There are currently no "Long lasting" 103/105 kits available. I'm actually contemplating not even seling those sizes due to the fact of needing so much work to make them descent..
We make all the power we need with a nice stroke, and some 96s....Don't rule out shads 102 set, if you want something to last you need that nikisil, and a cylinder that will stay round...Just like his.
200hp Type 4 engine.
-
hotvw55
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2001 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
I have heard that FAT has a great cam FC445..Have any tryed this one ?
Still want information on engine ideas...
------------------
Henrik from Sweden
VW type1-50,-55,-67
Still want information on engine ideas...
------------------
Henrik from Sweden
VW type1-50,-55,-67
-
Searoy
- Posts: 2869
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
Hi and thanks for all the ideas and information...
That's what we're here for!
Is it better to use a smaller engine 80-82 / 96 or shall I go for the big one..
DO you have $1000 to spend on the engine every other year? WIth only 6000km on the engine a year 103s will last you a long time, so the cost benefits of 102 are minimized on you. That doesn't mean you can skiimp on the preparation of 103s. The difference is, if you use 96mm pistons, or Shad's 102mm pistons, you won't EVER have to worry about them leaking. At 6,000 miles a year they'll outlive YOU.
Loss or Benefit of a small versus a big engine?
If a big engine and small engine were set up about the same, the big one will have more torque, therefor more power. Both can be configured to either low RPM torque or high RPM power. The big one, all else being equal, will have more. It'll cost more too, and require more attention.
At this moment there is 2 different ways to walk, big engine with lot of bottom and a smaller schreamer engine with lot of top end power... I will listen to you pro's... Where shall I start ?
A smaller engine with lots of torque. Yup. The 2270 (96x78) set up for low end torque will most likely make you very happy, and will not have quality problems or leaking problems like the 103s, and won't cost nearly as much as 102s. Then for added top end power add a large bodied turbo.
As said forgett the 200 hp and give me ideas on where to start with a motor that could be driven on a road..
200 hp is doable with a turbo. You CAN have both. And it will still last about as long as a non-turbo engine.
[/B]Where could I get a good long lasting set of 103-105 ? If I shall go with them..[/B]
You would have to engineer them from scratch, because they currently do not exist. The best you can expect out of 103s is about 75,000 km. Any more than that is bonus.
Is it better to put a lot of money on the crank and go far the smaller engine...
A lot of money? I think the standard welded stroker crank, 78mm, would be fine. It's only about $500 or so. That would be a god investment. The most power for the money is in the heads. Get a good set of heads and have them ported by a profesional.
If I use a 103-105mm set and 8-8,5 compression, do I still have to use the 5 head studd ? or could copper gaskets do the job ?
Some say yes, some say no. I would say copper is fine for this, costs less and takes less time than machining, but machining is probably the outright better option.
Recomended crank/rods"length" for my application ?
5.325" for stock stroke. 5.5" for 78mm. I-Beams for a "normal" engine, H-Beams for high revving engines.
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
"I tend to lean toward a tighter gap and a
looser skirt....a little slap never hurt." -- Joe of the West
That's what we're here for!
Is it better to use a smaller engine 80-82 / 96 or shall I go for the big one..
DO you have $1000 to spend on the engine every other year? WIth only 6000km on the engine a year 103s will last you a long time, so the cost benefits of 102 are minimized on you. That doesn't mean you can skiimp on the preparation of 103s. The difference is, if you use 96mm pistons, or Shad's 102mm pistons, you won't EVER have to worry about them leaking. At 6,000 miles a year they'll outlive YOU.
Loss or Benefit of a small versus a big engine?
If a big engine and small engine were set up about the same, the big one will have more torque, therefor more power. Both can be configured to either low RPM torque or high RPM power. The big one, all else being equal, will have more. It'll cost more too, and require more attention.
At this moment there is 2 different ways to walk, big engine with lot of bottom and a smaller schreamer engine with lot of top end power... I will listen to you pro's... Where shall I start ?
A smaller engine with lots of torque. Yup. The 2270 (96x78) set up for low end torque will most likely make you very happy, and will not have quality problems or leaking problems like the 103s, and won't cost nearly as much as 102s. Then for added top end power add a large bodied turbo.
As said forgett the 200 hp and give me ideas on where to start with a motor that could be driven on a road..
