2110cc Checklist

[Shane Tuttle]

Hello, all,

I'm compiling a list for my engine build. It's going into my '74 Beetle. I live in Western Montana at 3,000ft. Our speed limits out here are 70 at minimum with 80 in a large part of open interstate. I also deal with going through a fairly steep mountain pass every day going into town. On top of that, we have a lot of elevation changes and twists/turns. It's a driver's paradise. I won't be taking it to the drag races nor do I intend to street race. Spirited driving? Absolutely. Daily abuse? I'm too old to deal with a 16 year old with daddy's Mustang. I want this engine to last a long time. I figured staying with a reasonable bore of 90.5 yet stroke it as far as practical to 82mm would be the ticket to cruise at good speeds through the mountains and still drive around town. Here's what I think I should buy and what I'm completely stumped on. I researched as much as I could. But the more I do, the more confusing it gets.

Case: AS21. I have one to get it inspected. I tore it down and no machine work done on it. Some people tell me align boring it once is OK. After that, toss it. Some tell me to use a new case no matter what. I'm looking to prep it for a sand seal, tap for full flow oiling, and possibly thrust cut. Do the work or STILL buy new even if the case is in good condition?

Carbs: EMPI HPMX 44mm. JayCee linkage

Heads: Panchito 1672 044; 40 x 35.5 valves; single hi-rev springs or get dual? Reshape chambers to 61cc or leave alone? I thought about leaving alone until I get the case put together and formulate my CR. Then, have a local machine shop cc the heads and flycut to match. Upgrade to Manley SS valves?

Rods: EMPI Pro Series I-Beam. Is there a specific length I should get since the stroke is 82mm? What journal?

Cam: No clue. Guessing to keep it reasonable. Engle 110?

Rockers: 1.1:1 ratio?

Pistons/Cylinders: Mahle-Cima forged 90.5Bmm

Pushrods: Chromoly and cut to specific length to achieve proper rocker arm geometry

Flywheel: No clue which one to get. Moderately lightened?

Crankshaft (Hooo-boy. Here we go) 82mm: I'm up in arms. I'm fairly sure I'm going with 82mm and 8 dowel. Looking at either EMPI (from Cip1), Bugpack, Berg, or CB Super Race. Is there a major drawback to staying with VW journal?

Oil pump: Not sure. Stay with the 26mm? Maybe 30mm is too much if everything else is in proper order?

Oil sump: 3.5qt. Berg?

Looking to keep the compression ratio reasonable. Maybe 7.5:1?

I have "How to Rebuild Your Volkswagen Engine", "How to Hotrod your Volkswagen Engine", the Bentley Manual and "How to Keep Your Volkswagen Alive" books. Read them over. Anything else I need to read up on?

[Bruce2]

. I live in Western Montana at 3,000ft. ... a fairly steep mountain pass every day
What's the max elevation?

I want this engine to last a long time. I figured staying with a reasonable bore of 90.5 yet stroke it as far as practical to 82mm I recommend staying at 78mm. When you go to 82, the rod angle increases to where your cylinders don't last as long.

Case: AS21. I have one to get it inspected. I tore it down and no machine work done on it. Some people tell me align boring it once is OK. After that, toss it. Some tell me to use a new case no matter what. I'm looking to prep it for a sand seal, tap for full flow oiling, and possibly thrust cut. Do the work or STILL buy new even if the case is in good condition? Throwing away a case after one alignbore is stupid. Use your existing case. Don't sand seal it. You'll be creating problems. They always seem to leak, fall off, or cause other trouble. If you do sand seal, you can't go back. The thrust cut is only done if it is necessary. Measure the width of the #1 journal web. If it's good, leave it alone.

Carbs: EMPI HPMX 44mm. JayCee linkage For better bottom end and throttle response, I recommend 40s.

Heads: Panchito 1672 044; 40 x 35.5 valves; single hi-rev springs or get dual? Doubles, but it depends on your driving style. If you drive like an old man and shift it at 4000 rpm every time, singles are ok. But to get the hp out of the engine, you need to get up to 6k rpm on occasion, like when you pass someone, or merge onto the freeway. Then use duals for sure.

Upgrade to Manley SS valves? absolutely!!

Rods: EMPI Pro Series I-Beam. Waste of $. Use the stock VW rods.

Cam: No clue. Guessing to keep it reasonable. Engle 110? NO!!! that's way too small. W120, or FK-8

Rockers: 1.1:1 ratio? Depends on the cam. yes for the W120. Or with the FK-8, use 1.25 VW style rockers with 911 style adjusters.

Pistons/Cylinders: Mahle-Cima forged 90.5Bmm check

Pushrods: Chromoly and cut to specific length to achieve proper rocker arm geometry OK, but make sure you get thin wall pushrods. Better is the aluminum pushrods from CB.

Flywheel: No clue which one to get. Moderately lightened? 10 lbs max weight. Start with an old genuine VW one. I would never use a china flywheel when the 50 year old German one is so good.

