[tcb] Re: Type 2 - 1967 & Earlier - Stock or Type 2 - 1967 & Earlier -Custom
- From: "w.wood" <evil.scientist.boo@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:34:29 -0400
you can put a lower 4th gear in it.. Remember the middle section is the same
as a bug so there's lots of alternatives to gearing. Unfortunately with a
taller 4th you don't spin the cooling fan enough. Better get one of Doug's
"Texas Pulleys"
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:21 AM, <wuzmop@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Although my tranny is supposedly stock, I think either A) it had a highway
> gear in it already before I had it rebuilt, or B) the builder put one in
> there unbeknownst to me (We had a warranty situation and he made very good
> on it, so maybe....) Either way, it cooks.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Woodall <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thu, Apr 8, 2010 9:06 am
> Subject: [tcb] Re: Type 2 - 1967 & Earlier - Stock or Type 2 - 1967 &
> Earlier -Custom
>
> That's assuming the gearing in the transaxle is stock. It costs about
> the same for a custom geared tranny vs. a stock geared one.
> Robb, you need a 1500 SP turbo. ;-)
>
> David Schwarze wrote:
> > If you are going 75 with the reduction boxes, you are spinning the heck out
> > of
> your motor. Going with increased bore and single-port intake/heads is going
> to
> make it peter out earlier because you are would be trying to push more A/F
> mixture through a smaller tube. That only works with turbos. :-)
> Unfortunately I dont' see a good solution for what you want.
> >
> > -David
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: wuzmop@xxxxxxx
> > Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 06:51:34 -0500
> > To: tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [tcb] Re: Type 2 - 1967 & Earlier - Stock or Type 2 - 1967 &
> > Earlier
> -Custom
> >
> >
> >> I have to agree here. I've toyed with the idea of a sp 1776 for my bus,
> >> but I
> want to retain my redux boxes, and I've shyed away from it for the reasons
> Sammy
> listed. I can already do 75 on a good day, cruise at 65-70 easily with my 1600
> dp.
> >>
> >> I'd be curious about you guys' opinions on how a 1776 sp would compare to
> what I have now. The only reason I would even entertain the idea is I want sp
> for appearance, but don't want to loose the mph I have now. Better yet, what
> would you build (on a budget) to suit my needs?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: sammie smith <bugcollections@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Sent: Thu, Apr 8, 2010 7:33 am
> >> Subject: [tcb] Re: Type 2 - 1967 & Earlier - Stock or Type 2 - 1967 &
> >> Earlier
> - Custom
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No, I don't like 1776 and 1835s. The secret of power for most VW driving
> >> is
> more torque, which you get by stroking for more CCs, not increasing the bore.
> Lyle Cherry used to build a great stroker 1800cc and the guys at Oakhill Auto
> have figured out a way to build a super reliable 2007cc. And to keep it stock
> looking you gotta go with single port heads and stock carbs and exhaust, then
> you are sort of defeating the purpose of a big motor if you put stock carbs,
> exhaust and single port heads on it. And if you think I am a "stock" guy,
> just
> take a look at my Baja. Better yet, I'll take you for a ride in it and show
> you
> what a 2 liter stroker motor will do to the acceleration of a VW.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Denis Dodson <coocoo@xxxxxxx>
> >> To: tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Sent: Wed, April 7, 2010 8:56:24 PM
> >> Subject: [tcb] Re: Type 2 - 1967 & Earlier - Stock or Type 2 - 1967 &
> >> Earlier
> - Custom
> >>
> >>
> >> But, being a stock guy, you would never go to a 1776?
> >>
> >>
> >> From: tcb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tcb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> <tcb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?>] On Behalf Of
> sammie smith
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 8:54 PM
> >> To: tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [tcb] Re: Type 2 - 1967 & Earlier - Stock or Type 2 - 1967 &
> >> Earlier
> - Custom
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> They cruise Ok up to about 60-65, which is about as fast as I want to
> >> drive a
> stock sprung bus. But, if I were building an engine for them and still wanted
> to look stock I would build a single port 1600 with a dog house for cooling.
> Westies are also a lot heavier than panel vans or even a nornal kombi or
> deluxe
> so a little extra power to pull all of the weight would be nice.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Eric Woodall <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Sent: Wed, April 7, 2010 3:47:03 PM
> >> Subject: [tcb] Re: Type 2 - 1967 & Earlier - Stock or Type 2 - 1967 &
> >> Earlier
> - Custom
> >>
> >> A turbo single port 1500 would be cool.
> >>
> >> Quoting atx <atx_bus@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >>
> >>
> >>> How do you like the 1500? Have enough guts and top end speed?
> >>>
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>> sent via iPhone
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 6:02 PM, sammie smith <bugcollections@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes. Both of my Westies, 65 and 66 have their original 1500 engines and
> they are bone stock.
> >>>
> >>> From: atx <atx_bus@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> To: "tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Wed, April 7, 2010 5:30:02 PM
> >>> Subject: [tcb] Re: Type 2 - 1967 & Earlier - Stock or Type 2 - 1967 &
> Earlier - Custom
> >>>
> >>> Sammie are you running a 1500 in your 65?
> >>>
> >>> When I get around to restoring my 66 hard top westy I'm planning to go
> stock with appearence but will probably upgrade the motor while staying
> single
> port. And maybe add some disc brakes.
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--
My Email Moniker
http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,1570570433.aspx
Other related posts:
