Engine recomendations

Hi RAMVA! Right now I'm in the process of restoring the '73 SB. This is the time to start thinking about what size/type/extras of engine I'll be putting back in there. This car will be a daily driver, so reliability and durability are important. Also, I would like to keep the fuel consumption low, anything above 30Km per galon (about 19 MPG) is OK. Third in line is performance. Right now I have the original 1600DP with a solex H-30Pict (don't know who did that), and it just isn't enough. It's too difficult to manage the highway with that acceleration and top speed. So, Where can I get the best engine for my needs? Type I or type IV? What's the fastest engine that can be built below 19 MPG, and making sure it lasts a lot?

I know the opinions are divided here and some will say a type I, some will say Type IV, some will go for a stroker, some will go for a bore + stroke, but that's exactly why I'm asking. I'm CONFUSED! help me out. and please tell me who can build this for me.

Reply to
Karls Vladimir Peña
Loading thread data ...

Since you are asking these questions, I am assuming that you are not an experienced engine builder.

An easy, tried and true engine combination that works wonderfully is a

1776cc dual carbed, Engle W110 cam engine. Lots of torque and very nice power, in the neighborhood of 100hp. Reliable as hell, and affordable, easy to build. Based on a stock crank. Nature of the engine is such that it won't require a counterweighed aftermarket crank, you get most of the power below 6000rpm.

Jan

Reply to
Jan Andersson

Reply to
Braukuche

...while it will NOT maintain a quite stock apearance...the bugpack quiet pack exhause is pretty clean onm a bus...it sits close (but not too close) to the bottom of the rear apron... a stock muffler would not be ideal IMHO for a 1776....heater boxes are do-able if the engine is mild enough and a free-er than stock exhaust is used... A 1776 with web 119 cam, weber ICT's, 7.5 to 1 compression ratio and ported stock heads...or generic 041 40x 35.5 cheap heads makes a pretty decent little bus engine...great pull from down low. where ya need it.Run all tin and thermo....full flow it Nice combo.. 1679 with MACHINE in 88's would be good too....extra thick walls great for busses and type 3's....of course my ultimate choice would be type 4. Staying type one...the ultimate bus engine IMHO would be a 74mm stroke crank with 88mm cylinders for total of 1800 cc's of stroker grunt...add a nice set of well ported singleport heads and a set of weber ICVT's ...would give ya a virtually indestructable stump puller....YMMV =-)

...Gareth

Reply to
Gary Tateosian

You are right. I've never built an engine. and this time I'll get someone to build it for me. are you sure I won't need a counterweighted crank? how long will this last? how fast will it go in a '73SB with let's say 3 passengers? How much fuel will it need? I know these are esoteric questions, but as an inexperienced guy, this is the kind of things I'd like to know.

Reply to
Karls Vladimir Peña

The stock exhaust system CANNOT be used, sorry. It's just way too restrictive and will cause overheating. No way around it, not even if you cut one open and modify it internally. The exhaust gas flow is still wrong, won't work with anything but a stock engine.

You can get a hide-out system that plkaces the muffler inside the rear fender, between tire and car body. Muffler would sit upright in there. The header collector would still be hanging there behind the engine, under the rear apron.. but rather than hemorrhoids, you could think of it as testicles ;)

You can fabricate a mounting clamp for stock chrome peashooters so that they would still exit at the apron cut-outs. They would be fake, but it would look like the real thing. Then block view to the header collector with a cheese grater plate that goes between the peashooter tips. As close as stock appearance as you can get, while still enjoying the benefits of better exhaust flow.

With this engine you could use stock type heat exchangers that have a little bigger inside diameter exhaust pipe through them. Or you can try getting away with stock replacement heat exchangers. The factory original heat exchangers don't have a round profile inner pipe, but instead a "crimped" tube to provide more surface area for heat transfer. Unfortunately this hurts gas flow. Most if not all commonly available replacement pipes that you can find, have a round profile pipe inside and would therefore offer better gas flow, with same nominal diameter. Trade-off of course is heat output. Then again, this sngine we are talkingh about, could produce more exhaust heat to begin with so the difference is minimal.

Jan

Reply to
Jan Andersson

Sounds good to me :)

Jan

Reply to
Jan Andersson

You need a counterweighed crank if and when:

1) you rev the engine past 5500 rpms often (that's where a stock crank starts to flex and vibrate) 2) you want a smoother running engine and maximised engine life

It adds weight to the rotating masses too (duhh!) so to compensate you need to remove weight elswhere more (flywheel comes to mind) if you want to keep the throttle response and acceleration unchanged.

