| Author |
Message |
theDrew
Samba Member
Joined: May 17, 2011
Posts: 1155
Location: Camas, WA
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:32 pm Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
 |
|
why spend $1300 on a crank when a $300 one will be just fine?!
_________________
Turbo 2276 MS3X build http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=673125
1985 Vanagon Campmobile w/ 2005 EJ25 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
[email protected]
Samba Member
Joined: August 15, 2002
Posts: 4394
Location: Brew City
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LivinInnaVWBus
Samba Member
Joined: October 07, 2013
Posts: 968
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
| [email protected] wrote: |
| theDrew wrote: |
| why spend $1300 on a crank when a $300 one will be just fine?! |
X2
There is absolutely zero return on the extra $1000 investment |
My intent is to have this engine for life, and it will be put through it's paces thoroughly.
My needs aren't compatible to yours or most others. I will be living in my bus in 3rd world countries on a very strict budget with likely no access to replacement parts or machine shops. If this means spending double or triple the cost of standard long block parts, I'd rather cry now than when I'm fucked on the side of the road with a thrown rod in Mexico approaching dusk, you feel me?
I believe this $1300 crank and $900 set of rods is much stronger than it's Chinese or welded original counterparts, don't you? Overkill, obviously - Spending an extra $1500 on these parts is much more comfortable than having even a slightly greater chance of being stranded with no engine and no money. Although I still am not 100% on using these parts, at this point I see no reason not to other than it's uncomfortable for other's budgets.
Moving on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yamaducci
Samba Member
Joined: March 30, 2010
Posts: 2335
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:26 pm Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
Hey Livininabus whatever your real name is. I can understand your point for wanting bullet proof and all but if you don't do this all day every day it's not likely to be bulletproof no matter what parts you use. I love your ambition as you can see by my build thread but seriously You are going to live in it in the 3rd world country for however long. You may not want ultra custom parts if you can get stock parts Donkey'ed in from somewhere.... just a thought. The other though is this is 2016 and as much as I love your idea; why not buy a Sprinter Van and use that for your journey with a warranty and keep the VW for chillin in when you get back. Over the years I have over $15k in my engine not including my labor and learning curve. It has less than 500 miles on it. It's basically a test engine and that is what you are building. Your rig is only as strong as the weakest link. Keep us posted. I hope I can help and good luck on your trip.
On another note. I have been stranded in the desert in a race 1600cc built by FAT. Yes I was nervous and cold but the mechanicals were never the issue. You could literally spend 6k with FAT on a 1600 that is more bullet proof than anything you can come up with on a first time build of this magnitude. AND those parts are interchangeable with stock. We had 100Hp on race fuel.
_________________
-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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jpaull
Samba Member
Joined: February 22, 2005
Posts: 3466
Location: Paradise, Ca
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:47 pm Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
The Scat crank you referred to looks like a good match for the TF1.
For what your doing, and having concern with reliability, remember that getting your rod ratio closest to stock vw will give you exactly that. Everything will last longer and have less stress.
I would not be eager to get fuel injection. The electronic parts involved that might fail in the middle of nowhere might not be available. Even though they are not "moving parts" they are "failed and f@cked" rendered unable to be fixed with anything other then replacement. If you have to have efi, i would have a complete second efi system clone as a spare. Even then, for what your doing I think idfs are more reliable bet.
I would feel much safer with a nice new set of idfs and a spare fuel pump. Buy a spare set of Idfs and linkage with tuning cloned and have tucked away.
_________________
[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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[email protected]
Samba Member
Joined: August 15, 2002
Posts: 4394
Location: Brew City
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
| LivinInnaVWBus wrote: |
| [email protected] wrote: |
| theDrew wrote: |
| why spend $1300 on a crank when a $300 one will be just fine?! |
X2
There is absolutely zero return on the extra $1000 investment |
My intent is to have this engine for life, and it will be put through it's paces thoroughly.
My needs aren't compatible to yours or most others. I will be living in my bus in 3rd world countries on a very strict budget with likely no access to replacement parts or machine shops. If this means spending double or triple the cost of standard long block parts, I'd rather cry now than when I'm fucked on the side of the road with a thrown rod in Mexico approaching dusk, you feel me?
