GermanLook Forums  

Go Back   GermanLook Forums > Technical Section > Engines

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 11th 2006, 02:09
zeroaxe zeroaxe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Linthelles, France
Posts: 260
Not really for my GL Bug, but lets say it is...

So I have bought myself a '81 Transporter Pick-Up for a deal. Without motor at the moment... I am getting a motor from my work(read: buying), and am going to take it apart and replace all the bearings etc. Now I have the chance to do things to it on the 'cheap'.

I want to get the engine a little bigger. I have noticed that the 1776cc, 1836cc and 1916cc (forgive if I missed a didget in there, but you get the idea) pistons and sleeves are all the same price. With this 'logic' I wanted to go for the 1916cc. But my boss have told me it is not a good idea. BTW, I am not changing the crankshaft. He told me that the walls of the 1916cc sleeves are too thin and give problems later on in the engine's life. Same thing for the 1836cc. He said that in the beginning the 1835cc produces slightly more power than the 1776cc, but as the engine beds in, the wear on the 1836cc causes it to produce less power than the 1776cc. Noe I know that there are people out there that are running the bigger motors without any problems. So I just wonder what your take is on this? I personally would want the 1916cc kit, but seems like I would be going for the 1776cc.

I dont want a Drag Pick-Up, but I dont want to run around in a stock 1600cc. I need a daily driver with a bit more power.

What to do?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old April 13th 2006, 10:44
Rob's Avatar
Rob Rob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dundas, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 786
Go Subaru !

Rob.
__________________
EJ25 powered 1970 Standard Beetle
Subaru EJ25 in 1970 Beetle Project
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old April 14th 2006, 16:57
zeroaxe zeroaxe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Linthelles, France
Posts: 260
Hey Rob,

Well, that doesnt really answer the question I would love to go Subaru, but here in France modifying your car is not allowed. Your car is considered illegal if it is anything other than the way it came out of the factory. So if you get into a accident, your insurance doesnt pay out a single penny....

It sucks doesnt it?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old April 17th 2006, 04:40
KaferChris KaferChris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 50
85.5x69 = 1585
87 "" = 1641
88 "" = 1679
90.5 "" = 1775
92 "" = 1835
94 "" = 1915

1775 is a good choice given your options, but next month AA is introducing thick-wall 92mm sleeves (a 92mm ID jug with the OD dimensions that of a 94mm) that will likely be the best cylinder on the market short of Nickies...I'm ordering several sets later this week. The catch is the thick sleeves are offered in sets of four with no pistons or with 'B' compression height pistons for use with long rods and/or stroker cranks...So if you want to run a stock stroke engine you'll need to source some 'A' pistons.

87's and 88's are offered in 'slip-in' sizes that don't require boring the case or heads but they're only advisable for light vehicles...the catch is 88's are also available in 'Machine-in' dimensions - which makes them superior to all the other cylinders (except for the new thick-wall 92's)...but 85.5-88mm piston sets aren't available in 'B' compression height so it's particularly hard to build a large displacement engine using them...practical limit using an 'A' piston is 1849cc's 88x76.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old April 17th 2006, 06:48
zeroaxe zeroaxe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Linthelles, France
Posts: 260
KaferChris,

Thanks for the technical breakdown. I really enjoy reading stuff like this, even if it sometimes means that I dont understand all of it, lol! What I dont really get is the difference between 'A' and 'B' pistons. Are those different in the 'profile' on top of the piston?

Also, if I will be going for 1776 with stock crank, that means that machining of the heads and case are mandatory?

The other thing is there seems to be a bit of a 'problem' as to what kind of motor was in it per stock spec. Some on SBO thinks it 'should' either be a watercooled petrol motor or diesel(for the age of the vehicle). So I am waiting for the vehicle's registration document to see the first date it was registered. That way I can figure out if it was watercooled or aircooled. Also on SBO they think that if it was watercooled, it would be difficult to put in an aircooled motor in without overheating problems.....
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old April 17th 2006, 08:11
oasis's Avatar
oasis oasis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: timonium, md usa
Posts: 1,290
I am that someone from SBO!.

To be clear, I didn't say it should be water-cooled. What I did say was Volkswagen added the diesel and a water-cooled option (and later discontinued the air-cooled engine) for a reason. In fact, you would have some fabricating to do to convert it to a water-cooler.

Volkswagen switched from a Type 1 engine to a Type 4 engine on the Type 2's in the early 1970's. The Vanagon is bigger, heavier and geared differently than its predecessor reagardless if it is a pick-up, transporter, or pop-top. The Type 4 engine did not last long as the sole powerplant (1980-81 only).

