Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2.

[LivinInnaVWBus]

Hey guys!
Life happened, it's been some time..

After my bus' engine blew last year, discovering my beam was thoroughly rotted and riding my bike through a Chicago winter in absence of a driving vehicle, I had to purchase a newer vehicle and mentally recoup from the air cooled world.

After receiving a TF-1 case from Todd last week, attention and excitement is being diverted back to my bus once again.

Although I have a really nice 1679 in the works already, this TF-1 build will be the last engine my bus will ever need. It will be some time before I start the build as parts will be collected slowly, but I'm looking to bounce ideas off of those more experienced in higher end parts.

The point of this build; Overbuilt & under-powered(bullet-proof), fuel efficient, minimal moving parts and staying as close to the original VW design as possible - no overly custom parts such as dry sumps, flanged cranks.. etc.

My bus is a 68' camper which is undergoing major repairs and renovation. It will be fully loaded as I'll be living in it full time again, I'm guessing around or over 4500lbs.

Keeping the bullet-proof and fuel economy aspects in mind, I decided a 2074 may be the best option.
Why? A 78mm crank will keep the rod angle under control, 92mm pistons will allow me the use of thick wall cylinders and a properly tuned mild 2074 'could' have potential to net similar fuel economy to stock(25mpg+) - this is why I'm straying from a T4 build which are typically below 20mpg.

My inquiry; What are the best quality parts (within reason) this longblock could be built with? I'm starting with only this engine case punched to accept 94s.

Pauter rods are a consideration if I can get them in 5.4.
I wouldn't be opposed to spending $800 on a crank if there was something in that range better than a DPR/DMS.
Best custom cam grinders, lifters(Udo?), straight gears(magnum/CB?), oil pump(Berg?), pistons(JE/Weisco?), heads(clueless)?

Unfortunately I've got to leave internet connection and will have to cut this short until tomorrow. Replies and input are very much appreciated.

Thanks!

[bugguy1967]

A couple things; the 1600cc made a little over 30 MPG in carbureted form, IIRC. I think the F.I. Version was 34?

25+ is extremely attainable with today's technology with any size engine. You're aiming too low.

A TF-1 case is extreme overkill.

Rod angle considerations should be one of the last considerations on your list for high MPG. You should focus on maximum thermal efficiency, high airspeed, optimal spark timing, excellent VE, fuel delivery, exhaust tuning, and gearing among other things.

If you want power and economy, figure out how much power you'd like, and where in the RPM range you'd like it to occur first (Ex: 180 HP at 6000 RPM max). Ok, what combo can get you there? Probably a 2387cc/FK7/1.4/40x35s. Then optimize the crap outta that combination; thermal coatings, minimal spring tension, programmable ignition and injection (small TBs), lighter valvetrain parts, dry sump oiling, bearing coatings, and if you wanna get wild roller rockers. Most of those parts reduce friction, lower oil temps, and free-up drag.

[vwracerdave]

There is no such thing as bulletproof. I've seen $10,000 engines destroyed on the dyno during break-in by a $2 part failing.
_________________
2017 Street Comp Champion - Thunder Valley Raceway Park - Noble, OK
2010 Sportsman ET Champion - Mid-America Dragway - Arkansas City, KS
1997 Sportsman ET Champion - Thunder Valley Raceway Park - Noble ,OK

[[email protected]]

Don't over think, and overspend on your combo. You will end up having $15k in an engine that someone else you meet with the exact same displacement will have $6k in with the same drive ability, fuel milage, and reliability. For the amount of money you would have in a machined Mag case, the TF-1 case was not a bad choice. A $1k set of Pauter rods is not going to be $750 better than a nice set of your average H-beams in your application. Same goes with the crank. A $1400 Billet Scat crank isn't going to matter compaired to a $350 welded/forged crank. Not trying to start a pissing match, but I would use a 1 piece forging over a welded crank. I agree with the 92 thick walls, but I'm with bugguy1967 in using an 84 stroke.

[yamaducci]

Shew! What I would do to that TF-1 case. For me it would be a 3.0L. But really, there are so many options here and budget decisions. If you are starting with all the best parts you can only gauge your reliability on your ability to build it correctly. I would build it as a large as the bus configuration can cool it. I don't work with Buses that much so I am not the best to say what size is max but I would think between 2276-2387 would be fine. As long as you are using the best parts it will be as reliable as a smaller engine. Go for the larger crank for better torque in a heavy Bus.
_________________
-John Cox
My 2498 Turbo Re-Build Thread: http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5578697#5578697

3rd Brake Light Safety Stars- I still have a couple with blue light left. Email me if interested.

