the heads I have never touched a waserboxer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Stripped66
Samba Member


Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Charleston, SC
Stripped66 is offline 

PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't mean to hijack the thread...

mark tucker wrote:
so does the wasserboxer crank go right into a type 1 case?


Almost. The wasser #1 main is the same as 411/Type 4. You could machine the Type 1 case for the 2.1L wasserboxer thrust plates and main seal. You could do a center thrust conversion and run a BMW adapter bearing at the #1 main, and machine the case for a Type 4 main seal. Etc, etc.

Quote:

do we need to look for junk wasserboxer cranks/engines?


I'd prefer you don't. That would leave less for me. I'm currently running a converted wasserboxer case (aircooled) and a wasserboxer crank. Both pieces are exceptional quality, IMO.

Quote:
are they all 76 mm?


No; early wasserboxer cranks were 69mm (1.9L engines). Later wasser cranks are 76mm (2.1L engines).

Quote:
are they counterweighted?


No, but the crank cheeks are a lot larger. Wasser cranks can be stroked and counterweighted, just like Type 1 cranks. The crank pictured below is an 82mm stroke, counterweighted with 411 center-main; notice the crank cheeks are diamond shaped, unlike Type 1:
Image may have been reduced in size. Click image to view fullscreen.


Quote:

is the moon realy made of cheezze?oops sorry getten hungery.


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


/thread_hijack
_________________
66brm wrote:
Bodacious wrote:
Why not just make a custom set of wires with a Y splice in them. Then you could just run one distributor.

I don't think electrickery works that way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
mightymouse
Samba Member


Joined: May 26, 2004
Posts: 4220
Location: las vegas
mightymouse is offline 

PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laughing

HA! I saw my first wasser conversion in jim lutz' bus years ago. He used it to tow his drag car with. Helluva conversion i always thought, never really got familiar with it. Where is that jackass now? Laughing
_________________
Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.
Thomas Jefferson


Note to EVERYONE.
Know your ZDDP levels or you WILL lose a cam and lifters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Cat Jockey
Samba Member


Joined: April 29, 2009
Posts: 38
Location: 10,000', Colorado
Cat Jockey is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll dredge this thread up. For the record, I am going to build a 1904 instead of a 1915 and it is going in a baja/daily driver. In the end, it doesn't matter much as I don't know enough to build either combo to the max, nor do I want to. Why the 1904 the thread dredge?

A couple relatively unaddressed issues that showed up late in the thread:

Quote:
can I just chuck in the grenade that is 'angular velocity' and run?


I think you forgot to pull the pin ... let me get that. So, my vw ignorance might jump up here, but, a 74mm crank should weigh more than a 69mm crank. Not only that, but the 74mm has its weight further out from the axis of rotation. Very simply, if you were to spin those two cranks at 2000 rpm, it will take more force to stop the 74mm. Translate that to the whole and everything else being equal, it will be easier to stall a 1915 by letting out the clutch and giving no gas then a 1904.

No different than swapping weights of flywheels and its effect. I think this is part of the low end torque people talk about. It handles initial loads at low rpm better - you have to give a 1915 more gas to get the same weight moving. Minor, but measurable. Maybe I missed it, but I did not see that addressed.

As for the second issue, well, the people that seem to know what they are talking about are convincing with their 1915 arguments and I certainly understand that in the end, if you want to win in the 1/4 mile, it largely depends upon how much fuel you can efficiently burn. A vw that burns 1.5 gallons (high, I know) in a 1/4 will have a faster time that a vw that burns .5 gallons.

This is the head thing, and I definitely get it, but the strongest argument yet for the performance of a 1904 is Porsche:

Quote:
Thats why porsche put 74s in almost ALL their cars.


Not a minor point. The responses?

Quote:
The Porsche was a high performance design, the VW was not. The Porsche engine was built with performance in mind, the VW was built to a low price point. I think that has more to do with it than the bore/stroke equation.


&

Quote:
the size, stroke, bore, etc are not the ony part of the equation... the vw and porsche were designed to do different things.... vw was build for economy from the aircleaner to the peashooters, whereas porsche geared more toward performance.... apples and oranges...


Not picking on anyone, but those are kind of "yea, but.." answers. That is exactly the point here. Which is the better performer. Well, the one with the 74mm crank.

Me? Well, I am not going to reinvent the wheel. I am going to do what Ferdinand did when he wanted a higher performance motor that, as Jake Raby stated as been:

Quote:
Seeing heavy loads for extended durations of time is what the Porsche engine has been doing since the beginning.