200 hp is doable with a turbo. You CAN have both. And it will still last about as long as a non-turbo engine.
[/B]Where could I get a good long lasting set of 103-105 ? If I shall go with them..[/B]
You would have to engineer them from scratch, because they currently do not exist. The best you can expect out of 103s is about 75,000 km. Any more than that is bonus.
Is it better to put a lot of money on the crank and go far the smaller engine...
A lot of money? I think the standard welded stroker crank, 78mm, would be fine. It's only about $500 or so. That would be a god investment. The most power for the money is in the heads. Get a good set of heads and have them ported by a profesional.
If I use a 103-105mm set and 8-8,5 compression, do I still have to use the 5 head studd ? or could copper gaskets do the job ?
Some say yes, some say no. I would say copper is fine for this, costs less and takes less time than machining, but machining is probably the outright better option.
Recomended crank/rods"length" for my application ?
5.325" for stock stroke. 5.5" for 78mm. I-Beams for a "normal" engine, H-Beams for high revving engines.
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
"I tend to lean toward a tighter gap and a
looser skirt....a little slap never hurt." -- Joe of the West
-
MASSIVE TYPE IV
- Posts: 20132
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
I prefer to use NO gaskets between the cylinder and head. The way we step machine the head works the best I have found, and use no gaskets, after lapping procedures.
I would tend to stay with 5.4 rods with the 78...It buiilds torque with the stroke and also will allow you to run less cylinder shim, a big plus when it comes to setting up the top end...Anything more tyhan .160 of shim needs lengthened pushrod tubes, our shims just won't do it.
------------------
Jake Raby
Raby's Aircooled Technology
www.aircooledtechnology.com
I would tend to stay with 5.4 rods with the 78...It buiilds torque with the stroke and also will allow you to run less cylinder shim, a big plus when it comes to setting up the top end...Anything more tyhan .160 of shim needs lengthened pushrod tubes, our shims just won't do it.
------------------
Jake Raby
Raby's Aircooled Technology
www.aircooledtechnology.com
-
hotvw55
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2001 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
Hi Searoy and thanks again...
When it came to he matter of heads:
My 914 2,0L 65cc heads are fitted with 46/40 and are from the top of the inlethole a 40mm round chanle and start to get widher a couple of centimeters from the valve shaft.. Would this do ? they are standard sized for 94-96 and it is a little bit thigth at the side of the inlet valve. The exhaust port is opened a little bit and have been rounded for a smouther chanle to the exhaust sytem.
Do you think it is better to make them for 103s so that they could breath easyer against the side of the inlet valve?
Do you think dual Dellorto 45s would be enough to start with?
Best Regards Henrik
------------------
Henrik from Sweden
VW type1-50,-55,-67
When it came to he matter of heads:
My 914 2,0L 65cc heads are fitted with 46/40 and are from the top of the inlethole a 40mm round chanle and start to get widher a couple of centimeters from the valve shaft.. Would this do ? they are standard sized for 94-96 and it is a little bit thigth at the side of the inlet valve. The exhaust port is opened a little bit and have been rounded for a smouther chanle to the exhaust sytem.
Do you think it is better to make them for 103s so that they could breath easyer against the side of the inlet valve?
Do you think dual Dellorto 45s would be enough to start with?
Best Regards Henrik
------------------
Henrik from Sweden
VW type1-50,-55,-67
-
hotvw55
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2001 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
Ones again thanks for all you ideas and information...
------------------
Henrik from Sweden
VW type1-50,-55,-67
------------------
Henrik from Sweden
VW type1-50,-55,-67
-
Tom Notch
- Moderator
- Posts: 3332
- Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
I sort of have that cam. Mine is a special I had FAT do for me. It has the exhaust specs of a 445 but the intake is their 443. I haven't driven it yet but it sure sounds sweet so far, driving it is a month away or when the weather breaks! This was the 1st split duration cam like this they did. For all the specs of my 2.7L go to my site and find the T4 page. The cam card is also posted there for my cam.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hotvw55:
<B>I have heard that FAT has a great cam FC445..Have any tryed this one ?
Still want information on engine ideas...
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
Tom Notch
Tom's Old VW Home
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hotvw55:
<B>I have heard that FAT has a great cam FC445..Have any tryed this one ?
Still want information on engine ideas...