I believe this $1300 crank and $900 set of rods is much stronger than it's Chinese or welded original counterparts, don't you? Overkill, obviously - Spending an extra $1500 on these parts is much more comfortable than having even a slightly greater chance of being stranded with no engine and no money. Although I still am not 100% on using these parts, at this point I see no reason not to other than it's uncomfortable for other's budgets.
Moving on. |
I think you are missing our point. Spend all you want but it seems like you are spending money in the wrong places. For example, cases don't go bad. Cranks don't break(unless drag racing) Rods don't break.(basically ever) Cams and lifters can go bad. Seats can fall out of heads. Valves stretch and/or break. Springs break. Carbs fall out of adjustment. TUNING is your most important factor. Dist can go bad and burn up the engine.
I am going to suggest something I have never suggested before. With the money you have to spend and your need to not break down, bite the bullet and buy an engine from Jake Raby. Have him install and tune it. It will cost you $15,000+ but if you have the cash; there is your piece of mind.
_________________
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
modok
Samba Member
Joined: October 30, 2009
Posts: 26788
Location: Colorado Springs
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 6:04 pm Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
| jpaull wrote: |
For what your doing, and having concern with reliability, remember that getting your rod ratio closest to stock vw will give you exactly that. |
If you consider stock good enough sure, but I think that's aiming low. 
Just giving you a hard time  Stock engines are fine below 4000 rpm, and actually that is a very interesting POINT.
Stroke VS rpms, which is better way to get power?
If you use a longer stroke crank, but limit the rpms to keep forces equal, did you gain anything? yes and no. The Valve train has an easier life at lower rpms, but, far as crank flex it is about equal. Yes forces do go up at the square with rpm, while the forces go up proportionate to stroke, but cranks get weaker as the stroke is increased, so it's about the same IMO.
If I was going to order a billet crank I'd get porsche width rods, and use narrowed 2" chevy or subaru ej bearings, no less than 82. A wbx crank can go 80mm stroke too, but beyond that is iffy. I don't know why nobody does 80, it's a good size, and a wbx crank is TOUGH  Bolt on flywheel is justice, be done with dowel pins! Type-4 main bearings aren't rare yet, although there has been much fear about it.
You don't have to justify wanting nice parts. It's art. If nobody commissions art then the artists go hungry. No need to explain why any more than all the stupid and highly expensive things they do to cars that render them near useless for the sake of appearance. This may be overkill but it will operate, it will work, and unless you drive it into the ocean or melt it, it will be useful many years. Better to spend your money on steel than carved bondo  SCREW BONDO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LivinInnaVWBus
Samba Member
Joined: October 07, 2013
Posts: 968
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
| yamaducci wrote: |
| why not buy a Sprinter Van and use that for your journey with a warranty and keep the VW for chillin in when you get back. |
Not my style. I've been a daily driver of ACVW's since 2005(with exception of while I'm undergoing repairs). Since that time I've had around 30 vintage VWs through my hands, built/sold a ton of engines and endured negative temperature Chicago winters in a 73' thing with a soft top. Hell, my bicycle was my only mode of transportation for 6+ months last year through winter until I finally admitted defeat (for the time being) and bought the Chevy to get me around while I'm fixing my bus. Prior to that, I had mostly been living out of my bus in New Orleans and Illinois since the end of 2012.
I've pulled engines and transmissions in parking lots(once at a Mofoco show a few years ago), rebuilt carburetors in bathrooms and heads on the side of the road, the only tattoo I have is a 50's Canadian VW script logo across the tops of both of my feet - I'm a VW nerd who isn't impressed by sprinters.
@jpaull;
- "The Scat crank you referred to looks like a good match for the TF1.
For what your doing, and having concern with reliability, remember that getting your rod ratio closest to stock vw will give you exactly that. Everything will last longer and have less stress." -
Agreed.
- "I would not be eager to get fuel injection. The electronic parts involved that might fail in the middle of nowhere might not be available. Even though they are not "moving parts" they are "failed and f@cked" rendered unable to be fixed with anything other then replacement. If you have to have efi, i would have a complete second efi system clone as a spare. Even then, for what your doing I think idfs are more reliable bet.
