Heads

turboteener. · Post by **turboteener.** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 6:57 pm

Why are you designing a head to run T1 style Exhaust ports?

What type of rockers is Charles working on? It would be nice to see some 1.7-2.0 ratio rockers.

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:26 pm

Because most of our engines these day are conversions for TIs and 356's... don't worry Tangerine racing is making a Superheader that will fit the 914 with these heads.

The rockers that Charles and I are working on will be self oilers and available in many ratios. I need 1.6:1 for the 3.0 to lift the potential of my heads!

turboteener. · Post by **turboteener.** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:58 am

I am more concerned about the legality and efficency. For some reason VW went to a crossflow head for a reason, they seem to have thought it better than a end port style head. I am guessing the 914 owners will have to go to a DTM in order to use your heads right?

Yeah anytime higher rocker ratios are availble I will be very happy. The more lift through rocker ratio the easier cam profiles I can run.

Wally · Post by **Wally** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:39 am

MASSIVE TYPE IV wrote:
I need 1.6:1 for the 3.0 to lift the potential of my heads!

Don't you mean you need 1.6 because your cam can't be made with more lift or a smaller base circle due to interference with the large 86mm stroke crank/rods combination?

1.6 is pushing it indeed! Make sure you strengthen the rocker box severely in your new heads!
Speaking of which, I really like the info pages on your web-site about them! Very exiting news! I do hope your heads will be available for everybody through you or ACN when all testing is done.
Of all your R&D work, the head development interests me most.

Excellent Jake!

Greetings,
Walter

Wally · Post by **Wally** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:47 am

turboteener. wrote:For some reason VW went to a crossflow head for a reason, they seem to have thought it better than a end port style head.

Theoretically your right, but VW forgot to tell the other department who thought the cross-flow system up, to mention that the type 4 engine remained a push-rod type, so nowadays the pushrod tubes are still in the way of things, thus limiting other than stock or mildly tuned engines...

Just kidding of course, but you get what I want to say I think

Jake is right to use the type 1 exhaust port location. Eddy Remmele maybe a bit blunt (or worse to some), but he's not stupid...

Greetings,
Walter

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 5:26 am

The Type I style port flows.... already we have seen over 220 CFM out the exhaust port! Over 280 on the intake and with a split near optimum on the first try.

These heads would never be legal for SCCA- not a chance in hell.... You will need DTM cooling with them, and I may have to redesign the DTM to take into account the different pressures that we will encounter with higher pressure from the different heads. At any rate this is still going to be a long project before we are done..

My rocker boxes will be strong.. the heads will be billet! (atleast the first few batches will be till we get all thge quirks getting worked out) and then a new casting will be made.

What we are working on now is a way to use equal length head studs...

The only reason I would ever want 1.6 is to get my lift, finding a cam with the proper characteristics, that will fit in the case has been a challenge. Even with a 1" base circle, and custom lengthened ceramic lifters and 120 cam masters, its not been fun..

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:40 pm

MASSIVE TYPE IV wrote:Tangerine racing is making a Superheader that will fit the 914 with these heads.

Oh, Thanks! I'm having enough trouble working out a T1 style system for Beetles right now. The 914 arrangement is going to be much tougher. I say "Better to use stock or square port heads in a 914".

Wally · Post by **Wally** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 12:55 am

Racer Chris wrote:
MASSIVE TYPE IV wrote:Tangerine racing is making a Superheader that will fit the 914 with these heads.
Oh, Thanks! I'm having enough trouble working out a T1 style system for Beetles right now. The 914 arrangement is going to be much tougher. I say "Better to use stock or square port heads in a 914".

Haha! Lets say it's probably just wishfull thinking of Jake then

Don't you just love the internet?

Walter

turboteener. · Post by **turboteener.** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 3:53 am

1.6 hell I am looking for 1.8-2.0 rocker ratios but that is for another topic.

I realize the end port flows, most T1 heads are capable of flowing more than 100 percent on the exhaust side. I think it would be easier to make an equal length exhaust with a cross flow head. What size combustion chambers are you shooting for?

AS far as the 914 guys it looks like the Welded stock or square port heads are where the power will be found.

raygreenwood · Post by **raygreenwood** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 5:36 am

Jake, I am using equal length studs on the engine I am building. I am simplty using two sets of long studs with machined spacers. The only question I have yet...is do I use aluminum (which logic says I should...cappped with forged washers)...or do I use steel? The ugly part is the fact that access/relief holes have to be cut in the sheet metal. I am working on either casting silicone plug/caps that look nice..or haveing someone who welds much better than I...to make welded in "horns" in the sheet metal.

Could you not just cast in extended bosses in your new heads? I agree it would be nice to cast in bosses that had also ssome structural value...but just casting in "columns" or plugs may be a way to start. Ray

73notch · Post by **73notch** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 8:15 pm

ya, thats what i was thinking, why not just use spacers?

raygreenwood · Post by **raygreenwood** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:08 pm

Spacers are what I wiill have to use, but one of the problems with adding spacers..even if they are the exact same metal as the head...and theoretically the same expansion rate, ....is the "gaps" between metals. Does it affect the expansion/contraction rate and heat flow signifigantly? Will there be wear from "fretting" bewteen the spacers on the extra long rods? These are things Idon't know. Ray

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 10:28 pm

I am not sure how the Type 4 bottom head studs are, but Competition Engineering in AZ came up with an ingenious way to use the short studs on the bottom of the Type 1 heads so the head studs are almost all the same length. It was in Hot VW's a few months back and I have checked it out in person. It is VERY cool!
Maybe the same thing can be done for the Type 4?

raygreenwood · Post by **raygreenwood** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 11:16 pm

The type 4 uses the long studs on bottom, short studs on top. The only thing really in the way is sheet metal. Ray

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:28 am

raygreenwood wrote:The type 4 uses the long studs on bottom, short studs on top. The only thing really in the way is sheet metal. Ray

OK so its like a Type 1.
The CE design WILL work then.