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
Tom Notch
Tom's Old VW Home
-
MASSIVE TYPE IV
- Posts: 20132
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
I Love split duration, and even split lift. I have 11 cams that are split durations..
-
Searoy
- Posts: 2869
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
<B>When it came to he matter of heads:
My 914 2,0L 65cc heads are fitted with 46/40 and are from the top of the inlet hole a 40mm round chanle and start to get widher a couple of centimeters from the valve shaft.. Would this do ? they are standard sized for 94-96 and it is a little bit tight at the side of the inlet valve. The exhaust port is opened a little bit and have been rounded for a smouther chanle to the exhaust sytem.
Do you think it is better to make them for 103s so that they could breath easyer against the side of the inlet valve?</B>
I think those heads would be fine for whatever you do, small or big. One reason you may have very little bottom end torque with your current engine is your heads. 46x40 is pretty big, especially for a 2054. Those heads on a larger engine would make better velocity down low, i.e. make more torque. If you want big torque down low you have to keep moderate porting sizes. More porting and bigger intake/exhaust mean higher RPM power. A 2600 with mildly ported heads, 1 5/8" header and 45mm carbs should make good low and mid power without loosing much if any up top.
If you are determined to go 2600 nothing less will satisfy you, since you will always be wondering "How much better another 400cc would be." So, keep those heads as they are. If you go 103s, just bore them to fit, but no additional porting would be required. If you wanted SERIOUS upper RPM power with your 2600, then you would want to port them, but it would hurt your low RPM torque.
Even 96s would add 1mm to the side of the valve. True 103s would add 4.5mm, but is that much really required for power? Nope.
It seems that the typical motorhead mentality survives into the Type 4 world. There is no replacement for displacement. That still holds true. But when you are dealing with an engine that has the T4 kind of drawbacks you have to limit that mentality if you want the engine to last. I think I've boiled it down to 3 choices for myself. 96s for a mild performance engine that will last a good long time, 102s for a bigger engine with lots more power across the board that will last a good long time, or 105s when nothing but the biggest baddest engine will do, regardless of maintenance requirements. I can't justify 103s for my own uses anymore since the 102s will outlast them by such a large margine.
Do you think dual Dellorto 45s would be enough to start with?
45 Dells would be fine.
I'm picturing what you want as a MID-RPM giant, with enough low end to get you out of the hole, and enough top end to be a lot of fun. Too much either way and you have an undrivable beast. With peak torque at 2500-3500 RPM you could do whatever you want. That means keeping everything in the middle of the road, parts-wise.
With the following parts suggestions the 2270 would have better top end, and the 2600 would have better bottom end, but both are pretty moderate. 2270 or 2600, either way you go, 45 Dells should be fine. 163/86b Webcam using the heads you've already got. 1 5/8" header, maybe as large as 1 3/4 to open up the top end a little.
The only thing left is to decide short life 103s (or even shorter life 105s) or long life 96s or 102s. Out of the box 96s and 103s cost about the same, but remember, the 103s will require expert machine work to fit and perform properly. If you opt up to the 105s, might as well up the stroke to 80mm, change the carbs up to 48s, the cam to a 86b/86c, and the exhaust to 1 3/4" or more. Only then would I consider additional porting to the heads, and then more to the exhaust than the intake.
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
"I tend to lean toward a tighter gap and a
looser skirt....a little slap never hurt." -- Joe of the West
My 914 2,0L 65cc heads are fitted with 46/40 and are from the top of the inlet hole a 40mm round chanle and start to get widher a couple of centimeters from the valve shaft.. Would this do ? they are standard sized for 94-96 and it is a little bit tight at the side of the inlet valve. The exhaust port is opened a little bit and have been rounded for a smouther chanle to the exhaust sytem.
Do you think it is better to make them for 103s so that they could breath easyer against the side of the inlet valve?</B>
I think those heads would be fine for whatever you do, small or big. One reason you may have very little bottom end torque with your current engine is your heads. 46x40 is pretty big, especially for a 2054. Those heads on a larger engine would make better velocity down low, i.e. make more torque. If you want big torque down low you have to keep moderate porting sizes. More porting and bigger intake/exhaust mean higher RPM power. A 2600 with mildly ported heads, 1 5/8" header and 45mm carbs should make good low and mid power without loosing much if any up top.