I would feel much safer with a nice new set of idfs and a spare fuel pump. Buy a spare set of Idfs and linkage with tuning cloned and have tucked away." -
Exactly what I was thinking, however a couple of carb kits take up a whole lot less space than spare idfs. I'm not giving the fuel delivery system much thought at this point, I won't be there at least until next year but a large consideration will be dust/dirt accumulation from unmaintained roads.
@[email protected] - I understand the cumulative point you and a few others are trying to get across, and not that I'm trying to offend but I think it's silly having to justify spending an extra $1500(MY $1,500) to make a much stronger engine when many people reading this topic have spent that on a NOS roller crank or something/anything internal branded Berg with less than a peep from other contributing samba members.
$15,000k I don't have, 1/10th of that I do. Also, again, I have not fully decided on these parts yet but it would seem daft to have a TF-1 stuffed with a Chinese crank and rods no matter the brand(CB, Scat, Empi).
I'd been waiting on this case to be finished since Sept 2014 - I'm not in a huge rush and parts will be purchased when I've got the additional funds. I'm going to be spending a significant amount of time on the west coast before I head south across the border.
The 1679 I'll be finishing shortly was built around the case native to my Devon with a VW of Canada rebuild stamp. It has a DPR crank, CB rods, CB straight cuts, CB rockers, CB ultralight lifters, NOS Italian 34s, Berg pump/cover, Norris pushrods-springs-keepers, MST PR tubes, NOS bearings and Jaycee/CB/MST billet everything else. I don't know why I wouldn't treat this TF-1 build with the same/more respect. Again, this engine, these parts, if built, tuned and treated properly could be transferred to any other VW I may own in the future. When the time comes for a rebuild, these parts will have the ability to be reground multiple times if necessary. This isn't something that could be said for a DPR/DMS/Chinese cranks or Chinese rods - I consider Chinese cranks unusable after 2 cuts and the best DPM/DMS crank you can get already has 1 cut on it. I'd also go as far as to assume the Scat crank/Pauter rods would show much less wear than a Chinese counterpart as well. If the Scat crank and Pauter rods were to make it through just 2-3 rebuilds, which at this duty they should have NO issues doing, it would be worth the financial and piece of mind investment to me.
Now, can we be done with that or would you guys like me to post a copy of my tax records? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
modok
Samba Member
Joined: October 30, 2009
Posts: 26788
Location: Colorado Springs
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
Who'd you vote for? don't answer that.
I just wanted to ramble further. Same reason I bought a raceweight DMS crank. I just wanted to have one. Bob's getting older and on vacation most of the time, increasingly, so I figure now or never. I don't think it's better than DPR can do these days, but it is a darn nice crank, a fine piece of WORKMANSHIP.
He talked me into a 78 stroke. That wasn't what I was after but it was a long conversation and at the end I just decided to go with it. Who knows. It will live longer than he will, and really no need to pass judgement on it anytime soon.
I've seen many eagle rods outlast the rest of the engine they are in, only .0003 out of round after long service is rare in any engine but I've seen it a few times with those. 90% of the time they get blown up at a zillion rpm from a bearing failure so you don't get to see it very often, but IMO they do hold up better than stock VW. Many of the rods will. It's mainly a matter of having good structure around the big end and how good the pin bushing material is. Designing the rods for max stroke clearance is not necessarily what you want, but in any case, I think any rod will last as long as a valve guide, so it's not very important. Many people debate the Pauter rod shape, and there isn't really a right answer, you can make the beam any reasonable shape and it will work. However, the X beam does not really make sense with any cylinder offset, and a 1600.....is offset. Not that it will matter in this case but it's been bothering me since I realized the irony of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank Bassman
Samba Member
Joined: July 01, 2012
Posts: 894
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:18 pm Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
Whatever you do, do it because it makes you happy. And you are free to choose.
Having said that, I'm not understanding what the fuss is of using or not using a part because it has this or that pricetag. Why is it daft dumb or stupid to use a chinese crank provided they are good? Certainly much better than MANY rebuilt and otherwise reworked old german stuff in some instances.
If it's good it's good, costing a dollar or a million, made in china or germany or the good ol' US. If you feel you have to bleed yourself to buy the rare exotic parts to be happy though, your call friend.
Just think about the millions of VW's running around and their cost, and ask yourself why exactly it is you REALLY need to spend so much to be satisfied.
