My first type4, probably 2056

[fusername]

lookin good. I used on of those blocks once, I cut the dipstick tube shorter, and then cut the dipstick to match, made life easier. just made my marks after the first fill up.

[Clatter]

If you are going to go to the (most worthwhile) trouble to put new valves/seats in,
I would suggest 42 x 36.
My bus motor has these and i love it.
Stock 2.0 914 valve sizes...
If you are going for low-end, leave the ports un-touched, maybe matched to each other and the manifolds.
Open up the area under the valves (bowls) to match the new seats.
Your 1.8 heads will likely need seats if they are used,
And would make a good match to this type of combo.

A small dual-pattern cam would have to come from the type 4 store.
jake had some nice smaller dual-pattern cams created around the Web 73.
His bus cam used to be the number 9550. He has a different number for it now.

Maybe Web would make a small dual-pattern cam if you spoke to them and special ordered it?
They answer the phone and are very helpful in making recommendations.

Anything you do to increase displacement will move the rev range lower, all other things remaining the same.

[TZepeSH]

I can only use Web camshafts as they are available in Europe. The cam kits from Jake can not be sent to Romania.
About the cylinder heads, it is easier to get a pair of 914 heads and change the valves and guides than to modify bus heads for larger valves. But I don't know if using 914 heads would not move the power band up because of the larger ports. In that case it would be better to modify the bus heads...
Does anyone know the diameter of the intake ports on 1.8l 41x34mm bus, 2l 39x33mm bus and 2l 914 heads? I measured a bus head with 37x33mm valves and the port is 35mm. Clatter, what type of heads did you use to put larger valves?
I am still open to any proposal for best combination for low to mid end torque increase.

[TZepeSH]

Not much progress on the topic, moved to a new house, baby came to world.
Fuel injection project is ongoing, I have a functional ECU but only testing it on the table.
Now I have a question related to the clogged idle jet problem of Dellorto carbs. I described it in detail in the engine management forum, link below. Any opinion on the idea of removing the brass idle air "jets" and replacing them with taller ones (not Jet Doctors)?

http://www.shoptalkforums.com/viewtopic ... 4&t=146412

[Race-buggy]

send your heads til Jakob spring in denmark. him have made my heads for my 2056ccm.

https://da-dk.facebook.com/pages/GetBac ... 7546413331

[TZepeSH]

Time to revive this thread. Planning to build the engine next year but I'm starting to buy bis and pieces.
Heads will be from BAS Ahnendorp, 42x36. Exhaust also from them.
I'm still confident I will use Megasquirt fuel injection. I'm trying now to find the correct size throttle bodies. ECU is functional. Ignition is also controlled by MS, using COP.
I'm doing now a lot of reading on camshaft selection. The list would be Webcam 86A, 163, 494 or 163/86B. The engine will not be revved past 6000rpm (I need a strong reliable engine, not race engine), I want it to pull hard at low RPM, daily drive it around city and cruise at 3000rpm at 115Kph in 5th gear (probably in the future a subaru gearbox).
Any input on camshaft seelction will be highly appreciated.

[TZepeSH]

Trying to answer my own question, I started writing dowm the pros and cons of each camshaft, and I also did a "decision matrix" comparator. The target is: driveability (good idle), good torque at low RPM, max power below 5500RPM (don't really want to rev the engine more) - 120HP would be enough, reliable. So I get to this:
1. 86A: 290 degrees seems a bit too much. Overlap is 36 degrees, that would hurt the idle, but help high RPMs. Not much lift (.435") so it will be easy on the valve train. Favourite number 3.
2. 494: 280 degrees and more lift than 86A (.465"). So good torque down low and better idle, but harder on the valve train. Favourite number 2.
3. 86B: 300 degrees is too much, also .500" lift is too much.
4. 163/86B: many degrees, high lift, lots of overlap. All would say this is too much for my needs. BUT it is split duration, which is a major pro, I like the idea very much. Also, tighter LSA (104 degrees) would be good for low RPM torque. Also, the intake lobe is 4 degrees retard, also good for low RPM torque because of earlier intake closing (not good because of earlier intake open, so affecting idle). I would still keep this one as number one favourite because of the split duration, but I feel that it is much better fot higher reving engines, not my case...
5. 163: 288 degrees would be OK-ish, but very high lift (.507") seems a lot, leading to valve to piston clearance issues (which I would be willing to addess in case of 163/86B). Overlap is OK-ish.