In a bus engine though, you would be after torque, so don't lighten anything. Just balance everything carefully. (Job for a machine shop)

Dynamic balancing for crank and flywheel and clutch (separately at first and then together )

static calancing for connecting rods (weight center should be at the same spot, but the importance of this is marginal in this type of engine, they are close enough from the factory if you have an original set of 4)

Weight matching of moving parts, like con rods (factory tolerance is 8g, and you can easily get to 1-2 grams of tolerance at home with a very simple and cheap electronic scale) and pistons too. Mahle forged pistons are usually very close right out of the box. Check anyway, sometimes you get a box with mis-matched set of pistons. I think you can demand a matching set from the shop you bought them from.

Jan

how

Reply to
Jan Andersson

-snip-

Depends entirely on how well it was built and how it is driven, under what sort of conditions. Impossible to say.

Top speed won't change much. How fast you can get there will change radically. If you used to go 0-60mph in 25 or something seconds, you will now do it in 9. (just giving a very rough estimate to give you a general idea)

If you compare with an old, worn stock engine, and you drive nicely, it will consume LESS gasoline than before. However, you unconsciously WILL use the newfound power, and power means gasoline bills. Still, driving normally in everyday traffic the change is not big at all. But when you start playing with your new favorite toy in street corners, freeway ramps, and red lights... then your mileage will drop.

Jan

Reply to
Jan Andersson

to "convert" a T-4 to a T-1 application will cost you about $1200, not including the engine. The type 4 engine is excellent, but not for those on a budget. I usually recommend to stick with the enigne you have already.

Reply to
John Connolly

Reply to
Karls Vladimir Peña

Reply to
Karls Vladimir Peña

Ya John,thats about what I figured too.Does anyone know for sure the tranny differences?Steve

Reply to
Ilambert

the 210 and 215mm T-4 clutch/PP combo is a bolt in to the 73' T1 trans. 1970 and older transmissions need an adapter collar and T/O shaft or an adapter pressure plate.

john Aircooled.Net Inc.

Reply to
John Connolly

You've had a good experience with the ICT's in a 1776? Many seem to prefer the IDFs - the only reason I ask is because I'm STILL trying to decide which to use for a daily driver 1776 bug. The extra cost of IDFs is an issue for me. Already have the cheap 40 x 35 heads.

Charlie Houston, TX '66 Bug "Whitey"

Reply to
Charles Myer

...for a bug I would likely use the IDF's. The reason the ICT's worked well on a bus is it doesn't see high rpm's where they would run out of breath. If its a money issue...go for kadron;'s. They are a little bigger than the ICT's and you can get even bigger venturies if needed from

formatting link
They will wotk fine on a 1776. I am not sure the "limit" rpm wise for the ICT's...but they pull real nice on a bus engine.

..Gareth

Reply to
Gary Tateosian

I build my own, but if you are not equipped to do the same, you could ask aircooled.net for different solutions. John Connolly, who already replied to this thread, runs the business. You can get new engines through them, not sure about transmissions. You could ask.

John, what would you recommend?

Jan

Reply to
Jan Andersson

Thanks Gareth! But since busses have the reduction boxes on the axle and/or are geared lower, wouldn't the engines run out of breath easier than a bug?

Charlie Houston TX '66 Bug "Whitey"

Reply to
Charles Myer

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:23:40 GMT, "Charles Myer" wrote:

...not sure I follow...but let me explain it this way. There is no Holy Grail engine that can do all things optimally. There must inherrantly be compromises made. This is where you decide what vehicle, driving styles, longevity expectations, cost factor, etc you have to work with and which set of compromises will most closely suit your goal. Busses are heavy. This is a fact in comparison with a beetle. Busses in stock form do not handle well at high speeds. This is also a fact. So what would be ideal in a bus engine would be as much low end torque as posssible. This will help pull the heavy bus from a start as well as on hills. So you sellect a very mild cam...one that allows the engiee to work most efficiently at low RPM's.. Ok so we now have an engine that should be ready for low RPM usage....well what about intake? If we use a smaller carb and intake valve sizing with decent porting we will have an increase in velocity of the intake charge (think funnel) this will make for a very responsive engine down low.....again perfect for what we are doing. Sounds good....so why not use the same combo in a car....,after all its good for the bus? Well you can...but most people want a "faster" higher revving engine in a car...even if you feel a nice snap off the line do ya really want to shift halfway through the intersection??? So for the car we go with a little more agressive cam (usually) this moves the peak efficiency of the engine a little higher up the rpm scale..at the same time we go with a little larger valve and a little bigger carb..because now we need more volume to meet the increased RPM range...likely we will lighten the flywheel a little to rev it up a little qwuicker so we don't notice that we have lost some low end responsiveness in tarde for the higher end performance. You will quickly adapt to a new driving technique involving giving a little more throttle taking off...etc... It can make for a very fun to drive peppy car....but don't go to far...if you go too big on cam, carbs, and valves you will have an unusable cvombo for streets with nothing down low and everything up top.. this is just a very quick and dirty explanation...but hopefully it helps some.

..Gareth

Reply to
Gary Tateosian

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.