Heater Beater 1776

[Clatter]

Oh, man, I been geeking out on cams all morning...!

http://www.webcamshafts.com/mobile/automobile/volkswagen/volkswagen_type_1_pushrod_8v.html

http://cal-look.no/lounge/index.php/topic,10956.0.html

http://shoptalkforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=149645

I really want to keep single springs, but not go clear to titanium retainers.
Aluminum pushrods, and the (slightly) lighter lifters, and some shimming, should allow me to run singles on some 'pretty big' cams..


SBD, thanks for the offer,
But John says the W120 is duals only:
http://vwparts.aircooled.net/Engle-W120-Type-1-Camshaft-1-1-or-1-25-Rockers-p/e6120.htm

Comparing the advertised duration to duration at .050;
The W120 is 294/253, a difference of 41 degrees.

While the Web 163 is rated borderline for singles:
http://vwparts.aircooled.net/Web-Cam-Type-1-Camshaft-Grind-163-1-1-or-1-25-p/00-212.htm
Duration is 284/249 difference of 35 degrees.

The Web 110 is also barely able to support singles:
http://vwparts.aircooled.net/Web-Cam-Type-1-Camshaft-Grind-110-1-25-Rockers-p/00-062.htm
Duration is 284/256, a difference of 28.

If advertised duration is closer (lower difference number) to duration @ .050, it implies that the cam has steeper ramps, right?
That means the need for dual springs goes up...
Seems odd to me that the W120 would _need_ duals, but these others would not..

W120 valve lift is .435", and so is the Web 110.
Web 163 valve lift is lower at .122".

So, what is the reason the W120 needs the duals but the Web 110 doesn't?
Splitting hairs here?
Or some thing about the numbers tht don't tell the whole story?


Another thing that catches my eye is the Web 110/163,
It's not in the Web catalog, but ac.net has it:
http://vwparts.aircooled.net/Web-Cam-Type-1-Split-Duration-Camshaft-110-163-p/00-712.htm

It's designed for a restrictor plate motor, so it gives the intake lobes a better profile for this environment.
Because I'm using Kadrons, the intake isn't as effective as a dual/dual IR setup, right?
Maybe the 110/163 would be the killer app for my beater here?
John mentions using 1.25 rockers on the intakes for the 163 in his description..

Hhmmmmm......

I dunno. the Web 110 seems like it's harder to control the valve.
Torben says he loves the Web 163 for my app.


Everything is all cleaned and ready for assembly.
It was supposed to happen today.
I need my bench back.
The order needs to go off today.

163 or 110/163??

Thoughts?
_________________
Bus Motor Build

What’s That Noise?!?

[Dan Ruddock]

Web 86-5 with 1.3 or more ratio rockers. Dan

[Dan Ruddock]

More duration means more rpm which means more spring. Dan

[Clatter]

[Clatter]

Another reason the regular 163 might be better than the 110/163,
Is that my exhaust isn't all that great.

It's a regular cheapo dual quiet pack.
Dual muffs, but not merged, or otherwise 'nice'..

Maybe going dual-pattern would only really be beneficial if the exhaust was a really nice one??


_________________
Bus Motor Build

What’s That Noise?!?

[Dan Ruddock]

86-5 has 10 degrees extra duration added. Web has lots of options not in the catolog. Straight 163 is a good choice for hd singles. I just hate stock rockers. Dan

[[email protected]]

CB 1.3 Scuffer Tip rockers work great with the Web 163.

And no, I don't recommend 1.4s or 1.5s with that cam.
_________________
It's just advice, do whatever you want with it!

Please do NOT send me Private Messages through the Samba PM System (I will not see them). Send me an e-mail to john at aircooled dot net

"Like" our Facebook page at
http://www.facebook.com/vwpartsaircoolednet
and get a 5% off code for use on one order for VW Parts ON OUR PARTS STORE WEBSITE, vwparts.aircooled.net

[Alstrup]

X 2 on the 163 + 1,3 rockers. just remember to adjust the CR for the extra bleed off and it performs really well.
If you are after an 86a+5 you might as well just order an 86b on 108 LC and advance it 2-3 degrees after what suits you.