Just for fun I also took into consideration 86 and 73:
6. 86: 270 degrees is too low ( I have 276 in 1.6l type 1), not much overlap. Low lift so easy on valvetrain. Seems OK for a very mild 2l stockish engine. I prefer 86A more.
7. 73: This is a copy of the Porsche 914 2l camshaft, right? Low everything, good for a stock 2l with small valves, it would wake it up a bit.

I would be very interested in opinions on 163/86B in 2056 engine. Would it perform good for my needs? How driveable would it be for daily use?

For the throttle bodies, I will use 38mm motorcycle ITBs.

[Piledriver]

On my sons 2L with less than ideal compression but nice tight deck, the 163/86B pulled hard from 2500 RPM and putted around at lower RPM almost like a stocker.
This was with Weber 44IDF/36s and crap Tbird style exhaust on EMW HX replacement pipes, with home ported 44x38s, main headwork done by Adrian at Headlow masters.
(replace valves/seats/dual springs/retainers etc) on a set of new AMC heads)

It pulled like a train from 2500 to >7K.(thank goodness for the recurved 009 with the rev limiting Bosch rotor)
I still wish I could make my MS rev limiter sound that obnoxious...
He would just sit at the lights with it floored, sounding like a GAU8 firing, and drop the 228mm clutch on green... The Honda guys hated that.
Good it had a solid mounted 091.
He usually had 3 car lengths on them and was in second before they even appeared to start moving.

With >9:1++ CR and a decent exhaust it would probably rock absolutely, it was still stupid fast even with Bus pistons.
(the tight deck seems to have allowed it to work/be tunable despite the stupid low CR)
It did run just fine on regular.(87 octane R/M)

The 163 isn't the easiest thing on the valvetrain, but suspect it may be less violent than a 494, not sure.
Never had any issues with the car or motor at all.

The 86x lobe acceleration profile is OEM based (Duntov Corvette?)

Getting clearance for .500"+ lift is trivial if the guy setting up the heads knows that.

[TZepeSH]

Thank you Pile for your opinion based on real-life driving! I also want to keep the compression around 9-9.5:1. But that pull from 2.5k to 7k worries me. I won't be driving around town like that. I like to drive my car around 2k-3.5k, with short trips to 4.5-5k when needed. Also highway driving will be between 3k-4k for some hundreds of miles. What is the mileage on your son's engine?
With the analysis I've done I was trying to convince myself out of the 163/86B and go for the 494, but your feedback is one more plus for 163/86B.
Head work will be done by Ahnendorp, so no issues with the long reach of the valves. My point was that pistons might need some clearancing for the valves.
Also, I did not say 163 is easy on the valvetrain, on the contrary, this is one of the main cons against it. In the PDF I computed the lift/duration to see how aggressive the profile is. The higher the number, the more aggressive the cam is. And 163 has the highest number 0.0447mm/degree vs 0.0421 in case of 494.

One more thing I am trying to convince myself out of is 2270. I am also considering that option, with same heads by Ahnendorp and in that case 163/86B for sure. But I'm telling to myself that 2270 will be too much for what I need, and that it will not be very driveable around town and have poor mileage. Much the same argument as against 163/86B, even though it is still my favourite combination and I also keep thinking that I might regret my whole life I do not go for 2270. But then you have the 2.2l and 2.5l Subarus driving around all day long in towns, with similar power output. And a plethoria of other cars with 140hp or more being driven everyday. The extra budget for the crankshaft and connecting rods would not be a big problem. It also has the advantage of a new, counterweighted crankshaft...

[Piledriver]

Note that in meatspace, the lift of the 494 is really almost identical to an 86 ~.435.
Knowing that, on paper it looks like a mild cam, in between an 86 and 86A...

In reality it's not.
Much harder on the valvetrain, possibly even rampier than a 119.

The simple average of lift/duration is not a great indicator of anything.
How fast the ramps are (acceleration) is what beats up a valvetrain.

[TZepeSH]

Yes, I realize now I did some mistakes with the computation for average of lift/duration. I just wanted a rough estimation, but a better approximation would have been to use the intake open timing, divided by two, not the total duration. Even in this case, it would have been just a very rough estimation, not taking into consideration the lobe profile.

