Can I use square ports on my 914?
-
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 12:01 am
Can I use square ports on my 914?
Jake, I have a set of square port heads that need to be rebuilt for my intended motor for the 914. I think I'm going to go with a 96x78 since I have the crank and 93 cylinders already. Since stock 914 headers were made for oval ports, could I still use the heads by using the stock square port exhaust gaskets, or would i need to modify my headers by welding some square port exhaust flanges?.
I do have a set of 1.7 heads, but the ports seem to be quite restrictive in comparison...Either way, I'd like to have Len work on these heads when the time comes.
I also plan on adding a turbo to this motor, so would that be an impediment or advantage by using the square ports?
Thanks,
Eddie.
I do have a set of 1.7 heads, but the ports seem to be quite restrictive in comparison...Either way, I'd like to have Len work on these heads when the time comes.
I also plan on adding a turbo to this motor, so would that be an impediment or advantage by using the square ports?
Thanks,
Eddie.
- Daniel G
- Moderator
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:38 pm
You would have to modify the exhaust to use those heads. I'll be using square port heads in my rail until I get my new engine built, and I just cut the flanges off a a set of square port heater boxes to fab my exhaust with. I'll take a pic for you if you want so you can see the differences between the two styles an how they mount up. That might give you some ideas.
Daniel
Daniel
-
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 12:01 am
-
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 12:01 am
- Piledriver
- Moderator
- Posts: 22520
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:01 am
Looks like exactly the exhaust I'm cutting up...for the same reason.
I'm planning to convert my 2.0 914 exhaust to stubs so I could later switch to the original 2.0 heads.
Might want to scale those pics down before someone on dialup has kittens.
I'm planning to convert my 2.0 914 exhaust to stubs so I could later switch to the original 2.0 heads.
Might want to scale those pics down before someone on dialup has kittens.
Addendum to Newtons first law:
zero vehicles on jackstands, square gets a fresh 090 and 1911, cabby gets a blower.
EZ3.6 Vanagon after that.(mounted, needs everything finished) then Creamsicle.
zero vehicles on jackstands, square gets a fresh 090 and 1911, cabby gets a blower.
EZ3.6 Vanagon after that.(mounted, needs everything finished) then Creamsicle.
-
- Posts: 20132
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 12:01 am
The real killer of the Square port OEM head was that it came in hydraulic busses and vanagons.... Best case scenario those vehicles weighed 4500 pounds.
Finding flawless USED square ports is a huge challenge- thats why Len and I gave up on them unless they were 100% new heads. Even the new heads need rebuilding out of the box.
The other thing to remember is that Square port development is very young and is still being explored with every day further and further. Len and I have found that the rules used when building the engine need to change a bit when using square ports.
Finding flawless USED square ports is a huge challenge- thats why Len and I gave up on them unless they were 100% new heads. Even the new heads need rebuilding out of the box.
The other thing to remember is that Square port development is very young and is still being explored with every day further and further. Len and I have found that the rules used when building the engine need to change a bit when using square ports.
-
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 7:33 am
Jakes 100% right about the used sq. ports. I won't touch them, or any used 2.0 bus heads (that includes ovals) anymore. Been burned to many times.
As for the 1.7 ex. being restrictive, they can be modified without to much trouble. You should see what our 1.8 F-Prod engine can do with a 34mm ex. valve!
What size engine are you planning? The ex. port won't be an issue , but the intakes MAY be, if you are going big on the cubes AND rpm's.
As for the 1.7 ex. being restrictive, they can be modified without to much trouble. You should see what our 1.8 F-Prod engine can do with a 34mm ex. valve!
What size engine are you planning? The ex. port won't be an issue , but the intakes MAY be, if you are going big on the cubes AND rpm's.
-
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 12:01 am
Len wrote:
What size engine are you planning? The ex. port won't be an issue , but the intakes MAY be, if you are going big on the cubes AND rpm's.
Len, I'm planning a 2258cc (96x78) with 8.0:1 CR.. Turbo/EFI/Intercooled. I was thinking about a valve size of 44x38 with a .040" deck height, and a 119 Web cam. I don't want to rev it more than 6k rpms.
Thanks,
Eddie.
What size engine are you planning? The ex. port won't be an issue , but the intakes MAY be, if you are going big on the cubes AND rpm's.
Len, I'm planning a 2258cc (96x78) with 8.0:1 CR.. Turbo/EFI/Intercooled. I was thinking about a valve size of 44x38 with a .040" deck height, and a 119 Web cam. I don't want to rev it more than 6k rpms.
Thanks,
Eddie.
-
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 4:05 pm
-
- Posts: 20132
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 12:01 am
-
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 7:33 am
Yes, everything is getting more expensive. My parts and supplies cost have been inching up for quite sometime now, yet my prices have been stable. I do everything I can to keep my prices affordable, but I refuse to use inferior parts, OR techiniques, OR to cut corners.
A little more up front spread over the life of a superior engine is peanuts compared to the cost of having to start over after less miles than the combo is capable of. Especially when performance is superior too.
A little more up front spread over the life of a superior engine is peanuts compared to the cost of having to start over after less miles than the combo is capable of. Especially when performance is superior too.
-
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 12:01 am