Performance. No offense those here that know much more than me about vw's, and I understand the displacement and head arguments, but for someone like me, who doesn't know as much about tweeking and matching every component to build an engine that may be fun as hell, but blow itself up if I don't take it apart after 20,000 miles, I am going with the guy that knew the most about these engines, the guys that designed them and I am going to copy their model for achieving performance - dumping the 69mm crank in favor of a stroker.

You 1915 and experienced builders can argue with Porsche about whether or not a 69mm crank or a 74mm crank is a better staring point for a reliable performance engine, but I won't, I am going to take the man's word for it and go 74.

Yup, Ferdinand and Billy Squire knew what time it was: Stroke me, Stroke me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
RockCrusher
Samba Member


Joined: August 03, 2010
Posts: 4596
Location: Parkesburg, PA
RockCrusher is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You didn't get it...but that's ok.
Yes the CW crank is heavier but that weight is in OPPOSITION to the weight of the rods and pistons, so it is a wash. A CW 69 crank will conserve combustion energy for real work by not having to use that energy to stop the pistons. Imbalance uses energy and the only way we get that energy is by how much fuel we burn.
It isn't the additional mass of the CW crank that makes the engine less stally than the non CW, it is the longer torque arm the 74 stroke provides. Even the CW 69mm will be a bit less stally due to what you might call neutral mass vs active mass.

This is the WAY oversimplified version but it should get the basic idea swirling around in your head.

RC
_________________
[email protected] Please use email for all general inquiries.

I will be happy to speak to anyone who has a serious inquiry (meaning real potential business for RC enterprises) or a parts order. Due to machining noise causing missed calls all calls will be returned promptly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
Cat Jockey
Samba Member


Joined: April 29, 2009
Posts: 38
Location: 10,000', Colorado
Cat Jockey is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Yes the CW crank is heavier but that weight is in OPPOSITION to the weight of the rods and pistons, so it is a wash.


Is it? I don't know the weights. Does the extra mass of the pistons and rods used in a 1915 equal the extra mass of the 1904 crank? Standing still? How about in motion?

Doesn't matter if the weight is offset. In fact, you are actually furthering my argument. It is about where the weight is and what it is doing and what effect it is having on the rotational momentum of the crank, the torque stored in the crank independent of future combustion.

Those weights are NOT in simple OPPOSITION, as you say. They are doing different things through different planes and any extra OPPOSITIONAL weight actually saps torque from the system.

You don't get that ... but that's ok. That's what noobs like me are for.

The extra mass of the pistons and rods in a 1915 act AGAINST the inherent rotational momentum of the crank. Not only does a 69mm crank have less rotational momentum, but it has more weight (pistons and rods) acting to stop that rotational momentum.

Spin those at 2000 rpms, cut the fuel and the 1904 will spin longer. It has more inherent rotational momentum, and less weigh in pistons and rods acting against that momentum.

After you cut the fuel, the 1904 has more rotational momentum for a longer period of time - it has more weight spinning and less things (longer rods and larger diameter pistons) acting to stop that spinning.

This is a big part of that usable, low end torque people talk about. In it's most basic form, if fuel supply is exactly the same to a 1904 and a 1915 spinning at 2000 rpms, the 1915 is easier to stall. It takes less load to stall and stop the engine. That is the torque of a stroker, IMO, that people feel.

At the same rpms, a stroker has more energy stored in it. The 1915 can deliver more fuel, but it has less internal energy - basically, it has less low end torque.

Vw's aren't THAT different than principles involved in any other internal combustion engine. There are way, way, way more things in common with a liquid cooled, 460 Ford V8 than it has differences like some portray.

People get fixated on the torque applied to the cylinder head after detonation. That is only part of the stroker argument. What about before? The stored torque for a given rpm before you add more energy to the system in the form of fuel.

Part of the torque of a stroker has nothing to do with what happens after combustion. It is about stored energy. Strokers, for the same displacement have more.

I find it kinda of funny that VW enthusiats are the only ones that insist against this. I guess because the cranks are so much smaller than v8s that it is more subtle and, as people say, the fastest way to power in a vw is heads and displacement.

