Your Dream 1776CC

Lets say you had NO budget. (don't we all wish) What SPECIFIC parts you put in your nice new engine. Not the brands, but the sizes, and what do you think you could push out of it?(hp)

Im looking to build a new engine...money is somewhat of an issue, im having a REALLY hard time deciding on parts, and it actually is very confusing, i've read alot of articles, and tried to do as much research, but im so undecided. Lets say you were looking for about 100hp or so, but it was a daily driver, and would be nice if it lasted for a reasonable mileage. WHAT SHOULD I DO!!!

I was thinking 90.5 pistons, ported and polished heads (what valve sizes would be best??)

Counterweighted crank, (i don't know what size)

Probably a mild cam, don't want to go too high in rpms (durability) What size would you reccomend?

what should i do for rockers, springs, tubes??

What piston rods would i want to use if i was to stroke it? (haha, that sounds bad)

Im just looking for insight on a good engine, PLEASE HELP!! I want it to be my spring/summer project

Have fun with this one, hehe ~Peace~Justin

Reply to
Nxqzablesk8er
Loading thread data ...

The key factors are heads and cam. Then of course carburation, but "the norm" here would be Dellorto or Weber 40mm and they would work well.

The cam can have more duration if you get an adjustable cam gear and time it a little advanced, then the powerband would drop down to a lower rpm range. What you'd end up with is a "high rpm, high power" cam that would kick in earlier, at the same rpms as a "milder" cam would. (I'm simplifying things here).

Stroking: up to 78mm stroke, you can use stock lenght connecting rods. Assuming you are still sticking to your plans of staying at reasonably low rpms. This, together with timed cam, could result in a VERRRY torrrrrquey engine that could easily support a "freeway flyer" transmission...! Haven't tried, but sounds like it could be a sweet engine. This is something I would build for a bus btw... ;)

Jan

Reply to
Jan Andersson

For normal everyday use go for a 1915 (94mm pistons/cylinders) instead, same price, higher output and easier to tune correctly..

J.

Reply to
BergRace

If I were to build a streetable 1776 that I were to drive every day, I would use 90.5 P&C, 78 MM counterweighted crank, heads with polished exhaust, not intake (what size valves, not sure), 110 cam, heavy duty valve springs, 1.25 ratio rockers, chromoly pushrods, dual webber

40's, eight pinned flywheel, full flow oil system with filter...and I'm sure I've forgotten something. What do you gurus think? I'm hoping for at least 90 HP, but estimating, with the right heads and port work, somewhere around 100-105. Sound possible? ~Anthony
Reply to
Anthony

On 25 Jan 2004 10:55:12 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Anthony) ran around screaming and yelling:

with the 78mm crank it is no longer a 1776... J

Reply to
Joey Tribiani

That will be a 2007, not a 1776.

Max

Reply to
Max Welton

Sounds good. Nothing exotic, but it works.

Jan

Anth> If I were to build a streetable 1776 that I were to drive every day, I

Reply to
Jan Andersson

Reply to
Ilambert

Reply to
Ilambert

So, if i used 94mm pistons, in order to get 100hp, would i still want to stroke? Or would just using larger pistons, really good heads, 110 cam, stock rods etc? Or what would i be looking at? Also, with 94mm will they last as long? What CC range would i be in? ~Peace~Justin

Reply to
Nxqzablesk8er

What if i used this If I were to build a streetable 1776 that I were to drive every day, I would use 90.5 P&C, 78 MM counterweighted crank, heads with polished exhaust, not intake (what size valves, not sure), 110 cam, heavy duty valve springs, 1.25 ratio rockers, chromoly pushrods, dual webber

40's, eight pinned flywheel, full flow oil system with filter...and I'm sure I've forgotten something. What do you gurus think? I'm hoping for at least 90 HP, but estimating, with the right heads and port work, somewhere around 100-105.

But instead of 90.5, i used 94mm pistons, what would i be looking at?

