ratio rockers on a wasserboxer

TIMBERWOLF · Post by **TIMBERWOLF** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:13 am

Having done a search - no returns, is there an advantage to go to a 1.25 or 1.4 ratio rocker on an otherwise stockish 1.9 engine (120 cam, match ported etc heads, mild twin carbs or kjet, merged header + 'turbo' silencer).

Are there any pit falls? Valve head clearance etc - it's got EMPI covers, chromolly push rods and solid type IV lifters.

Looking for the next phase (see other post).

Vgonman · Post by **Vgonman** » Fri Jan 02, 2004 3:56 am

If you did not do it yourself, I would sure wonder if the cam matched those lifters.........or did someone drop in new solid lifters on a hydraulic cam.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 3:16 pm

pretty sure they were typeIV........it was a couple of years ago. I think they were made by Johnsons ? They were recommended to me by a reputable VW shop here in UK who has a proven racing record - 'Stateside tuning' It is a 'normal' Engle 120. I built the engine up myself with help from this and other forums, various guru's in the UK and a few books. Still running OK but hasn't all that many miles on it ~5000, no detrimental indicators yet..... no valve clearance changes, no swarf in the oil filter etc... so I hope it's all OK. I did a very nail biting break in with out any mishaps- my most nervous moment in my fairly extensive VW history (been messing with them for 15+ years now.......) goes like stink even with the stock carb set up!

dunegoon · Post by **dunegoon** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:51 am

I put a set of scat type-1 1.25 rockers on my 1.9 a few months ago. It seems to run better in the top 1/4 of the RPM range.... But then again, I rebuilt the motor at the same time. I used the stock type 1 adjusting screws also. Those Ford Courier swivel ends give me fits. It is so hard to get them set up right with minimum side load on the guides.

Allen

TIMBERWOLF · Post by **TIMBERWOLF** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 1:21 am

Dunegoon, is the rest of the motor stock? I'm trying to get an idea if there are any valve to piston clearance problems here, as I mentioned I've got a 120 cam, a bit more lift than stock. I'm thinking of the 1:1.25's for more torque without the big loss in bottom end that a 'wilder' cam gives. The motor is coming out of the buggy and going into a beetle for classic rallying and sprints, so I can get away with a bit more on the top end and less on the bottom, which I needed in the buggy for off road work.

dunegoon · Post by **dunegoon** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 12:38 am

I used a stock camshaft provided to my by Jerry at Northwest Connecting rod, new hydraulic lifters, rebuilt rods, rebuilt 2.1 L heads, new rings, gaskets, bearings, clutch, etc. The instructions for the heads said "not to use the top aluminum compression seal gaskets or the warranty will be voided". Problem is that if you do that, the pistons hit the heads! So, I had to leave them in. Perhaps with the 2.1L engine, that would have been correct.

Even though the pistons have lot's of squish, the deep combustion pockets will likely clear. But, you have to verify.

By the way, I will soon have an extra new set of 1.25 Scat rockers for sale. I am putting a set of Pauter 1.3s on a project. The Scat's have one season's use in a sandrail motor. They really are "like new".

TIMBERWOLF · Post by **TIMBERWOLF** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 1:39 am

If I was in US I would likely take you up on that but I'm afraid carriage kills the idea, UK second hand stuff would be cheaper.

Sounds like I'll have to pull the heads to check clearance, you do it with plasticine yeah? and measure the depth from that - anyone know the min clearance required?

dunegoon · Post by **dunegoon** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:20 pm

I use a childs toy product called "Play Dough". It's clean, smells good, and is colorful. As for the minimum valve clearance distance, I have only tried it a few times and it was not even close. I'll let someone else give you a number.

Allen

Type 5 Joe · Post by **Type 5 Joe** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:33 pm

Hi Allen,

I was living in Longview for awhile... I ran the machine shop at M.Collier and Asscosiates.... I made Custom Prosthetics for amputees....

I have built several high performance Wasser motors... The valve springs (Height) and valve lengths were the limiting factor.

I made custom guides for extra long Manley Chevy 5/16 valves (modified)... off-set rockershafts from ratio rockers...1.1 to 1 stock rockers.

Does that place still smell Bad... He He

- Joe

pocketrocket · Post by **pocketrocket** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 9:56 pm

Dunegoon, The stock factory 2.1 heads use the aluminum head gaskets, The aftermarket made in spain don't use the head gaskets. I wonder, all the heads from spain have instructions in the boxes to not use the head gaskets. Were the heads you got fron jerry in boxes? Maybe the instructions from the spain heads were still in the boxes. Rocky

dunegoon · Post by **dunegoon** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:42 pm

You guys just keep digging! Now I will own up to the whole story.

The heads were rebuilt units. When I got them, I had to look very close to even tell they weren't new. They came in boxes, but I can't remember the specifics. I suspect now that the instructions were just in the boxes, which were handy to ship them in. Anyways, I followed the instructions without question. I build a lot of stuff and don't make many mistakes. (Or, lets say that I always catch them before it goes too far). On the solid lifter motors, I do a preliminary valve adjustment while the motor is on the engine stand. It's much easier on the old aching back. The wasser has hydraulics, "so skip that, I'll set them when it is in the Vanagon".

That's when I found out. After installing the motor and hooking up the fuel injection, all of the wiring, everything. The last steps were to adjust the valves, add oil and coolant.

Damn! What's that tight spot when turning it over by hand?????

The next day, after recovering from the depressed mood, I pulled the heads, added the aluminum ring seals, and hooked a zillion things back up again. I did this with the motor in the van. It was "character building" as they say.

It runs great!

Allen

TIMBERWOLF · Post by **TIMBERWOLF** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 12:43 am

Joe, I'm being a bit thick.... saying that the valve length and spring height are the limiting factors - does that mean you get spring bind with ratio rockers but the clearance between the valve head and piston are OK? And the way to solve it is to use modified valves and guides?

Type 5 Joe · Post by **Type 5 Joe** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:32 am

Timberwolf,

Just compare the size / weight of bug valves, against Wasser Valves...

Compare the stock Wasserboxer valvesprings to Type I Valvesprings... They are much shorter, and nobody sells anything stronger.

You'll find that the valves are much heavier... A chore for the stock valvesprings to control from the factory...

It's not a matter of just coil bind (check it).. it's the ability of the valvesprings to control the valves under exteme conditions...

If you add increased lift, duration, and ratio rockers.. I think your asking for trouble... - unless you do the modifications I had stated previously. (Custom made valves, guides, High Perf Bug Valvesprings)

If you did install custom valves, off-set rocker shafts, ect.. the valves would still be heavier than Bug Valves... But the cam follower tracking / RPM Potential would be much better than stock

You'll have to mock-up the motor for the valve-to-piston clearance.. I can't tell you any reccomendation on this.. You'll probably be O-K though if you are running stock Wasser pistons.. Check it anyway.

Good Luck, - Joe

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:48 am

Timberwolf here,

Thanks Joe, this is what a forum is for , learning by others experience. It now seems a lot of work on what is to stay a mild engine. I'll spend my time and money elsewhere, it'll be more fruitfull. If it had been a bit more bolt on I might have considered it.

Was the weight increase over type 1 to decrease the likelihood of the dreaded valve drop I wonder?

tomkisner · Post by **tomkisner** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:54 am

Does anyone here know the duration and lift limit of the hydrolic lifters? I want to know how much cam can be put in there before having to worry about valve float. Thank you Tom