But as I argued yesterday, I am more confident to aim for my dream engine, so I'm looking at some 78mm crankshafts. AApistons.com has Porsche 914/ VW Type IV Forged 4340 Chromoly counterweighted crankshaft at ~600$, but do not mention the brand. Aircooled.net stores two options: 4340 Forged Chromoly Super Race Type 4 Crankshaft at 500$ and DPR DELUXE Type 4 Crankshaft at 550$. DRD also has crankshafts at 550$ but I read on the other site that they are not good quality.
Which one would you recommend? And what journal size?
In this case, also changing the connecting rods, what wrist pin size would be better, 22mm?

[Piledriver]

Buy the stuff from EMW, and pay extra for QC and machining if required.
FAR cheaper than having anything done locally IME.

AA just moves boxes of Chinese parts, EMW actually knows what they are looking at.
The AA 96mm jugs are usually 3mm long (over stock) if you are building a stroker that's actually awesome...
.,.. a stocker not so much, unless you want to run long rods w/22mm pins.
EMW can trim them for you as desired, and they have the skill and tooling to do it properly.
(If not, RIMCO is just up the street. Literally)

The rods and pins you choose depend entirely on the crank/pistons you need to run.

I'd buy a welded stroker crank from DPR even if it cost double.(It doesn't)
It will be machined properly, the flywheel will fit, and the bolt holes will line up.

EMW can also set you up with a QC'd chinese crank and flywheel, and machine anything not too out to lunch.
They have been selling Type4 crap since EMPI was a bleeding edge VW parts innovator, and type4s were still being sold new.(from ~day 1).

I would personally never buy anything from AA directly.

I will only buy Webcams or Jakes stuff, but Charles Navarro (The "N" in LN Engineering) now also runs the type4store, so you might want to see if he will ship to Europe.
Jake has nothing to do with retail operations anymore, other than supplying some of the parts.

[TZepeSH]

Thank you very much for your opinion on AA. I looked for other parts at EMW and found KB and JE pistons, I'm very happy about that.
A small recap on parts and suppliers:
1. crankshaft, pistons and cylinders, connecting rods from EMW
2. cylinder heads and header from Ahnendorp
3. lifters from Udo Becker
4. camshaft Webcam from Orratech. They also have 911 style 10mm swivel feet adjusters.

What I need to figure out is what pistons, cylinders and conencting rods to buy. I found at every supplier that they offer the 96mm pistons with 24mm wrist pins and 1.362" pin height for 71-78mm stroke, and 96mm pistons with 22mm wrist pins and 1.185" pin height for over 80mm stroke. I would use 5.4" rods for a rod ratio of 1.75. But that means that the piston would go 3.5mm higher than stock. So if the cylinders are not longer than stock to allow me to machine them to the right dimensions, I would have to shim them quite a lot. Using the 1.185" pin height would set the piston 1mm deeper in the cylinder, so I would have to machine down the cylinders. Smaller connecting rod journal would help with less interference with the camshaft.
Did I get these right?

Writing down these ideas help me better understand the topics and put the ideas into order. I know they have ben discussed over and over again, I keep reading, but I feel it's better to have in one place everything related to the engine I want to build.

[TZepeSH]

I have done some calculations for the rod/piston choice: (stroke/2)+rod length+pin height:
1. stock type 4: (71mm/2) + 131mm + 36mm = 202.5mm. Rod/stroke ratio is 1.84.
2. (78mm/2) + 128.9mm + 34.6mm = 202.5mm. 128.9mm connecting rod is not available, closest would be 131mm so total will be 204.6mm, so I need to shim the cylinders by 2mm. Rod/stroke ratio would be 1.67.
3. (78mm/2) + 133.4mm + 30.1mm = 202.5mm. For 133.4 connecting rod, 135.3 is the closest available option, so the total will be 204.4mm. Rod/stroke ratio would be 1.73.
131mm rods are not available with 24mm pin, but if it was, the total would be 200.1mm, so I would have to machine the cylinders down by 2mm.

If the cylinders would be 3mm longer, they would give enough meat to machine down to my requirements. AA cylinders are said to be longer than stock by 3mm, but I'm not sure if this is true for all cylinders or if that is just a manufacturing mistake on some jugs.

I misunderstood something you have written. I thought EMW sells DPR crankshafts.
Orratech in Europe also sells 78mm cranks, from AA. http://www.typ4shop.de/product_info.php ... m-Hub.html

[Piledriver]

EMW may also sell DPR cranks, but I know they sell the Chinese cranks.
As noted previously my personal preference would be DPR.
If you must go Chinese order through EMW and pay for the QC.

Note the "Chevy" journals are the only ones you can get decent trimetal rod bearings for anymore unless you go with $$$ modified rods for the Dodge rod bearings on the 2L journal.