Drive a Ford 429. Than a Ford 460 under the same conditions. What has more usable torque? Obviously the 460, but not just because of increased displacement - because it is a 429 with a stroker crank. Same block, big difference in low rpm ability to deal with loads. Same reason alot of tow truck drivers have taken those 460s and further stroked them to 510+ ci. They didn't just bore cylinders, a cheaper option, the put longer throw cranks for more usable low end torques that came independent of increased displacement, although in addition to it.

Quote:
It isn't the additional mass of the CW crank that makes the engine less stally than the non CW


Oh really? Than why do people play with flywheel weights? Yes, the additional mass of the 74 CONTRIBUTES to it being less likely to stall, in addition to what you said.

People forget about the stored energy it seems. For the same displacement, strokers store more rotational inertia and have less weight (pistons/rods) acting against that stored energy.

You can deliver more outside energy in the form of fuel to a 1915 because of cylinder diameter, but I do not drive with the accelerator constantly floored, where the ability to deliver and burn the maximum amount of fuel in the least amount of rotations, actually matters.

For the other 99.9% of driving though ....

Take it up with Newton. Not me.

Again, I ain't good enough to build either engine to its limits to where it matters, but these engines are not that different and I expect to 90.5 to have better long life performance than 94. And I expect that in a vw, like every other internal combustion engine, a longer stroke gives more real world, lower end usable torque.

But, even a 1776 I'm sure is a fun upgrade from my stock 1600.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
RockCrusher
Samba Member


Joined: August 03, 2010
Posts: 4596
Location: Parkesburg, PA
RockCrusher is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All I can say is... Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall

Maybe I made it TOO simple but you really don't get it. You're so far off in left field that I won't even try to bring you back. That doesn't mean you can't build a nice motor and fun fun so go ahead and have a ball. Smile

RC
_________________
[email protected] Please use email for all general inquiries.

I will be happy to speak to anyone who has a serious inquiry (meaning real potential business for RC enterprises) or a parts order. Due to machining noise causing missed calls all calls will be returned promptly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
Cat Jockey
Samba Member


Joined: April 29, 2009
Posts: 38
Location: 10,000', Colorado
Cat Jockey is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to re-emphasize a specific points, If you don't think that extra energy stored in a stroker crank is meaningless, then explain why people change flywheels and how that can affect how much low end torque it feels like the engine has.

1915 vs 1904 properly built and run WIDE OPEN? Put my money on the 1915 as you can burn more fuel. 1915 vs 1904 for operating under load (trying to start weigh moving, pull a hill at 45, etc) when you don't have your foot all the way to the floor?

Same as every other internal combustion engine - gimme the longer stroke, more energy storing crank.

It will drive easier 90% of the time and feel torquier, and should last longer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
RockCrusher
Samba Member


Joined: August 03, 2010
Posts: 4596
Location: Parkesburg, PA
RockCrusher is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cat Jockey wrote:
Just to re-emphasize a specific points, If you don't think that extra energy stored in a stroker crank is meaningless, then explain why people change flywheels and how that can affect how much low end torque it feels like the engine has.
I never said the mass was meaningless....my implication was that you are giving it too much credence. The flywheel is about weight at a great distance and has a squared effect on the mass/energy storage question.

RC
_________________
[email protected] Please use email for all general inquiries.

I will be happy to speak to anyone who has a serious inquiry (meaning real potential business for RC enterprises) or a parts order. Due to machining noise causing missed calls all calls will be returned promptly.


Last edited by RockCrusher on Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
Cat Jockey
Samba Member


Joined: April 29, 2009
Posts: 38
Location: 10,000', Colorado
Cat Jockey is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Maybe I made it TOO simple but you really don't get it. You're so far off in left field that I won't even try to bring you back.


Hardly. Your opposing forces thing is yes, way simple, and yes way off concerning the laws of physics. You are in left field, not me. You were just kind of a smartass to a noob and got caught saying something wrong is all. Don't try to further insult me ... man up to your mistake.

What I stated about a stroker crank storing more energy and the heavier weight of the 1915 rods and pistons acting against that stored energy is correct.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
Cat Jockey
Samba Member


Joined: April 29, 2009
Posts: 38
Location: 10,000', Colorado
Cat Jockey is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I never said he mass was meaningless....my implication is that you are giving it too much credence. The flywheel is about weight at a great distance and has a squared effect on the mass/energy storage question


The crank has the same effect. We are talking about a starting point of 50hp. Minor things can be felt. Yes, that weight can be notice, just like the flywheel weight can, not as strongly, but it is there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
RockCrusher
Samba Member


Joined: August 03, 2010
Posts: 4596
Location: Parkesburg, PA
RockCrusher is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cat Jockey wrote:
Quote:
Maybe I made it TOO simple but you really don't get it. You're so far off in left field that I won't even try to bring you back.


