I just want to throw this thought out there and see what comes back:
Has anyone built a 90.5 x 78 (2007) motor using stock heads, stock cam, 1 3/8 extractor with Kadrons?
Why, you might ask, in the name of the almighty quick VW engine would I want to build an engine like this? In a word "Torque" How big can you go, using basically stock parts, before you have just built something that really didn't need to be built at all?
Please don't flame me (right away, that is). Think of why or why not it will work and put your thoughts to keyboard.
Silly engine thought / question
-
MASSIVE TYPE IV
- Posts: 20132
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 12:01 am
Silly engine thought / question
No flames, but she'll run hot as a Volcano...you must move air through the engine, else you retain alot of heat....This is definately a correctly comboed engine.
-
jasonb
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 12:01 am
Silly engine thought / question
What if you added 1.4 ratio rockers to the stock cam? Would that move enough air to make it worthwhile?
And BTW, what are the total lift and duration figures for a stock cam with 1.4 rockers?
And BTW, what are the total lift and duration figures for a stock cam with 1.4 rockers?
-
MASSIVE TYPE IV
- Posts: 20132
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 12:01 am
Silly engine thought / question
there were several stock cams, from 1500s to 1600 autosticks...
You need port/valve work, not more cam...
You need port/valve work, not more cam...
-
Gib
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 1:01 am
Silly engine thought / question
Massive Type IV,
So the choke in this idea is the stock valve and port size, regardless of valve lift, right? If I was to run heads with stock valves that had been ported that would be a step in the right direction, but better yet would be big valve, ported heads, right? More air in, more air out, better cooling?
Next logical question(s) for me would be:
1)What would be the biggest motor, bore wise, that would still be efficient using basically stock components, Kadrons and a 1 3/8 extractor.
2) What would be the biggest motor, stroke wise, etc, etc, etc.
3) In short, what is the sweet spot using stock components, Kadrons, etc, etc.
This discussion is just for info. Like most of us out here I don't have the ability to test these strange ideas first hand and I don't know the reasons why they may or may not work. I guess you could say I missed a lot of motor basics when I was kinda directed towards the configuration of my current motors. I have a 2007, P/P 40x35.5 heads, 40 Dells, 1 1/2 merge, V-26 cam. The other is a 1679 with stock heads, Kadrons, 1 3/8 extractor, W-100 cam. Because these run fine, I'm starting to ask the "why or why not" question concerning other not so popular combos and the limits of the stock components are.
Thanks for the info.
Gib
So the choke in this idea is the stock valve and port size, regardless of valve lift, right? If I was to run heads with stock valves that had been ported that would be a step in the right direction, but better yet would be big valve, ported heads, right? More air in, more air out, better cooling?
Next logical question(s) for me would be:
1)What would be the biggest motor, bore wise, that would still be efficient using basically stock components, Kadrons and a 1 3/8 extractor.
2) What would be the biggest motor, stroke wise, etc, etc, etc.
3) In short, what is the sweet spot using stock components, Kadrons, etc, etc.
This discussion is just for info. Like most of us out here I don't have the ability to test these strange ideas first hand and I don't know the reasons why they may or may not work. I guess you could say I missed a lot of motor basics when I was kinda directed towards the configuration of my current motors. I have a 2007, P/P 40x35.5 heads, 40 Dells, 1 1/2 merge, V-26 cam. The other is a 1679 with stock heads, Kadrons, 1 3/8 extractor, W-100 cam. Because these run fine, I'm starting to ask the "why or why not" question concerning other not so popular combos and the limits of the stock components are.
Thanks for the info.
Gib
-
Here To Go
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 12:01 am
Silly engine thought / question
Gib,
I just put a new 1904 (74 x 90.5) in my '66 Westfalia and it has stock valves and a stock cam. Compression is 7.0-1. I did put HD Rocker shafts and steel pushrods in so I could use single HD valve springs. I'm also running Kadrons with Berg linkage and a 1 3/8" extractor with single muff.
I needed torque, not all-out horsepower with my bus and this engine definitely met my expectations. I don't rev it over 3500 on the freeway (Rancho 3.88 Trans) and each time I grab a gear, the torque is right there, no climbing out of a hole like my old 1600 used to do.
The only bummer is I need to take it back out and find out where the 'clack' is coming from. I think Jake was right about a bad lifter bore, so it looks like I'll need a new case. The guys who built it must have overlooked that little detail. Too bad, I only put about 350 miles on it and the noise isn't going away. Runs great otherwise. I'm sold on Stroker engines.
Good luck with whatever you decide to run!
------------------
Ev Rein
'66 SO-44 Westfalia
I just put a new 1904 (74 x 90.5) in my '66 Westfalia and it has stock valves and a stock cam. Compression is 7.0-1. I did put HD Rocker shafts and steel pushrods in so I could use single HD valve springs. I'm also running Kadrons with Berg linkage and a 1 3/8" extractor with single muff.
I needed torque, not all-out horsepower with my bus and this engine definitely met my expectations. I don't rev it over 3500 on the freeway (Rancho 3.88 Trans) and each time I grab a gear, the torque is right there, no climbing out of a hole like my old 1600 used to do.
The only bummer is I need to take it back out and find out where the 'clack' is coming from. I think Jake was right about a bad lifter bore, so it looks like I'll need a new case. The guys who built it must have overlooked that little detail. Too bad, I only put about 350 miles on it and the noise isn't going away. Runs great otherwise. I'm sold on Stroker engines.
Good luck with whatever you decide to run!