T

[67rustavenger]

[Dan Ruddock]

Hey guys, he wants to run hd singles, kads, and heater boxes. For the springs he needs mild lift, for the kads he needs mild duration for a good idle. I like the web 119. Dan

[Alstrup]

Advancing the cam brings the power in slightly sooner. It can also be beneficial if the intake ports are on the large side to help keeping port velocity up.

Dan, I did´nt read that far. In that case I´m with ya. 218/119 at the most, or other things should be done to maintain just a decent idle.

T

[Dan Ruddock]

[Alstrup]

Dan, I hear what youre saying, but I slightly disagree. The 218 is so relatively mild on the ramps that it is not an issue with the springs or stock rockers for that matter. you should use Porsche style adjusters. The Mazda type wohnt cope. I have built a good deal of bus engines, and some beetle street engines too with the 218 and/or the 218/119 cam. For instance, a 1776 with portes stock valved heads, Scat HD sgl. springs set up at 1,48", regularcromemoly retainers, ACN aluminum push rods and CB 78 gr. lifters. It pulls 119 hp @ 5500 and its actually over at just over 6. BUT the power curve is rather flat above peak, so if youre busy and need to make a statement there is no problems staying on it for a while longer. It revs clean to 7000.
I have even used the 218/119 with 1,25 rockers on a couple of larger displacement Kadron powered engines with very good results. One of them, a 2109 is pumping out 135 hp through a set of slightly modified 40 mm Kadrons. The engine is very easy to drive.
Don´t know the variant of the 86 you are referring to, but the straight 86 was never my cuppa tea.

T

[Dan Ruddock]

[Clatter]

All great info, guys..
Thanks for the input!


I'll share what I do know about this application..

The last one similar to this was the same, except it was a 1641.
It had an Engle 100, and I really didn't like it.
It idled like a Harley, so, with a set of 1-barrel Kads, we'll just consider it just part of running these carbs.
(more on this later)

What I really didn't like, was that it just ran out of beans way too soon.
It started up the rev range with gusto,
But before it really started getting good, just fell on it's face,
And badly, too.
Kind of the 'worst of both worlds' - bad idle, and no upstairs whatsoever.

So,
When looking at the E100 - .420" lift at valve, duration 276/235 @ .050",
And comparing it to the Web 119 - .422" Lift, duration 276/240,
It just looks too similar; While it will make a nice off-idle driver,
There won't be any point in trying to rev it up.

Like I said, I don't mind a soggy bottom, and want to feel it 'come onto the cam'.

So we move up to the Web 218 - .455 lift, duration 280/242.
This has a bunch more lift. and it's 'pointy' nature shows by the duration numbers compared to the lift.
However,
242 @ .050 is .242 @ .050, and, .455 is a "lot" of lift for singles and 1.1 rockers.
If that makes any sense..


Which brings us to the 163..
.422 lift, but 284/249 duration, gets us into Engle W110 territory.
This will be a 'funner' cam to get up on the cam,
And not have too much lift for our singles..
The advertised vs. .050 duration indicate that it might have a bit steeper ramps than a W110, as well, so, fun.


Surprised that nobody mentioned the Web 110 - John calls it the 'forgotten' Webcam.
Could there be a valid reason for this?
I guess that's just true.. Fugettaboiutit!

Because my exhaust and induction are -both- 'bad', a single-pattern cam seems almost in order..


However,
Humor me here..


Working with type 4s so much, dual-pattern cams are the norm for me.
Been forever since i did a single-pattern cam with a type 4..

Not only are the exhaust ports restrictive, the rockers exhaust-side give significantly less lift.