If you are determined to go 2600 nothing less will satisfy you, since you will always be wondering "How much better another 400cc would be." So, keep those heads as they are. If you go 103s, just bore them to fit, but no additional porting would be required. If you wanted SERIOUS upper RPM power with your 2600, then you would want to port them, but it would hurt your low RPM torque.
Even 96s would add 1mm to the side of the valve. True 103s would add 4.5mm, but is that much really required for power? Nope.
It seems that the typical motorhead mentality survives into the Type 4 world. There is no replacement for displacement. That still holds true. But when you are dealing with an engine that has the T4 kind of drawbacks you have to limit that mentality if you want the engine to last. I think I've boiled it down to 3 choices for myself. 96s for a mild performance engine that will last a good long time, 102s for a bigger engine with lots more power across the board that will last a good long time, or 105s when nothing but the biggest baddest engine will do, regardless of maintenance requirements. I can't justify 103s for my own uses anymore since the 102s will outlast them by such a large margine.
Do you think dual Dellorto 45s would be enough to start with?
45 Dells would be fine.
I'm picturing what you want as a MID-RPM giant, with enough low end to get you out of the hole, and enough top end to be a lot of fun. Too much either way and you have an undrivable beast. With peak torque at 2500-3500 RPM you could do whatever you want. That means keeping everything in the middle of the road, parts-wise.
With the following parts suggestions the 2270 would have better top end, and the 2600 would have better bottom end, but both are pretty moderate. 2270 or 2600, either way you go, 45 Dells should be fine. 163/86b Webcam using the heads you've already got. 1 5/8" header, maybe as large as 1 3/4 to open up the top end a little.
The only thing left is to decide short life 103s (or even shorter life 105s) or long life 96s or 102s. Out of the box 96s and 103s cost about the same, but remember, the 103s will require expert machine work to fit and perform properly. If you opt up to the 105s, might as well up the stroke to 80mm, change the carbs up to 48s, the cam to a 86b/86c, and the exhaust to 1 3/4" or more. Only then would I consider additional porting to the heads, and then more to the exhaust than the intake.
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
"I tend to lean toward a tighter gap and a
looser skirt....a little slap never hurt." -- Joe of the West
-
MASSIVE TYPE IV
- Posts: 20132
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
That 86B/86c is really healthy...It likes from 8.7(minimum without running rich) clear to 10.5 :1, especially with big valves..
I have a version of it that we will be sliing, it has swaped lobe centers, and a reduced base circle that will just allow clearance without going too far and making the valve train /lifter bores hurt..
------------------
Jake Raby
Raby's Aircooled Technology
www.aircooledtechnology.com
I have a version of it that we will be sliing, it has swaped lobe centers, and a reduced base circle that will just allow clearance without going too far and making the valve train /lifter bores hurt..
------------------
Jake Raby
Raby's Aircooled Technology
www.aircooledtechnology.com
-
hotvw55
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2001 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
Thanks ones again !
I think I have got the total combination now to my engine...As I'm a little bit fund of big engines I will go for the 103mm's.
78mm Stroker "Chevy journals"
Scat 5,5 H-beam rods "Chevy journals"
103mm's P/C
Webcam 86B786c
Webcam lifters
Webcam straith cut camgear. etc (for the sound)
My 45 Dells
My Heads With 46/40
My BAS 17/8 header (or will this be to big)
Is this combination going to give me the engine I'm looking for ? Lot of tourque from the bottom and som top end power. Will this engine be able to rev 6500-7000 and still not lose power in the higer areas (up at 6500 rpm)?
I guess that some of you have done this combination and know how it would be to drive.. It is important that it could be used as a street car (and som dragracing). The other engine I have is not that great to drive under 2500 rpm it is allmoust dead buth above it is like wake up a sleeping baby """It screams""".
Have you got some ideas in wich powerband it will be best and how it will feel to drive?
At wich rpm will the tourque peek be and hp ?
Estimated Horspower if I got all the parts tuned in...
------------------
Henrik from Sweden
VW type1-50,-55,-67
I think I have got the total combination now to my engine...As I'm a little bit fund of big engines I will go for the 103mm's.
