oxyboxer?
- Steve C
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 12:01 am
oxyboxer?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rmcelroy:
<B>This looks pretty cool-what advantages would this have over just doing a nice T4?
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi
I dont want to get ito a debate about T1 V T4 but just regard the oxyboxer conversion as stronger case option for a T1. If you have existing T1 stuff it might be a good way to go. You can swing an 86 crank in a 2.1 case. The T4 if you are staring from scratch would be more cost effective. There was a lenghty debate on this in the Type 4 forum, do a search and check it out.
Regards Steve C
<B>This looks pretty cool-what advantages would this have over just doing a nice T4?
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi
I dont want to get ito a debate about T1 V T4 but just regard the oxyboxer conversion as stronger case option for a T1. If you have existing T1 stuff it might be a good way to go. You can swing an 86 crank in a 2.1 case. The T4 if you are staring from scratch would be more cost effective. There was a lenghty debate on this in the Type 4 forum, do a search and check it out.
Regards Steve C
-
Rmcelroy
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 12:01 am
oxyboxer?
[/b][/QUOTE]
Hi
I dont want to get ito a debate about T1 V T4 but just regard the oxyboxer conversion as stronger case option for a T1. If you have existing T1 stuff it might be a good way to go. You can swing an 86 crank in a 2.1 case. The T4 if you are staring from scratch would be more cost effective. There was a lenghty debate on this in the Type 4 forum, do a search and check it out.
Regards Steve C[/B][/QUOTE]
No debate needed-I was just looking for information just like that. Reusing your T1 parts is a good enough reason.
Hi
I dont want to get ito a debate about T1 V T4 but just regard the oxyboxer conversion as stronger case option for a T1. If you have existing T1 stuff it might be a good way to go. You can swing an 86 crank in a 2.1 case. The T4 if you are staring from scratch would be more cost effective. There was a lenghty debate on this in the Type 4 forum, do a search and check it out.
Regards Steve C[/B][/QUOTE]
No debate needed-I was just looking for information just like that. Reusing your T1 parts is a good enough reason.
-
Steve Arndt
- Posts: 7420
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2001 12:01 am
oxyboxer?
Along the same lines. . .
I am going to mill the jackets off a spare wasser block. My plan is to use the wasser heads, wasser pistons, but Cima 94 cylinders. I will figure out how to flow the coolant through the heads ONLY (obviously blocking off the ports formerly leading into the cylinder waterjacket area). The cool thing I'm thinking about is using the wasser pistons to retain the proper combustion chamber shape, but I can then use JayCee long 94mm barrels to fit 5.7" rods, and a ultra long through crank in the case easily.
The other option is to use aircooled heads and change the stud patter (if you want enough fins. Autocraft pro heads don't count! [they are the only head that bolts up]). Can someone sell me the offset studs used in the article? Steve C.? Does Hellbug sell these?
Demello cranks can take a regular wasser crank, counterweight it, and offset grind to 82 stroke w/ chevy journals for $500.
Steve
I am going to mill the jackets off a spare wasser block. My plan is to use the wasser heads, wasser pistons, but Cima 94 cylinders. I will figure out how to flow the coolant through the heads ONLY (obviously blocking off the ports formerly leading into the cylinder waterjacket area). The cool thing I'm thinking about is using the wasser pistons to retain the proper combustion chamber shape, but I can then use JayCee long 94mm barrels to fit 5.7" rods, and a ultra long through crank in the case easily.
The other option is to use aircooled heads and change the stud patter (if you want enough fins. Autocraft pro heads don't count! [they are the only head that bolts up]). Can someone sell me the offset studs used in the article? Steve C.? Does Hellbug sell these?
Demello cranks can take a regular wasser crank, counterweight it, and offset grind to 82 stroke w/ chevy journals for $500.
Steve
- Steve C
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 12:01 am
oxyboxer?
Hi
There is a few ways to approach the head stud issue. One way that works is to bore the standard hole out to 5/8 th. Insert a 5/8th stud and mill it flat, then redrill the stud to 8 mm so that you get the type 1 pattern back again, then just use type 1 studs. I have seen another guy have new studs centreless ground.
Steve, why not just use the watercooled barrles and be done with it?
Regards Steve C
There is a few ways to approach the head stud issue. One way that works is to bore the standard hole out to 5/8 th. Insert a 5/8th stud and mill it flat, then redrill the stud to 8 mm so that you get the type 1 pattern back again, then just use type 1 studs. I have seen another guy have new studs centreless ground.
Steve, why not just use the watercooled barrles and be done with it?
Regards Steve C
-
Steve Arndt
- Posts: 7420
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2001 12:01 am
oxyboxer?
I suppose water cooling the cylinders as original would work, I just wanted to avoid all those head gasket problems. All the Vanagons here need resealing all the time because the heads are corroding away.
What about welding up the hole then drilling and tapping?
What about welding up the hole then drilling and tapping?
-
graeme86
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 12:01 am
oxyboxer?
Check this link: http://www.hellbug.com.au/
and contact the proprietor Jeff Unwin.
and contact the proprietor Jeff Unwin.
-
Steve Arndt
- Posts: 7420
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2001 12:01 am
oxyboxer?
wasser has T1 bore spacing and T4 stud spacing.
The center of each bore is the same distance apart as a type 1.
The studs are in the larger T4 pattern.
They did it this way because they did not need to fit in fins on large cylinders so they can be closer together.
The center of each bore is the same distance apart as a type 1.
The studs are in the larger T4 pattern.
They did it this way because they did not need to fit in fins on large cylinders so they can be closer together.
- Steve C
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 12:01 am
oxyboxer?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by graeme86:
<B>Check this link: http://www.hellbug.com.au/
and contact the proprietor Jeff Unwin.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Graeme
Hellbug has gone out of business.
Regards Steve C
<B>Check this link: http://www.hellbug.com.au/
and contact the proprietor Jeff Unwin.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Graeme
Hellbug has gone out of business.
Regards Steve C