------------------
Ev Rein
'66 SO-44 Westfalia
-
MASSIVE TYPE IV
- Posts: 20132
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 12:01 am
Silly engine thought / question
Once again, you must have a combo, the largest engine I build with stock valves is a 1679 with machine in cylinders.
An engine as large as yours needs to really breathe, or it will get hot. Droping CR really low makes it worse, as the exhaust gasses are scorching hot, and the timing must be jacked way up to make any power, or even attempt to clean the rich running tendency up at all.
build the 2007, add a slight cam (not an engle) and add some port work, you won't lose power with such a long stroke, I would add an 88mm machine in cylinder .
An engine as large as yours needs to really breathe, or it will get hot. Droping CR really low makes it worse, as the exhaust gasses are scorching hot, and the timing must be jacked way up to make any power, or even attempt to clean the rich running tendency up at all.
build the 2007, add a slight cam (not an engle) and add some port work, you won't lose power with such a long stroke, I would add an 88mm machine in cylinder .
-
Gib
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 1:01 am
Silly engine thought / question
Ev, thanks for the info on your 1904.
Jake,
So the motors I described in my second post above (my medium built 2007 and my basically stock 1679) are what may be considered "correct" combos.
The 2007 has the big valve, p&p heads, a longer duration cam, @8.5:1 compression and a smallish 1 1/2 merged exhaust. I must admit that this motor is a blast to drive and it is the one that my V-8 buddies want to know how quick it is. I've easily buried the 100mph speedo on this motor once or twice (although will admit that on 155f and 165r tires, my body was just along for the ride after about 85 or 90).
The 1679, with stock heads (dual springs), 100 cam (not your favorite brand I know), Kadrons, @8.0:1 compression and a berg extractor, is a nice all around motor. I checked the oil and static timing on this motor then my girl and I loaded the backseat and roof rack to the gills and drove it straight from Naval Station Treasure Island in San Francisco to Bremerton Naval Base in Washington without a hickup. When I bang on it, it lets out a loud long chip in first and quicky in second, even with the traction bar!
The 1679 motor is why I posted the question(s) on odd motor combos. I like it because it almost fell together and then ran great. Oh yeah, I love the sound and power of the 2007 but I bet the 1679 could easily take me across country without a second thought. I just was wondering if I could have gone bigger, to either a 1776 or a 2007 (90.5 thick walls for cooling) using basically stock components. Sounds like the guy who guided me to these combos, especially the 1679 for compatability of parts, longevity and power, kind of knew what he was talking about.
Thanks for the info. Coming from a professional motor builder you opinion carries a lot of weight.
Gib
Jake,
So the motors I described in my second post above (my medium built 2007 and my basically stock 1679) are what may be considered "correct" combos.
The 2007 has the big valve, p&p heads, a longer duration cam, @8.5:1 compression and a smallish 1 1/2 merged exhaust. I must admit that this motor is a blast to drive and it is the one that my V-8 buddies want to know how quick it is. I've easily buried the 100mph speedo on this motor once or twice (although will admit that on 155f and 165r tires, my body was just along for the ride after about 85 or 90).
The 1679, with stock heads (dual springs), 100 cam (not your favorite brand I know), Kadrons, @8.0:1 compression and a berg extractor, is a nice all around motor. I checked the oil and static timing on this motor then my girl and I loaded the backseat and roof rack to the gills and drove it straight from Naval Station Treasure Island in San Francisco to Bremerton Naval Base in Washington without a hickup. When I bang on it, it lets out a loud long chip in first and quicky in second, even with the traction bar!
The 1679 motor is why I posted the question(s) on odd motor combos. I like it because it almost fell together and then ran great. Oh yeah, I love the sound and power of the 2007 but I bet the 1679 could easily take me across country without a second thought. I just was wondering if I could have gone bigger, to either a 1776 or a 2007 (90.5 thick walls for cooling) using basically stock components. Sounds like the guy who guided me to these combos, especially the 1679 for compatability of parts, longevity and power, kind of knew what he was talking about.
Thanks for the info. Coming from a professional motor builder you opinion carries a lot of weight.
Gib
-
JK
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:01 am
Silly engine thought / question
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gib:
[The 1679 motor is why I posted the question(s) on odd motor combos. I like it because it almost fell together and then ran great. Oh yeah, I love the sound and power of the 2007 but I bet the 1679 could easily take me across country without a second thought.
I have to agree. I just blew up a POTL 2 liter engine going to California a couple weeks ago. Came back and got my bus with 1679 SP and it just cruised out and back. Couldn't even get it very hot going across the Mojave mid day. Wasn't at its hottest temps though for sure. It slowed down on the hills for sure, but did really good. I could do 70 all day with 4:12 and 215/15 tires on big-nut trans. Much quieter engine, very simple, very mellow. I'm thinking of 74 X 88 next time.
[This message has been edited by JK (edited 06-27-2002).]
[The 1679 motor is why I posted the question(s) on odd motor combos. I like it because it almost fell together and then ran great. Oh yeah, I love the sound and power of the 2007 but I bet the 1679 could easily take me across country without a second thought.
I have to agree. I just blew up a POTL 2 liter engine going to California a couple weeks ago. Came back and got my bus with 1679 SP and it just cruised out and back. Couldn't even get it very hot going across the Mojave mid day. Wasn't at its hottest temps though for sure. It slowed down on the hills for sure, but did really good. I could do 70 all day with 4:12 and 215/15 tires on big-nut trans. Much quieter engine, very simple, very mellow. I'm thinking of 74 X 88 next time.
[This message has been edited by JK (edited 06-27-2002).]