With the Type 1 motors, the opposite is true, the exhausts need little work compared to the intakes - which get all of the porting, and sometimes welding, and all of these different shapes.
(When was the last time you saw an ad showing the exhaust port shape on a type 1 head? )



It just seems to me that the two valves have such different operating environments,
And see such different duty cycles..

The intake comes open, and picks up a little vacuum sweep from the exiting exhaust and overlap, to get things moving,
Then it gets the big vacuum pull from the dropping piston and expanding cylinder..
By the time it's flowing and filling the cylinder, it gets the piston coming back up, and the valve closing.

The exhaust, on the other hand, as soon as it opens, has the combustion pressure/explosion rushing past it's head, and the piston isn't even at the bottom of it's stroke.
Seems to me that the charge can't even get out of there fast enough, before the piston is coming back up and stuffing it out the pipe some more already..

This is why exhaust valves are so much smaller than intake valves.
The exhaust is already being rammed past the valve before it even opens,
But the intake is like "Huh? oh, yeah, open valve.. let's start flowing, eh?"

So, because of the different operating environs of the two different valves,
It seems to me that valve size alone is a poor way to idealize/balance the flow.


Which brings me to the question:

Have any of you actually tried the Web 110/163?

What (admittedly very little) i know about this subject,
The 110/163 seems like the hot ticket,
because the two cam profiles look better optimized for their respective jobs..


Oh, and thanks again for all of your input.
This is really some fun stuff for sure!
_________________
Bus Motor Build

What’s That Noise?!?

[Brian_e]

I have never tried the 110/163, but I have thought it over for a 9.5cr 1915, kads, 40x35 heads, and a 1 1/2" header. I think your exhaust is gonna be a plug if you get much over 245deg. duration.

I will stick with my original suggestion of the 218/119. The web 218 is the modern day w110. More power everywhere, smoother, and better quality. It suits many different applications, and works well in most of them. I built a 2234cc w/218 tractor engine for a strange application, but it worked great.

Brian

[Dan Ruddock]

[Clatter]

Went ahead and ordered the 163.

Must have been Torben's description of it on tha STF post, or the numbers, or..?

Just seems like the right cam for this, so we'll be trying it out!

Might be a couple of weeks...


My 'beginners how-to' part of this kind of got trounced by all of this cam nonsense,
So we'll be moving back to measuring/setup etc. again here soon..
_________________
Bus Motor Build

What’s That Noise?!?

[Clatter]

Waiting.. Waiting..
John/Web was 3-4 weeks out for my order.



Looking again at all the great info i got. (thanks again, guys. So much great input),
Starting to wonder if i totally over-cammed the thing..


Thinking more about my Karbs..
I know what they are, and what they will likely do,
However.. They seem to have been given every chance.

First of all, they got done years ago by AJ,
They have his filter mods, and one side tapped for vacuum, Scat linkage, etc.
The vents are already opened up a couple mm over (can't remember exactly how much - supposedly right for ported stock heads).

Already got me a pulse valve, and an SVDA from around 15 years ago.


Looking at 'Lengwendil's' (excellent) Kadron port tutorial,
I can't help but think it's time to port the 2nd carb and tee it to the other.
(Also good to use steel barb vs. plastic like AJ did).

Maybe this will help tame the low-speed cam manners a bit?


Another question - the balance tube..
Think i should tap the manifolds for some really bigass fittings?

The Type 3 with dual PDSITs had a really big balance tube for to keep the idle smooth,
Right?

Could get a BIG balance tube if i welded some pads onto the manifolds..


Put softer springs in the distributor to get the advance in earlier?

Maybe dial the cam in a couple degrees advanced?



Anybody got any trick ideas on how to get more manners out of this setup?
_________________
Bus Motor Build

What’s That Noise?!?

[Pruneman99]

The single port PDSIT type 3's had large balance tube openings. Like 1/2" or so.

I don't have any of the dual port type 3 castings so IDK how large they are.

The dual port brazilla/puma have tiny balance tube drillings.