Crankshaft (Hooo-boy. Here we go) 82mm: I'm up in arms. I'm fairly sure I'm going with 82mm and 8 dowel. Looking at either EMPI (from Cip1), Bugpack, Berg, or CB Super Race. I recommend a DMS or DPR welded crank. It starts with genuine VW steel. What is China using? Nobody knows.

Is there a major drawback to staying with VW journal? none

Oil sump: 3.5qt. Berg? No!! All a street car needs is 1.5 qts. If you put that 12lb mass under your engine, it won't stay on. the six little studs are not enough. When I built my engine, I drilled out all the studs in the case and installed m7 studs. This eliminates loosening of the nuts.

Looking to keep the compression ratio reasonable. Maybe 7.5:1? No, that's too low for your altitude. Min 8.5:1 if you want to use low octane fuel. Higher CR if you use premium.

[Ol'fogasaurus]

(My opinion) Bruce2 recommended 10# lightening but I think I would recommend a bit heavier.

Since you are climbing the Montana passes I think I would be more likely to recommend 12 or 12 1/2# flywheels at the lightest. You need some mass to carry RPMs for both the hills and long flat areas: while stock weight of the flywheel is something like 16#s (not sure on this as it was so long ago that I had mine lightened). It was recommended to me, by a couple of VCVW engine builders and racers, that 12#s allowed good quick RPMs for drag racing (for example), street driving and on the hills (in my case dunes where there is a lot more drag on the tires hence back onto the engine) so with that little bit of extra mass allows better RPM control/speeds on long drives vs. the need for up and down throttle pressure to keep the RPMs pretty much the same. I have seen some racers claim they are racing with 8# wheels I think that is OK for high RPM and fairly flat road courses.

I've ridden in light flywheel cars on long runs and the RPM "ups and downs" to keep a certain speed does get annoying after a while. Kind of like driving 70 MPH in second or third gear so going light or heavy on the loud pedal can get "herkie-jerkie" and tiring to the driver (and pass-ass-engers ) after a while.

Lee

[Shane Tuttle]

1. So, if I go 78mm, use the stock length VW rods? Will they hold up to the extra torque and RPM? And, going 82mm won't help the cylinder wear if I go with 5.4 rods to aid in geometry?

2. I was originally thinking going with a 2007. Figured if I was going to stroke the engine and spend the money on higher quality components, I could get away with gaining more power without sacrificing reliability. Will a 2007 be plenty of power to climb my mountain ranges?

[Bad Bob]

I have two 2007 engines for my bug, and had one in my bus also. Plenty of power to pull up that grade. However, you can build a 2180 for the same money. The extra CC’s won’t hurt.

[Bruce2]

Since you are climbing the Montana passes I think I would be more likely to recommend 12 or 12 1/2# flywheels at the lightest. You need some mass to carry RPMs for both the hills and long flat areas

This is a common misunderstanding of what a flywheel does. Flywheels don't magically lift your car up mountain grades. They don't help one bit. If you're climbing a grade at a constant speed, a 100lb flywheel acts exactly the same as a 1 lb flywheel.

that little bit of extra mass allows better RPM control/speeds on long drives vs. the need for up and down throttle pressure to keep the RPMs pretty much the same. I have seen some racers claim they are racing with 8# wheels I think that is OK for high RPM and fairly flat road courses.

I've ridden in light flywheel cars on long runs and the RPM "ups and downs" to keep a certain speed does get annoying after a while. Kind of like driving 70 MPH in second or third gear so going light or heavy on the loud pedal can get "herkie-jerkie" and tiring to the driver (and pass-ass-engers ) after a while.

This is a tuning issue, nothing to do with the flywheel. I've got an 8 lb flywheel in my car and it's dead steady cruising on the freeway. I've got plenty of long road trips with it. The last one was 16,000 miles through Central America. There's no "herky-jerky" on the freeway, no hunting up and down with the rpms. Plenty of other people have driven my car, not one person has noticed anything negative about drivability due to the extra light flywheel.

[Bruce2]

1. So, if I go 78mm, use the stock length VW rods? Will they hold up to the extra torque and RPM? And, going 82mm won't help the cylinder wear if I go with 5.4 rods to aid in geometry?

Don't even question the stock rods. They are one part that was way over-engineered. I've seen turbo cars pushing 400hp using stock rods. I've seen revver motors running north of 9000 rpm with no trouble at all.
The beauty of a 78 stroke engine with stock rods is that it builds like a 1600. Everything fits, and the engine fits in your car. If you go with the 82 stroke and longer 5.4 rods, the engine is quite a bit wider than stock. Then the tin doesn't fit. Head studs may be too short, pushrod tubes need to be stretched more. carb linkage and exhaust need to fit wider. Then when you put it in the car, you might have difficulty getting the right valve cover off and on again.

2. I was originally thinking going with a 2007. Figured if I was going to stroke the engine and spend the money on higher quality components, I could get away with gaining more power without sacrificing reliability.