Not sure what kind of abuse you're planning on putting on this thing, I'm kind of scared to know though since you're so concerned with making it "bulletproof".
Either way good luck, I wish I could afford that engine case myself.
I'd still run a CB, Scat, or german rebuilt crank in it though for my "bulletproof" motor!
-Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bugguy1967
Samba Member
Joined: January 16, 2008
Posts: 4343
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90016
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
| LivinInnaVWBus wrote: |
@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? |
Naw. Flex comes from lack of main bearing support, reduced main-to-rod journal overlap, RPM, journal sizes, and weight of the parts connected to the crank. Ok, if you go 78mm, use a VW journal. Might as well have the strongest crank you can at that size. For longevity purposes only, hypereutectic pistons have features that last longer than forged pistons. They're also lighter than a forged piston of the same shape. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truckersmike
Elder Sambanite
Joined: March 16, 2001
Posts: 2025
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:43 am Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
Just to give you some perspective about the abilities of a VW upright engine. Mine took me all over the US in 2003 on a 10K mile trip and from Phoenix to Alaska and back in 2008 on an 11K+ mile trip on the same 1904 motor. The only issues I ever had had nothing to do with the internals. Bad fuel pump, linkage falling off, clogged carb, a bad alternator and it got water logged on a Mt Shasta Snow Trip. Changed the oil immediately and it lasted another 60K miles. On more than one occasion the oil light came on but no damage was done. After 140K. I finally tore it apart due to excessive end play. Otherwise still ran strong.
This engine had quality non racing ultra expensive parts. Engle cam, CB lifters, Unitek rods, Mahle P/C, Silverline bearings, 74mm crank (that I thought was forged but turned out to be cast), dynamically balanced, full flowed with Kadrons.
Imagine how good an engine would be from a real builder instead of a hobbyist like myself.
_________________
59 DD panel. Former Romano's TV delivery bus
67 Westy SO-42 pop-t |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slow 1200
Samba Member
Joined: July 02, 2004
Posts: 2105
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:07 am Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
| I love overkill, but if you have to be crossing continents, every non-standard part makes it harder to mantain and keep running if something breaks in the middle of nowhere |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theDrew
Samba Member
Joined: May 17, 2011
Posts: 1155
Location: Camas, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:19 am Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
since your mind is made up already on what your getting....whats the question?
_________________
Turbo 2276 MS3X build http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=673125
1985 Vanagon Campmobile w/ 2005 EJ25 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jpaull
Samba Member
Joined: February 22, 2005
Posts: 3466
Location: Paradise, Ca
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:47 am Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
| theDrew wrote: |
| since your mind is made up already on what your getting....whats the question? |
His question, was asking people for suggestions and experience regarding high end parts for his high end case.
Instead, most people just argued saying nobody needs high end stuff .
_________________
[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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alstrup
Samba Member
Joined: July 12, 2007
Posts: 7216
Location: Videbaek Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:49 am Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
| LivinInnaVWBus wrote: |
My bus currently has a 1500sp which if driven modestly, I'd get high 20's. |
If you drive it like a grand pa, thatīs absolutely possible on cruise. But you also have very little extra power to spare.
| LivinInnaVWBus wrote: |
Rod angle is a consideration for the longevity of the engine's life, not fuel economy. |
1,80-185 is good for such engine. 1,75 is no problem, nor is 1,90.
| LivinInnaVWBus wrote: |
@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 |
50% maybe more do not know how to properly trim an engine, type 1 or 4. If it nruns half decent many people are living with it under the excuse that is is an old car (!) Next, building a type 1 or 4 engine that has double or triple the power of a stcock 1500, that will still be able to maintain good fuel efficiency is much more difficult than most people think. A thrown together combo that coyuld work ok in a beetle will often work horrible in a bus. If you build an engine, type 1 or 4, that has triple the hp of a stock engine, you will end up using a good deal of the power in periods of time like when going uphills. Power equals consumption, end of story. On flat land such an engine should do as good or a tad better than a stock engine, so the fuel efficiency in total should not drop any significant numbers.
A 68- on bus with Westfalia roof should be able to do about 10,5 km/l @ 70 mph. Sometimes a little better too. A high roof I donīt know. I have not been involved in one of those for quite a while.