78mm Stroker "Chevy journals"
Scat 5,5 H-beam rods "Chevy journals"
103mm's P/C
Webcam 86B786c
Webcam lifters
Webcam straith cut camgear. etc (for the sound)
My 45 Dells
My Heads With 46/40
My BAS 17/8 header (or will this be to big)
Is this combination going to give me the engine I'm looking for ? Lot of tourque from the bottom and som top end power. Will this engine be able to rev 6500-7000 and still not lose power in the higer areas (up at 6500 rpm)?
I guess that some of you have done this combination and know how it would be to drive.. It is important that it could be used as a street car (and som dragracing). The other engine I have is not that great to drive under 2500 rpm it is allmoust dead buth above it is like wake up a sleeping baby """It screams""".
Have you got some ideas in wich powerband it will be best and how it will feel to drive?
At wich rpm will the tourque peek be and hp ?
Estimated Horspower if I got all the parts tuned in...
------------------
Henrik from Sweden
VW type1-50,-55,-67
-
Searoy
- Posts: 2869
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
If you listen to Jake (always a good choice) the 86b/86c cam should have high compression, 9-something. If you keep compression high you will have enough low end torque to satisfy anyone but deisel truck drivers. There is enough duration to keep power nice up high. Bigger than I would have gone with 2600cc, especially if I have been unhappy with low RPM performance before.
Some have complained that the BAS exhaust system was not easily tunable, and prefer to use either a custom exhaust or a European Motorworks header (in California, oddly, not in Europe). I think 1 7/8" is pushing it, but then again, with the bigger 86b/86c cam you might be right on the money.
This thing will drive entirely different from your smaller, higher revving 2054. Be prepared. I hope your tranny is too. You'll want tall gears to take advantage of it.
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
"I tend to lean toward a tighter gap and a
looser skirt....a little slap never hurt." -- Joe of the West
Some have complained that the BAS exhaust system was not easily tunable, and prefer to use either a custom exhaust or a European Motorworks header (in California, oddly, not in Europe). I think 1 7/8" is pushing it, but then again, with the bigger 86b/86c cam you might be right on the money.
This thing will drive entirely different from your smaller, higher revving 2054. Be prepared. I hope your tranny is too. You'll want tall gears to take advantage of it.
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
"I tend to lean toward a tighter gap and a
looser skirt....a little slap never hurt." -- Joe of the West
-
Hot Wheels
- Posts: 1191
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
The webcam 163/86b Raby special was my choice for the 66x103 motor. I went for the lightweight lifters though to reduce stress on the cam and valvetrain as i am figuring on 7500rpm or so. 10 to one compression and a few other goodies. I will find out in the coming month what kind of power it makes. Should be a quick revving and somewhat of torque beast.
Sean
Sean
-
turboteener
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
I wish some one would come up with a viable alternative to the factory rocker arms. The type1 could get up to 1.5:1 rockers, and most other pushrod engines use at least 1.5. I know some of the Winston cup boys are using 1.8-2.0 rockers. The Pauter stuff is nice but still not really the solution. 1.48 is not enough to justify the change. With larger rocker ratios we could run less lift at the cam, less duration and get better performance. Oh well that is my rant.
-
MASSIVE TYPE IV
- Posts: 20132
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 12:01 am
200hp Type 4 engine.
Those ratio rockers are not "self oilers" something that is not fun to have on a street engine that does not turn mass rpm.
46/40 valves are REALLY big for a 2056...You will be better off with the fire to burn the fuel, and the cam to give that fuel the air needed to make that power. One thing is for sure, it will rev... Actually think about lighter valve train with this one...
My 2056 we did last week made power on a few runs to 6500 RPM and still looked to climb, and thats with 42x36 valves, and less lift, but 290 something duration @.020
Something tells me that this engine will love a close ratio gearbox and slamming of the shifter!
------------------
Jake Raby
Raby's Aircooled Technology
www.aircooledtechnology.com
46/40 valves are REALLY big for a 2056...You will be better off with the fire to burn the fuel, and the cam to give that fuel the air needed to make that power. One thing is for sure, it will rev... Actually think about lighter valve train with this one...
My 2056 we did last week made power on a few runs to 6500 RPM and still looked to climb, and thats with 42x36 valves, and less lift, but 290 something duration @.020
Something tells me that this engine will love a close ratio gearbox and slamming of the shifter!
------------------
Jake Raby
Raby's Aircooled Technology
www.aircooledtechnology.com