Money doesn't get you reliability, the right combination does. When I designed my engine, I decided I was not going to open the engine before 100k miles. I had heard many claims of Cima 90.5s lasting over 100k miles, so I decided that would be the minimum. Everyone claimed 94s can last a long life, so I put the question out there. Nobody stepped up. A couple of guys claimed 50k miles on 94s, then admitted a re-ring in the middle. One guy claimed 30k miles without a re-ring. Not my idea of reliable.
The 82 crank gives you a greater rod angle than a 78 crank. I had heard of claims that cylinders don't last as long with 82mm cranks (not what I wanted to hear), so when a 78 crank came up for sale from a friend, I bought it.

Will a 2007 be plenty of power to climb my mountain ranges?

My car is also a heavy late Beetle,1975. It has no trouble maintaining 75mph up 6% grades.

[Ol'fogasaurus]

Bruce2, if it was a tuning only issue then I apologize but the flywheel stores mass for use and other things.

Hit and miss engines use a heavy flywheel to store energy which because of the type of work it is doing so they only need to fire after several rotations. https://www.bing.com/search?q=hit+and+m ... 68d90d7286

Heavy flywheels slow down the rise in the speed of rotation/RPMs. With a light flywheel your RPMs can change quickly but when you let off on the loud pedal the RPMs drop off very quickly (the herkie-jerkie thing when you are pushed back in the seat then, when the gas pedal is released you are thrown forward as the vehicle suddenly slows down [like slamming on the the brakes]).

With the opposite (a heavy flywheel) the RPMs are slower to rise and the engine is slower to slow down on the release of the gas pedal. Since he was talking about climbing up to the mountain passes which can be very steep even on a paved road or going loooooong distances on a flat road in Montana then the light flywheel isn't always that good. When I did a checking search on the web the three weights suggested on the web were: 12#s, 12 1/2#s and 13#s.

There are a lot of other things the flywheel does but I am not going to get into an argument over it. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Lee

[Bruce2]

Heavy flywheels slow down the rise in the speed of rotation/RPMs. With a light flywheel your RPMs can change quickly but when you let off on the loud pedal the RPMs drop off very quickly (the herkie-jerkie thing when you are pushed back in the seat then, when the gas pedal is released you are thrown forward as the vehicle suddenly slows down [like slamming on the the brakes]).

I seem to have misunderstood your first comment about the "herkey-jerkey" thing. I thought you meant that while attempting to cruise at a constant speed, the car will be varying up and down slightly.

What you wrote here now is completely true. When you have a light flywheel and you take your foot off the gas, the car really slows down quicker than if you had a heavy flywheel. If you don't like this effect, my guess is that you spend way too much time driving a modern car with an automatic transmission. You've become so used to a car that when you take your foot off the gas, it doesn't slow down. I simply can't stand driving such new cars for that reason.

[V8Nate]

Main difference i noticed with a super light flywheel was take off. Seems like i had to ride the clutch a little longer to take off, that was over 10 years ago so memories are fading but thats the main thing I can remember

[Ol'fogasaurus]

There was a thing on the web the other day that listed the cars that come with stick transmissions. I didn't look into it but the lead-in texg said the number was pretty small.

If you add to the cruising with the light flywheel you have to also add the weight of the car to the mix. A light car with a light flywheel will accentuate the "herkey-jerkey-ness" bit. "Herkey-jerkey" is a very old term that I every-so-often still hear used (probably by us older "Ol'-farts) but it fit the discussion as long as it was understood. As I alluded to I have been a driver and a passenger in a light flywheel car before.

scan0001.jpg

Bruce, you have to remember that I go back into the mid-to-late 50's as a "car person" and light flywheels were fairly common back then especially in "rods". The pix is of a '49 and later "flathead" Ford engine in a chopped '30 Model A coupe with a '39 Ford floor shift trans with '50 Merc gearing. I'm not sure now if it had a small "stroker" (Mercury crank) or what the bore was but this was a fairly common thing to do unless you went to Studebaker, Hemi's, Olds' or Cadillac V8 engines (pre-55 Chevs or "Y-block" Ford V8 engines).

Most (but not all) cars were a lot lighter in those days especially modified ones: Tri-5's for example ('55 through "57 Chevs especially with small block V8*s in them).

Nate, what you said is correct but riding the clutch isn't a "cheap" thing. The lighter the flywheel the harder it is to engage the clutch smoothly w/o slipping it which is why I was talking about the 12# to 13# lightening range for the street et al. The idea, even with a light flywheel, is a "quick smooth pedal motion" to save the flywheel and the clutch pack and not kill the engine a number of times. I was told this by other car people and once I figured it out it became easy and a natural thing to do. My blue dune buggy has a 12# flywheel with a solid 4-puck disc but even in the "high drag"/loosely packed coastal sand engaging the clutch is still is a fairly easy thing to do.

Lee