Reply to
Nxqzablesk8er

...............OK Justin. As stated in another post, a 1776 has a standard stroke of 69mm. So does a 1915, an 1835 and a 1679. Your proposed combination of 90.5mm bore & 78mm stroke would give you a displacement of

2007 cc's. For me, a 1915 or 1776 would be a good performing but still affordable 'driver' with maybe a 118 grind webcam, ported heads, dual 40 webers or Kadrons, merged header exhaust system, counter-weighted crank, HD single springs with 911 style adjusting screws, heavy pulley & lightened flywheel, pulley-crank-flywheel-pressure plate dynamically balanced, full flowed new case and probably some other important things that I can't think of right now. This would be a 'good bang for the buck' 100 hp engine that would surprise the crap out of quite a few 16 valve civics & jettas. The SUV's & Silverados wouldn't have a chance in hell of keeping up with you on a twisty road. The highschool guys would sell you their sisters for a ride.
Reply to
Tim Rogers

Interestingly, I have a 1776cc that was built for me several years ago. I never used the engine and it sets wrapped up in the garage. It had 90.5 stock stroke, engle 110 cam, full flow, dual port heads.... I would have to dig out the paperwork to make sure of all the stuff, machine work, etc..

Due to many circumstances, I was unable to finish the project car. Now (a few years later) I must get out of the busniess (VW business that is ((:_( I had purchased a berg full flow set up and some other things.

I'm willing to sell this for what I have in it. Tha's gonna be about $1300. + plus shipping & handling. I'll prove what I have in it will documentation, receipts, etc..

Since it has been sitting, it may need to be torn down and inspected. It was oiled good and every year or some I would open the wrapping and give it a turn.

If someone is interested, drop me a note. If you want something for nothing, please don't contact me. I'm selling my VW junk on a web site.

formatting link
. I've already sold my '67 beetle. Thanks, and good luck...

bill

Reply to
Bill

Wow...well I learn something new every day. I guess I assumed that becuase it used 90.5 P&C that it was a 1776...but I COMPLETELY spaced the fact that a longer stroke creates more Cubic Centimeters! Gosh...once again I feel like a complete idiot. What's the deal with the 2007's? Good, bad? ~Anthony

Reply to
Anthony

.OK Justin. As stated in another post, a 1776 has a standard stroke of 69mm. So does a 1915, an 1835 and a 1679. Your proposed combination of 90.5mm bore & 78mm stroke would give you a displacement of

2007 cc's.

Tim- I caught that, i just copy and pasted wrong. So what about durability, and longevity. 90.5 vs 94?? And how do you save money, it seems that the P&C sets are the same price, maybe by not stroking the 90.5? saving money? Is there anything wrong, or would and engine not last as long with 90.5 stroked to 78? But the same thing arises, 90.5 and 94 mm cost the same, why not 94, hah.

Reply to
Nxqzablesk8er

durability, and

....................Somebody else will correct me on this as they should but I'm guessing that a stroker engine is at least $500 more expensive than a comparable engine with a 69mm crankshaft. I've never owned a stroked type1 engine but I know that there are conflicting opinions about whether durability suffers with a bigger crank. I'd think that a well built one that's configured by someone who knows their business like John Connolly or Jake Raby would be good for a lot of miles. The conventional theory that

94mm cylinders don't cool as well as 90.5's may not be true enough to make that much difference in longevity. This is a contentious issue. The 94's have a little less fin area but it's the heads that overheat on a type1. Wall thickness doesn't determine how hot a cylinder gets but instead helps the cylinder maintain its shape when it is hot. I have a brother who runs a 1915 in Florida who says that it has logged several thousand miles now without developing any compression or blow-by problems. I think that he commutes about 250 miles a week in it. The PO used machine-in 88mm cylinders in the engine in my '77 bug and I will say this, after about 12,000 miles, this engine has enough compression that it gives me a hell of a workout when I try to turn it over by hand.
Reply to
Tim Rogers

Thanks for the insight, $500-800 (based on my research) sounds pretty right on. Im not too worried about cooling. Worse comes to worse, external oil cooler? I run with my decklid off anyways. I don't see how a larger crank would mess with things, as long as it is REALLY balanced. Even a slight misbalancing will screw up alot, considering how fast, and the circle that the makes.

My question would be, if everything is the same on an engine, the normal 110 cam, 42x37.5 heads, what is the HP diff from a 90.5, and a 94mm engine? How much hp can you get from a 90.5mm, 78 stroked, 42x37.5 heads, equivalent of a

110 cam and all the other nicknacks. How much hp?? And then, same thing, but 94mm p&c

~peace~Justin

Reply to
Nxqzablesk8er

On 26 Jan 2004 18:55:38 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Nxqzablesk8er) ran around screaming and yelling:

you are too big on your valves...you will lose port velocity, and that in turn loses "bottom" end....

Reply to
Joey Tribiani

Your forgot to say "Hey, y'all! Watch this!"

Reply to
diGoliardi

With the 90.5mm? Or as well as with 94mm? Any guess as to HP with each one?

Reply to
Nxqzablesk8er

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.