Stroker wasser crank in a T1 case
-
- Posts: 3411
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 12:01 am
Stroker wasser crank in a T1 case
I've heard of one person using a wasser' crank in a type I case after the case had the mains and the thrust opened-up...is it pretty straightforward as far as bearings, flywheel, and crank pulley?
Reason being we're trying to decide whether or not to rebuild the 2.0 TIV from Dad's 912E or assemble a big type I engine that'll work. Problem being with a Type I is the Porsche mainshaft like a 002/091 mainshaft is a bit too long and won't work with the Type I crank...and it's too valuable to cut-down. We have practiced rifle drilling a scrap Type I crank, but haven't gotten serious about it.
Anyway, we've got quite a few components to build a 2017 Type I and essentially we'd just be swapping out the Porsche rod 78.4mm crank for a 80mm offset ground Chevy rod crank.
Any info is appreciated.
Reason being we're trying to decide whether or not to rebuild the 2.0 TIV from Dad's 912E or assemble a big type I engine that'll work. Problem being with a Type I is the Porsche mainshaft like a 002/091 mainshaft is a bit too long and won't work with the Type I crank...and it's too valuable to cut-down. We have practiced rifle drilling a scrap Type I crank, but haven't gotten serious about it.
Anyway, we've got quite a few components to build a 2017 Type I and essentially we'd just be swapping out the Porsche rod 78.4mm crank for a 80mm offset ground Chevy rod crank.
Any info is appreciated.
http://www.joesracing.com/
Son of Marc
Son of Marc
- Marc
- Moderator
- Posts: 23741
- Joined: Thu May 23, 2002 12:01 am
And pointless. In effect you'd just have a Type I crank.sideshow wrote:...I don't see why you couldn't turn down a wbx crank and convert to one-bolt, but that seems to be a big step backwards.
What Chris is contemplating is using a wbx crank, completely stock other than offset-grinding the rod journals for 2" bearings to gain some stroke, in a Type I case that's been machined out for the wbx main bearings. The steel 912E flywheel should bolt right up to that, right?
- sideshow
- Posts: 3428
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:00 am
I sort of get what you are trying to do, the length/depth of the input shaft is too long for a bug crank?
I don't see why converting a bug case to a wbx crankshaft seal wouldn't work, but damn that seems a hard way of getting that depth.
I don't see why converting a bug case to a wbx crankshaft seal wouldn't work, but damn that seems a hard way of getting that depth.
Yeah some may call it overkill, but you can't have too much overkill.
- Marc
- Moderator
- Posts: 23741
- Joined: Thu May 23, 2002 12:01 am
I agree, but it's interesting and although not as deluxe as an oxyboxer it'd be much simpler.sideshow wrote:...damn that seems a hard way of getting that depth.
I've tried boring the glandnut hole deeper in a scrap Type I crank and that was easy in a drillpress, but the largest bit I have isn't quite big enough. Need to pick up a 9/16" bit and see if it can be done without cutting into an oil passage (wish I'd thought of this back when I was in NDT class and had an X-ray machine handy). I've already got the Type I case & cranks to go 2017 or 2110, but if this would work I'd get some thickwall 92s from Kona and go 2032 or 2127 instead.
I could always just shorten the input shaft a little, and then when the IV engine goes back in it'd need the flywheel bushed...just seems sacrilegious to whack on a rare part like that.
-
- Posts: 3411
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 12:01 am
With AA's thick 92mm cylinders and a superior flywheel attachment and friction surface it's basically just a burly Type I setup that the factory could've produced...It's untold how good the cylinders will be, but it's hard for me to believe they're not going to provide excellent service for 60,000 miles+ even in my 2558lb (curb weight) 912...and the performance should be better than the stock 13.5 second 0-61mph time.
As for the other stuff...
The Type V is way cool but it uses special cylinder adapters, headstud eccentrics, shortened barrels, and other tricks...and the Type IV has ridiculously expensive heads, exhaust, and cam/lifters.
Parts...
I've got one "914" 2 liter core engine...while I've got the essential parts for a half a dozen nice Type I engines.
As for the other stuff...
The Type V is way cool but it uses special cylinder adapters, headstud eccentrics, shortened barrels, and other tricks...and the Type IV has ridiculously expensive heads, exhaust, and cam/lifters.
Parts...
I've got one "914" 2 liter core engine...while I've got the essential parts for a half a dozen nice Type I engines.
http://www.joesracing.com/
Son of Marc
Son of Marc
- Marc
- Moderator
- Posts: 23741
- Joined: Thu May 23, 2002 12:01 am
Chris, I asked Dave at NWCR if he'd ever tried it (no) and wrote Rocky Jennings (still no response)
I picked up a 19/32" bit ($18 - ouch) and am planning to retry Plan "A", boring a Type I crank...if that works we can go 78.4/Porsche rod or 82/VW (need to buy some 5.5" H-beams for ~$200); both cranks have matched flywheels. Can either use the 2017 case and the 044s we have bored for 94 with our SS sleeves around 90.5s, or use your 043 heads or a different pair, or get another case and bore it for 94/thickwall 92...it's your money.
Also picked up an IRS III rear hanger bracket we can modify for the 912E.
I picked up a 19/32" bit ($18 - ouch) and am planning to retry Plan "A", boring a Type I crank...if that works we can go 78.4/Porsche rod or 82/VW (need to buy some 5.5" H-beams for ~$200); both cranks have matched flywheels. Can either use the 2017 case and the 044s we have bored for 94 with our SS sleeves around 90.5s, or use your 043 heads or a different pair, or get another case and bore it for 94/thickwall 92...it's your money.
Also picked up an IRS III rear hanger bracket we can modify for the 912E.
- galazkiewicz
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:51 am
- MnMike
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:16 pm
Changing the input shaft may be an option to consider, after all bus transmissions, 091 are favored by drag racers using t1 engines. Look into that. Basically you would need to open the diff housing up, remove reverse gear that is in the diff housing and unscrew the shaft, screw on a t1 shaft. Look in a Bently manual for a good pic. I am pretty sure that is how it is done, if not then get an input shaft off an early t2 002 trans that was used with a 1600 in early seventies vans. One of those is your solution. If you are hung up on using a wbx crank in a t1 case, send the case to a competant machine shop with a 1.9 wbx thrust bearing and tell em to start carving. Honestly I think that the t4 engine might be a better idea for a heavy 912, it will cost a bit more, but is definatly a road well travelled. Check the trans forum for more on the input shaft shaft swap if I am not making any sense, since I haven't done the swap personally- ggod luck...
- Marc
- Moderator
- Posts: 23741
- Joined: Thu May 23, 2002 12:01 am
If it was a bus trans I'd change the input shaft in a heartbeat (done it many times) and this wouldn't be an issue - but that isn't possible with the 912E box and I have zero interest in trying to graft a bus box into it. We intend to rebuild the IV engine (most likely as a 2056) - the Type I swap isn't intended to be permanent, just would like to keep the car on the road while we take our time on the IV, and have a lot of Type I pieces to work with. The 912E isn't so heavy that a healthy 2-liter Type I should have any trouble - in fact I'd be shocked if it didn't perform better than the stock IV, which is certainly no powerhouse - not planning on racing it, it'll be daily transportation.