|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Go Subaru !
Rob. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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..... |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|