Investing in fancy rods and cranks will not improve lifespan to any significant extend. Proper parts, balance, oil pressure control, correct oil, temperature control, sober build and correct trim will.
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vw moses
Samba Member
Joined: April 17, 2012
Posts: 213
Location: independance,louisiana
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 11:04 am Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
I like the tf-1 case for foundation case. massive cast in+thru bolts.
go w/points in dist. my friend, simple
matching the internals w/quality--Priceless!
youre going to do good 
_________________
Youtube@vw moses
73 thing-gone
66 beetle-gone
62 beetle-gone
57 beetle-gone
convertable-beetle-w/bugspray & screamer dist.(019) gone
"Where There's a Will There's a Way"
63 one of a kind beetle. 57 dash,double rear window--sweet! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richparker
Samba Member
Joined: November 24, 2011
Posts: 6982
Location: Durango, CO
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LivinInnaVWBus
Samba Member
Joined: October 07, 2013
Posts: 968
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
@truckersmike - That's quite a trip! I'd love to make it to Alaska. Between Sept 2012 and June 2015 I clocked around 140k-160kish(my speedo took a shit at after I put around 110k on it, I don't know the exact mileage). That was the engine which came with the bus, it was a low mile VW of Canada rebuild. When I broke it down, the crank was bent and it needed a line bore. The rods were worn but decent, cam and lifters were surprisingly reusable although the cam bearings were moments from failing.
| Slow 1200 wrote: |
| I love overkill, but if you have to be crossing continents, every non-standard part makes it harder to mantain and keep running if something breaks in the middle of nowhere |
Yep.
With the weight of my bus, highroof and the duty it will be put through, a smaller engine will wear much quicker, a larger engine is needed. Using a stroked crank and non-stock sized rods, if either fail I will have a small chance at finding replacements without waiting weeks/months. My logic, buy stroker parts which have the least likelihood of failing. This is why I opted for the TF-1 case, I'd be surprised if it will ever need a line bore.
@richparker - I'm not sure what I'm doing with the tires. The knobby tires made the bus ride and steer awesome but the diameter was smaller than implied on the manufacturers website, they made the engine scream at 60. The Firestone blackwalls were a larger diameter than implied and they bogged down the 1500 significantly. I need a mildly aggressive all season tire which can handle the weight and fit a 14" wheel.
-----
Build list as of current;
- 78mm Scat billet dowel crank or a NOS crank sent to DMS/DPR for counterweights
- Pauter 5.7 rods or CB H-beams
- AA 92mm thick wall cylinders
- JE 92mm forged pistons
- Norris HD aluminum pushrods
- Norris chromoly retainers and hardened keepers
- Norris single Hi-Rev valve springs with damper
- Berg 26mm blueprinted oil pump
- CB Super Stock 1:1:1 rockers - stock or Porsche elephant foot adjusters
To be determined;
Heads - Considering worked NOS genuine VW dual port heads or Mofoco. Any other other non-Asia made options?
Flywheel - Suggestions? Anyone have a NOS German flywheel laying around?
Carbs - Suggestions? I've always wanted a pair of Zenith 32s but I know nothing about their fuel economy.
Ignition - Probably a crank trigger and a 019 in my kit for backup.
Lifters - Tool steel or CB Ultralight or NOS German VW |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neil68
Samba Member
Joined: March 17, 2007
Posts: 3440
Location: Calgary, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: Most robust/fuel efficient upright engine for a Type 2. |
|
|
When I bought my '69 Westfalia, many years ago, the engine was on its last legs. I built a 1679 cc with thick-walled Mahle 88 mm pistons, a counterweighted 69 mm German crank, Engle W-100 camshaft and good old Kadrons. We put just over 60,000 miles on that engine driving from Canada to California and all over western North America.
Sold the Westy and the next owner put several more years on that engine until we lost touch.
For me this was robust and very fuel efficient, although with stock gearing (5.38 R/P if I recall correctly), we were in third gear on the steep mountain grades most of the time.
_________________
Neil.
Der Kleiner Rennwagens
68 Beetle 2332 cc, 204 WHP
12.5 seconds @ 107 mph
Dynojet Test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9B_H3eklAo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