[[email protected]]

I agree with the above thoughts.

1) There is no such thing as bulletproof, no matter what you spend.

2) Using that case is like installing a 10,000HP funny car motor in a golf cart.

3) It's been said many times before, how strong a build you have and how long it lasts is directly related to the quality of the build and the skill of the builder.

4) My suggestion would be a 2110. With standard quality parts(not an $800 crank, $400 lifters, $1600 heads, etc) a properly built engine will last 100,000 miles.
_________________
Please "LIKE" us on facebook to see what we are working on.

https://www.facebook.com/mofoco?ref=ts&fref=ts

www.mofoco.com

Cylinder Head Reference Sheet

[theDrew]

Pauter rods for a 2074 mileage motor....thats funny
_________________
Turbo 2276 MS3X build http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=673125
1985 Vanagon Campmobile w/ 2005 EJ25

[Brian_e]

I built a low revving 2234cc torque engine for a stretched baywindow limo. The limo weighs close to 5000lbs without 12 people in it. It gets close to 16mpg average, has plenty of power, and runs surprisingly cool. It was easy to build with zero fancy parts. It stops pulling at 5000rpm. The lower revs will help a ton with the longevity you are after.

Here is the combo.
New Aluminum high top case. cut for 94's, no sand seal
AA 4130 84mm Chevy journal crank
AA 5.4" H-beams
AA 92B Hypers, thick wall cylinders
New CB Panchito heads, w/CNC chambers, and single springs.
Web 218 cam, clearanced
AA SS 1 5/8" sidewinder
AA 40mm IDF clones w/34mm vents
CB linkage and offset manifolds, fully ported.
stock rockers on solid shafts,
stock flywheel drilled for 8 dowels
KEP stage2, (you only need the stage 1)
Daiken super disk
All new Chinese tin, w/venturi ring added.
.045" deck and 8.9:1.

If I were to do another one, I would have DPR build a crank with a type 4 center main, and use a conversion bearing. I ran the heads on my flowbench, and entered the numbers into EA Pro. The program came up with 142ftlbs at 4000rpm, and 136hp @ 5000rpm. At 2000rpm it is making 100ftlbs. I dont have a dyno, so real numbers are not available, but I would guess these numbers are pretty close.

I agree with the others. Fancy parts aren't needed till you are revving it past 7k rpm and still making power. If you want longevity, measure and correct everything, assemble it correctly, keep the revs low, and the valve lift reasonable.

Brian

[TinCanFab]

I don't see a problem using this case, considering the price of everything else on the market. It's really not that much more than the others and it is your foundation for everything else. As far as the other parts go, I don't see anything wrong using CB, Berg, AC.net, etc. If you want the most out of this engine, spend the money on tuning. Go EFI and crank trigger. I'd rather drop the bus off at CB and let them put a turbo EFI system on and tune it for you than spend on drag parts like Pauter or Autocraft. The way to make a bus engine happy is proper tune and power when it needs it.
_________________
Check out my truck brought back from the dead... http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=420762&highlight=sprayed+blood

They're never really ever finished 58 rag build...
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=658092

[Alstrup]

[Spike0180]

[FreeBug]

Speaking outa my ass: you might want to consider a shorter stroke to keep piston speeds down while cruising. I have also read here that some (Alstrup IIRC) mentioned center mains pounding with 82 strokes in a bus. I have no real world numbers to go by, just hearsay.

Food for thought: the WBX came with a 76 mm stroke for in the 2.1l.

[LivinInnaVWBus]

@bugguy1967 - This engine will be in a 68' bus. If I recall correctly, VW claimed fuel economy in the low 20s from the factory.
My bus currently has a 1500sp which if driven modestly, I'd get high 20's.

Rod angle is a consideration for the longevity of the engine's life, not fuel economy.

No-go on the roller rockers however (roachdub58 & Spike0180) I definitely have not eliminated EFI/programmable ignition. I want the least moving parts possible so there is less opportunity for failure.

@Alstrup & bugguy1967 - If you take a look at the following topic, you will see I am one of the few out of 30 pages who is getting high 20's in a bay window of any engine type. I had a low mile 2.0L T4 which I sold after I decided on the T1 build instead. http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8014930

My bus will be heavy, it will have a high top and I drive in mountainous areas. Other users have claimed a 10% mpg drop upon installing a high top.. I'm shooting for more, but I'd be happy with 25-30mpg.

-----

[richparker]

You're back, I heard you were driving around the country in a Chevy van...

