Stroker wasser crank in a T1 case

Here's the place for info on converting to a Type V motor!
Chris V
Posts: 3411
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 12:01 am

Stroker wasser crank in a T1 case

Post by Chris V »

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.
51MAN
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2001 12:01 am

Post by 51MAN »

If it were me.. I wouldnt mess about with a type one and all the troubles that will bring.. get Jake Raby to build you the proper type 4 it deserves..

That will be a fit and forget and even his cheap/mild engine will make it fly...
User avatar
sideshow
Posts: 3428
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:00 am

Post by sideshow »

Is it even possible to make a custom gland nut?

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.
Yeah some may call it overkill, but you can't have too much overkill.
User avatar
Marc
Moderator
Posts: 23741
Joined: Thu May 23, 2002 12:01 am

Post by Marc »

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.
And pointless. In effect you'd just have a Type I crank.
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?
User avatar
sideshow
Posts: 3428
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:00 am

Post by sideshow »

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.
Yeah some may call it overkill, but you can't have too much overkill.
User avatar
Marc
Moderator
Posts: 23741
Joined: Thu May 23, 2002 12:01 am

Post by Marc »

sideshow wrote:...damn that seems a hard way of getting that depth.
I agree, but it's interesting and although not as deluxe as an oxyboxer it'd be much simpler.
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.
Chris V
Posts: 3411
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 12:01 am

Post by Chris V »

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.
User avatar
Marc
Moderator
Posts: 23741
Joined: Thu May 23, 2002 12:01 am

Post by Marc »

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.
User avatar
galazkiewicz
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:51 am

Post by galazkiewicz »

So what is the difference in install height for that input shaft bearing? I checked the cali manual an it was rather vague.

And if you do convert to water boxer main seal how do you plan on cutting it?
User avatar
MnMike
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:16 pm

Post by MnMike »

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...
User avatar
Marc
Moderator
Posts: 23741
Joined: Thu May 23, 2002 12:01 am

Post by Marc »

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.
User avatar
MnMike
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:16 pm

Post by MnMike »

Bummer, no good interchangeable input shafts... :oops: Seems like there has to be one somewhere, or maybe get a spare and cut the one you have? Or is that transaxle completely different from a VW style, ie one piece?
User avatar
Marc
Moderator
Posts: 23741
Joined: Thu May 23, 2002 12:01 am

Post by Marc »

Correct, it's a one-piece mainshaft and it's worth about $1500.

I should find out this weekend if a Type I crank can be bored without hitting an oil passage.
Post Reply