And this Type 4 engine has nuances differing from other Type 4 engines. Volkswagen eventually gave up on it. Aftermarket people interested in creating an air-cooled solution for early Vanagons gave up on it.

The above are the facts, not opinions.

Any Type 1 engine installed into one should be considered a disposable engine. That's all I am saying. You are certainly free to give whatever you wish a try. And I hope for your sake if you do, I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

My suggestion at SBO! was to find a proper Type 4 engine from an air-cooled Vanagon and having it rebuilt to specs. It would at least still be the correct engine mated to a transmission designed for it.

If you were to go to a swap involving a radiator, there are options. None of them, however, avoid being costly up front. The venerable 1.6 liter diesel that was introduced to the Vanagon line in 1982 will give slow a whole new meaning.

Then there is the collectability factor. Single- and double-cab Vanagons (Type 25s wlsewhere) are highly sought after. Converting an '81 to water-cooled would hurt its value on the open market if that is a concern to you.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old April 17th 2006, 09:10
zeroaxe zeroaxe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Linthelles, France
Posts: 260
Oasis,

Thanks for the reply. I must apologise in advance if my message came across the wrong way. In no way did I want it to sound as if anyone gave me the wrong information. I have taken to heart what you said and the advice you gave. That is the main reason that I want to wait to get hold of the reg-document. It hurts me to think that the motor I will be putting my heart (and cash) into need to be considered as disposable. I know that there are facts in life, but I just find it EXTREMELY difficult to except.

So what I understand is this... There were a (red haired child of the) Type IV motor - aircooled, watercooled and diesel motors? The original tranny is unlikely to be still in the vehicle, as it was 'messed around with' once already before. So I can only assume that the tranny that were sold with it to me, is a normal Type I tranny. I hope that the motor I will be building, if it is this 1776cc, will cost me no more than €800-00.

I believe to try and keep the original value, by not cutting if it isnt really necesary. So yes, it kinda does matter to me (that is the main reason why I havent tried yet to stick a BIG motor into my '66 Fastback. It was bought as 6volt, but converted to 12volt. I hav ekept all the parts to convert back to stock if needed. :agree: )

Thanks again for the info, and dont stop giving it, as I dont plan stop listening anytime soon(there is just way too much to learn/things I dont know yet)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old April 18th 2006, 03:23
KaferChris KaferChris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 50
I was under the assumption your `81 single-cab was already type I equipped...sounded like your boss was fairly literate in VW.

Anyway, in the 'States we first got Type IV engines in 1972 in all our Type II vehicles...but in other countries they continued to be equipped with Type I engines until a date I do not precisely know.

My father converted our `73 baywindow to Type I some 25 years ago (originally a 1679cc Type IV of a different bore/stroke than the same displacement Type I engine) and we run an essentially slightly customized `71 trans. It's been powered by a 1600 DP, 1679 DP, and a 1775 DP...earlier this evening we just closed the case on the new 1995 DP(88x82 using NLA 88B's) we're building. A 1600 is barely adequate, a 1679 (Type I) adequate, 1775 more than adequate, and the 1995 will hopefully be enjoyable.

A `73 bay (equipped with a Z-bed and table) isn't a very heavy Type II and it's because of this we'd rather have a Type I engine in it...although if it were a heavy Type II that came equipped with a factory 1.8 or larger engine we probably wouldn't consider the conversion.

The later watercooled engine is known as a wasserboxer, it came in a 94x69 (1915) and a 94x76 (2110) - it's also possible to bore and stroke these engines out to larger displacements...and there are a few that have started to convert these later watercooled engines to aircooled and use them in models of VW besides the Type II.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old April 18th 2006, 03:33
KaferChris KaferChris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroaxe
KaferChris,

...What I dont really get is the difference between 'A' and 'B' pistons. Are those different in the 'profile' on top of the piston?
'B' pistons have the wrist pin moved further toward the top of the piston to lower compression ratio (CR) when assembling an engine with a longer-than-stock stroke or longer connecting rods, they've also got more clearance on the skirts so that they do not hit the opposing rod or counterweight at the bottom of the piston's travel known as bottom-dead-center (BDC).

Since both pistons use the same length barrel the engine's overall width won't be any greater than stock (except for other conflicts that arise with CR and deck height), essentially making the engine appear stock and allowing stock sheet metal to fit without alteration.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:49.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© www.GermanLook.net 2002-2017. All Rights Reserved