[tcb] Re: hershey in da house...
- From: "Gerald V. Livingston II" <gvl2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 22:12:15 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
Dig deep and get the machining done for a set of *88* mm pistons (1679cc
motor).
Or dig DEEPER and call Ronnie in Lake Havasu, AZ (http://type2parts.com)
and ask him how much he charges to build one of his 1835cc bus pushers.
With one of his motors you could just about drive up the side of an office
building for private rooftop parking.
Regarding the slip in 87 vs. the cut in 88:
From aircooled.net:
http://www.aircooled.net/gnrlsite/resource/articles/t1hpeng.htm
77mm, 83mm, 85.5 mm: Stock VW engines (aircooled type 1 1300/1500/1600 cc)
came stock with these piston sizes, respectively. Slip in piston and
cylinder sets are available in 'size upgrade' of 87mm and 88mm, but we do
NOT recommend them EVER, PERIOD. There are NO special cases or exceptions
to this recommendation. Aircooled.Net doesn't sell or support applications
that use the 'size upgrade' slip in sets on 1300/1500/1600 cc engines. When
slip ins are made, the cylinder walls are thinned so that the larger piston
will fit. The cylinder walls become too thin to maintain their integrity as
the engine gets hot, and the piston, cylinder, and piston ring seal breaks
down. Overheating and loss of power are the result.
88mm: The next bore size up from stock is the machine in 88mm set. These
work VERY well, but you are looking at a lot of machining (this costs
approx. $100) for a very small displacement increase! If you're going to go
to that work or expense, you should opt for the larger piston set!
*However, 88s are very good for busses and type 3 engines, since these
engines run hotter than beetles, ghias, or buggies/rails.*
G2
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:45:21 -0600 Dan Martin <danandkatrinamartin@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Personally I would stay with 1600.
> I have not seen much improvement for increasing displacement.
> I have seen it increase the heat produced. (1641 is thin wall cylinders)
> To build a good bus motor you need torque not hp.
> I had a 1600 SP built with a counterweighted crank.
> I used a engle 110 cam.
> I don't think a cam that makes power at 6000 rpm would be good for
> bus use.
> This is a "can of worms" type question............
> I agree with Denis on the build it now over the one to get you by and
> the real motor later.
> I think that would be a better plan if you had a useable engine and
> were building for the long run.
> The only regret I have with my engine is I did not save up for the
> stroker crank first..........
>
> On Apr 1, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Denis Dodson wrote:
>
> > Isn't Andrew a machinist? you will be fine with a 1641, but if you
> > are inside the case you should do all you can afford because, if
> > you are like me, you won't have the time or money to build another
> > engine for a loooooong time.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Denning"
> > <i_am_cool_fred@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 9:14 PM
> > Subject: [tcb] Re: hershey in da house...
> >
> >
> >
> >> because that involves boring and i don't have the mulah for that
> >> eventually i plan on doing that though.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: "Denis Dodson" <coocoo@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Reply-To: tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> To: <tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Subject: [tcb] Re: hershey in da house...
> >>> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:02:35 -0600
> >>>
> >>> Brian if you are splitting the case, why don't you build a 1776?
> >>> They have a history of being a solid motor and will give you that
> >>> extra umph for hills and a good highway speed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Denning"
> >>> <i_am_cool_fred@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> To: <tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 8:36 PM
> >>> Subject: [tcb] hershey in da house...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> ok so i am making a huge a** order monday and i have a question.
> >>>> hershey will have a 1641 in him. so since the case is torn apart
> >>>> for more torque which should i do? (i honestly don't know and
> >>>> thought i would ask an experienced person)
> >>>>
> >>>> Stage 2 Cam: Valve lift: .385" Duration: 275 range: up to 5500
> >>>> RPM
> >>>>
> >>>> or
> >>>>
> >>>> Stage 3 Cam: Valve lift: .410" Duration: 286 Range: up to 6000 RPM
> >>>>
> >>>> now i have heard what a stage 3 sounds like but as far as power.
> >>>> i want something that i can drive daily and take on the
> >>>> interstate and do 60ish. it is a difference of 30 buckaroos.
> >>>>
> >>>> so for any questions ya'll might have stock carb stock style
> >>>> crank. i don't want a speed demond but climbing the hills in hot
> >>>> springs would be nice. i can use any advice on this that you can
> >>>> throw at me.
> >>>>
> >>>> also i am putting this on the dac for you dac guys out there.
Other related posts:
