Well sorry for saying it, I heard it here alsoJames2 wrote:No, just that I'm tired of people saying it, when it's not true.
Sorry to vent on you, just I took it all out one person, I apologize.
engle 110, and Big valves?
-
1970beetle
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 1:32 pm
-
JC-ATL
- Posts: 1559
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2002 12:01 am
Dude, wait a second - you're comparing two ENTIRELY different combos. James2, your engine is set up to take advantage of the big valves, and you've had port work done - of course you're gonna make some torque.
But on VW70Pimps 1641, if he changes nothing else, and puts in some "big valve heads" he will definitely lose torque at the bottom. Port velocity has a great effect on torque, and if he loses that by cramming on some unported "big valve heads," he will definitely lose torque.
Airflow is key to horsepower, but all else remaining the same, port velocity is key to torque. Bigger valves in unported heads will give you a loss of port velocity. In fact, your 1914 surely has lower port velocity than a smaller head, but you're still making torque because your combination has moved the entire curve up. I'm willing to bet that your peak torque is also at a higher RPM than the 1641.
But on VW70Pimps 1641, if he changes nothing else, and puts in some "big valve heads" he will definitely lose torque at the bottom. Port velocity has a great effect on torque, and if he loses that by cramming on some unported "big valve heads," he will definitely lose torque.
Airflow is key to horsepower, but all else remaining the same, port velocity is key to torque. Bigger valves in unported heads will give you a loss of port velocity. In fact, your 1914 surely has lower port velocity than a smaller head, but you're still making torque because your combination has moved the entire curve up. I'm willing to bet that your peak torque is also at a higher RPM than the 1641.
-
chazavw its me
i think the external oil cooler is a good idea.... do you have a single relief cse or dual??
if you go with a 1915 there a lot of options..... heads, valves, carbs etc.....
i would personally go turbo but that is me...... for the power you can beat a turbo..... and for the price it is to turbo a bug it costs less than most other cars....
if you got any questions please let me know....
thanks,
rob
if you go with a 1915 there a lot of options..... heads, valves, carbs etc.....
i would personally go turbo but that is me...... for the power you can beat a turbo..... and for the price it is to turbo a bug it costs less than most other cars....
if you got any questions please let me know....
thanks,
rob
-
TheViking
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 3:42 pm
Re: engle 110, and Big valves?
Torque from 3000 rpm aint no impressive
-
FJCamper
- Moderator
- Posts: 2901
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:19 pm
Re: engle 110, and Big valves?
Gentlemen,
Actually, you're both telling a truth from different ends of the spectrum.
Big valves with low compression (meaning low intake velocity) won't add power. A set of Kads on an otherwise stock 1600 engine with 28mm venturis and 40mm throttle bodies will give you improved throttle response and a bit more torque, but without better intake velocity, are not living up to their potential.
The Engle 110 cam is in the same situation. It will make a stock engine run, but it won't make power without more compression and more carburetion.
A 1600 with 40x35 heads, mild porting, 9:1 compression, a 110 cam and a set of Kads (130 mains, 28mm vents) and with a crank and balance job that can turn 6000 will get you 90 hp or very close to it.
FJC
Actually, you're both telling a truth from different ends of the spectrum.
Big valves with low compression (meaning low intake velocity) won't add power. A set of Kads on an otherwise stock 1600 engine with 28mm venturis and 40mm throttle bodies will give you improved throttle response and a bit more torque, but without better intake velocity, are not living up to their potential.
The Engle 110 cam is in the same situation. It will make a stock engine run, but it won't make power without more compression and more carburetion.
A 1600 with 40x35 heads, mild porting, 9:1 compression, a 110 cam and a set of Kads (130 mains, 28mm vents) and with a crank and balance job that can turn 6000 will get you 90 hp or very close to it.
FJC
-
ALB
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 10:30 pm
Re: engle 110, and Big valves?
Question for you all- If a set of properly ported 35x32mm heads is capable of 120-125 hp, why would you put 40x35 heads on a 1600-1776 (or even 1835) with a W110 and kadrons? With better intake airspeed at lower and mid rpm's wouldn't you get better power throughout the rpm range with the smaller valved heads? and better mileage (an engine like this is usually in a street car, after all)?