In getting 23-24 mph in the highway loaded, with a Thule box, with my 2175 and I actually have power.
_________________
__________
’71 Westy build
Adventure thread
’65 Deluxe Build
’63 Deluxe Build

[LivinInnaVWBus]

[jpaull]

The Stock VW 1600 Rod Ratio is 1.97. Its very efficient. A Long rod for the amount of 69mm stroke, and key to how it lives along time. Longer dwell time at Top Dead Center is more efficient, and will make more power.

A 2332 with 84mm Crank and 5.5 rods is 1.66 Rod Ratio(short)
A 2074 with 78mm Crank and 5.4 rods is 1.75 Rod Ratio
A 2074 with 78mm Crank and 5.7 rods is 1.85 Rod Ratio
A 1600 with 69mm Crank and 5.39 rods is 1.97 Rod Ratio (Best)

People say longer rods make a engine "lazy". But longer is what? Sure a 5.7 Rod on a 1600 would make it lazy cause its not pulling air fast enough for its engine size!

But if you used a 2074 with a 5.7 Rod you would have a Rod ratio still shorter then a stock 1600, so its in no way Lazy

Will it fit a bus? If a 2332 with 84mm Crank and 5.5 rods fits, the 78mm and 5.7 will fit.

I got a TF1 Also, I'm happy to "overspend" on a engine block that is stronger then I "need". I also care about the rod ratio, and the advantage of getting back to a reasonable rod ratio will give your engine more life and more power.

A BEAUTIFUL combination is a 78X92TW with 5.7 rods, and the new CB Panchitos heads opened up to 94s with CNC chambers. The ports/valve sizes will maximize your combo. (Making the most out of the airspeed that's available)

CB or Scat H-beams such as these:
http://vwparts.aircooled.net/SCAT-5-700-H-Beam-Connecting-Rods-Chevy-Journal-p/102534-3.htm

Or if you want the vw journal get those instead of chevy, whatever. You have all the room you need in that case.

As far as straight cuts, that case is a cam drop, so you can choose from Competition Engineering, or Competition Engineering
_________________
[email protected] MPH 1/4 Mile & 8.1 @ 83.7MPH in 1/8 Mile with Mild Type 1 VW Mag Case 2234cc commuter engine in stock weight bug w/only .491 total lift(CB2292 Cam), 42x37 heads, 48idf's, Street tires, Belt on, Mufflers, Pump gas, video of the run here: https://youtu.be/M3SPqMOKAOg

Transmission by MCMScott:
Rhino case, Klinkenberg 4.12, Superdiff, 002 mainshaft with 091 first idler. Weddle 1.48 Third & 1.14 Fourth.

[bugguy1967]

Oh, when I was typing, I forgot you had a Bus. Yeah, your mileage is going to suffer more than a Bug because of the Bus' shape.

As long as you have a programmable EFI, go with the ignition as well. You wanted less moving parts, and a crank trigger gets rid of the dist drive.

[Howard 111]

A fuel injected 2 liter.
_________________
1973 Karmann Ghia
Turbocharged, Fuel Injected
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=531270

[modok]

There does not seem to be any empirical evidence that a 1.85 rod ratio rather than 1.75 will have any benefit to longevity.
It is not very common to use shorter than stock rods, but every case I am aware of, there were no reports of any loss of service life. posibly the opposite, but I won't go that far. if it was so, it whould be the same way higher compression helps. The displacement limited classes have less problem than formulaV.....what's the difference?

Evidence seems to point to.... longer stroke cranks are weaker and flex more, and slightly longer rods don't do much for it.
Power and efficiency, I don't know. These racers don't generally care about mpg

The 2.1 WTB's occasional rod fatigue problems are due the the monstrously heavy piston, and suspect bolts too, but do they break cranks? beat out the center main? NOPE

I don't mean to advocate 1.6something rod ratios either, oh yeah there is more side thrust ext, but anything above 1.75 might as well be a mile, from what I've seen. heck very LONG rod engine have rod thrust wear problems........HOW? I don't know. Good question

[LivinInnaVWBus]

@jpaull & modok - Thanks for posting! I decided on 5.4 for the rod angle, engine width and ease of replacement with a standard set of rods if necessary, but I didn't bother doing the calculations for a 5.7 rod.. which seems like it would be much less stress on the rods/bolts. Although crank flex is a concern(which is one of the reasons I want to stay at 78mm), even though we are speaking potentially negligible amounts, it seems like the stress from the rod angle would be more of a concern than the flex from a 78mm crank.

-----

This Scat crank is looking awfully appealing - http://www.scatvw.com/crankshafts/billet-dowel-pin/ - are there any other non-flanged billet options in the same price range?