Hardly. Your opposing forces thing is yes, way simple, and yes way off concerning the laws of physics. You are in left field, not me. You were just kind of a smartass to a noob and got caught saying something wrong is all. Don't try to further insult me ... man up to your mistake.

What I stated about a stroker crank storing more energy and the heavier weight of the 1915 rods and pistons acting against that stored energy is correct.
I was not being a smart ass until you came back and basically called me an idiot. What's your degree? What's your experience? I did not make a mistake. Like I said last....have fun.
_________________
[email protected] Please use email for all general inquiries.

I will be happy to speak to anyone who has a serious inquiry (meaning real potential business for RC enterprises) or a parts order. Due to machining noise causing missed calls all calls will be returned promptly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
mightymouse
Samba Member


Joined: May 26, 2004
Posts: 4220
Location: las vegas
mightymouse is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey hey HEY!!!!
Stop arguing... stroker wins EVERY time....lol...JP

suggestion for all small block street v8s,.......stroker crank

suggestion for all driver VWs that want some serious ass woopin power.... stroker crank

Id like to see anyone convince a pro stock guy to use a small crank.... Laughing

Now, if your turbo, or you have a million dollars for heads, yes you can make a short stroke engine just as fast or faster than a stroker.
They literally can cancel each other in an argument.
one is NOT "always" better than the other.
But for the average joe who wants a nice fun to drive daily vw, thats reliable and doesnt need 3k dollar heads, a small stroker with proper rod ratio makes a VERY nice engine and will last just as long as a stocker.

Thats why i preach small strokes,(74/76/78.) they just work...
Image may have been reduced in size. Click image to view fullscreen.

_________________
Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.
Thomas Jefferson


Note to EVERYONE.
Know your ZDDP levels or you WILL lose a cam and lifters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Cat Jockey
Samba Member


Joined: April 29, 2009
Posts: 38
Location: 10,000', Colorado
Cat Jockey is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yea, yea, arguing is kind of pointless, especially since it takes a legitimate vw engine expert to tweek both setups to their absolute max to actually make such comparisons. In the end, even though one can make more hp's with a 1915 due to valve size, you can only access that increased potential with a carb that is wide open, which is not where strokers are advantageous and shine the most, and not where I want the power. I want power across a braoder range, not the ultimate power at full throttle where valve size kicks in over stroke.

So, I'll stop arguing and leave at this. Everything else being equal (fuel delivery - valve size, carb size, exhuast size) take two motors of equal displacement, with one having a longer stroke and one having a larger diameter cylinder, the stroker will develop more torque over a larger rpm range. And that is not arguable. That is physics.

Maximize valve area with the larger diameter cylinder? More power than the smaller valved stroker with both gas pedals to the floor. And an engine that will blow itself up sooner too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
poorboyrc77
Samba Member


Joined: March 24, 2011
Posts: 99
Location: Talladega , AL.
poorboyrc77 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:28 pm    Post subject: stroke vs bore Reply with quote

This thread by far has been my favorite so i had to register just to leave a comment.
My opinion is that both engines have their place in which to perform work. The stroker engine should have more torque but the bigger cylinder engine should have more HP. If you are more interested in pulling a heavy bus or a tall set of sand tires put a stroker in it but if you want to out run your buddy bore it to the max and install the largest heads your cam and piston size can handle and let her eat!!!!!
If you have the money to do both then you have the best of both worlds. This is just my opinion . Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
bbraden3
Samba Member


Joined: March 03, 2010
Posts: 107
Location: Texas
bbraden3 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are we gonna let this die? Where'd everyone go?? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
mark tucker
Samba Member


Joined: April 08, 2009
Posts: 23937
Location: SHALIMAR ,FLORIDA
mark tucker is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hear I am !!! the moon is made of cheezzee!!!!I seen gromet eaten some!!!and no RC isant a eidiot, and he can spell pretty good also.what else needs to be covered?
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: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Jump to:
Page 9 of 11

 
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 © 1996-2023, Everett Barnes. All Rights Reserved.
Not affiliated with or sponsored by Volkswagen of America | Forum powered by phpBB
Links to eBay or other vendor sites may be affiliate links where the site receives compensation.