gene berg engines

Steve Arndt · Post by **Steve Arndt** » Sun Jul 22, 2001 1:47 am

MTBE

Steve

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Notch:
MMT (or is it mmbt or something like that) is a serious pollutant. It is collecting in water supplies. It was once thought by the oil companies to be a cure all for bad gas. Unfortunately no research was done or results were hidden and now we have another pollutant poisoning our enviroment. I claim to be no expert on this stuff but I'm sure you can find info on it on the web somewhere.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AircooledNut · Post by **AircooledNut** » Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:22 pm

I can't say anything negative about the Berg's. If you visit there website you will read where they recomend you building your own motr. I NEVER re-use an old case for a big stroker, I like to race mine so I want all i can get. I did read sometime back about a test the Berg's did on a motor. One with a new case and one with a "REBUILT" one. The new case motor made 20 more hp. WOW!. It's all up to your wallet.

I have built allot of motors for our Pro-Mod car and can honestly say the only benifit I get out of it now is that I know what is in it.

This is my .02 worth

------------------
Steve Waters
00 Turbo Beetle
68 Fastback "AKA Stubby"

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Thu Jul 26, 2001 2:12 pm

Those who sell parts, instead of engines, would rather sell the parts, and not do the dirty work, when you build an engine, parts are needed, and guess what??

Berg does have some nice parts, and I sometimes use them in my type 1 engines,I cannot say anything about that....However any street performance engine with less than 7.5:1 CR is a waste of time..

AircooledNut · Post by **AircooledNut** » Thu Jul 26, 2001 2:17 pm

This might need to be a new thread but, How much for one of those stout Type 4 motors? I might be willing to take that rout instead of this type 3 I am working on.

------------------
Steve Waters
00 Turbo Beetle
68 Fastback "AKA Stubby"

Martin Schilling · Post by **Martin Schilling** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 2:16 pm

I bought a Berg 1776 kit years ago and put Kadrons on it. It revs like crazy and is really driveable and able to putt along like a stocker in traffic. Basically, I'm still really happy with it. I built it myself and found the instructions included and telephone support top notch. Especially when you consider the alternatives. I think that Berg engines are perfect for people who don't know a lot about mechanics because of the support you receive with the money spent. Also, after it's installed, you can explain that you have a Berg engine and people will know what you have, rather than some Frankenstein thing that leaves people wondering. Other engines are for people who can't afford Berg's, haha! (just sarcasm, really!) In fact, I'm thinking of buying another Berg engine and moving the old one to my Bus. cheers!

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 2:23 pm

I can afford one, however I choose to spend my $$$ on type 4 power,something Berg did not car very much for....

Matt Harris · Post by **Matt Harris** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 5:17 pm

Martin,

Just don't use low c/r with a long duration cam. It's a recipe for disaster. The rest is up to you.....

------------------
Matt Harris
78 x 90.5
2007cc
1971 Super

Martin Schilling · Post by **Martin Schilling** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 4:59 pm

Please elaborate on the long duration cam comment. My 1776 Berg engine came with the 110 cam and 7.0:1 CR and the stock size valve heads (and heater boxes) were ported by them. As I said it runs fine with the only complaint is that the mileage is less than what I would expect. I figure that it should give similar mileage to a stock bug at a steady highway speed. When it comes time to service the heads, I'd like to raise the CR back to stock 7.5. Another question is that apparently Canada allows refiners to use MMT to raise the octane of gas whereas the US doesn't even though a US company sells us the MMT! Anybody know any more about this? I'm wondering if our gas is "better" than the US stuff, therefore allowing me to run a half point or so higher CR (just dreaming?)

JohnConnolly · Post by **JohnConnolly** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:40 pm

"Runs Fine" compared to what?

How do you know it wouldn't run way better and get 8mpg better mileage if you had used 8:1?

I have to offer ideas like this all the time, guys never considered their engine couldn't be running better, but it's often the case. 7:1 is too low for that cam IMO. Not as bad as Steve Arndt's old baja engine, but he's fixing that as we speak!

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 11:41 pm

I agree with John 100%, we have a custom web grind that is close to a 110 engle, it works great at 8:1, or more with headwork.

Contrary to popular belief, the lifeblood of an engine is compression,and more is not always bad.Compression makes power, vacuum, and it must be matched to a camshaft and heads. Many folks are so cohersed into believing that an aircooled engine must have the CR killed to live, not so, and we prove it almost everyday, as our engines run, and don't break, run hot, or have the fuel economy of a dumptruck. Another big plus is being able to tune the engine quickly, and have it respond to changes with noticeable differences.

Good point John, about comparison, we are lucky to be around so many engines, other guys don't have the ability to drive engines with 15 different changes within a weeks time, including 4 cams, and 8 compression ratios, 5 pairs of carbs, and 6 distributors, and that was just last week...
------------------
Jake Raby
Raby's Aircooled Technology www.aircooledtechnology.com

[This message has been edited by MASSIVE TYPE IV (edited 08-02-2001).]

JohnConnolly · Post by **JohnConnolly** » Thu Aug 02, 2001 12:55 am

Early on in my VW School of Hard Knocks (can I TM that expression?

) I was a Berg fanatic, and RELIGIOUSLY adhered to their advice.

I built a 2110 with an FK-87 and 7:1 compression. It "ran good" too. Now I know if I had run that puppy at 10:1 on pump gas I would have been WAY happier. However, the 7:1/87 engine had incredible heat output, since 1/2 the combustion was taking place IN the exhaust sytem. so much so that the apron paint was cooked right off!

It's a little known fact that raising the engine's compression can LOWER ENGINE TEMPERATURES! That is not a misprint. Increasing compression also increases engine efficiency.

Think about it this way everyone;

Burning a finite quantity of air/fuel results in a finite BTU content.

You convert some to power (roughly 1/3), what's left over is HEAT you need to deal with. If you can make more power with the same BTU you started with, you have LESS LEFTOVER HEAT. I have no idea how guys think that with 6.6:1 you are going to have a cool running engine, cause' it just AINT GONNA HAPPEN. You have to run 40 degrees of timing (more negative torque, and a LONG time exposing the heads to combustion heat). I'd rather have an engine I can run 14 degrees of timing with, and burn it all fast and clean. The rest of the Automotive Engineering World is getting close to Adiabatic engines (no radiator, no cooling system required), that are EFFICIENT big-time. No heat out the radiator means no wasted BTUs, more is going into propelling the vehicle down the road!

I'm starting research and development on a high compression/clean burn gasoline VW engine that will upset a LOT of VW "Gurus", but it may take a year, less if I have access to a CNC machine. It's totally different than anything seen, and it's gonna' work, I just have to prove it first.

John
Aircooled.Net Inc.

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Thu Aug 02, 2001 7:33 am

In my early years of vw engines, I too was fanatical about Mr. Berg and his way of thinking, I believed that he was the ONLY man who ever took the time to study the engine, and make close observations of it.

After a few years of engines not running just right, and wasted parts, I started questioning CR, and wondered why it had to be low. I started experimenting with higher CR, and more cam, with less timing, and carb adjustments. I replaced my engle cam with a web grind, and the engine came to life, at near 10:1, and could be driven all over the place, it gained close to 11MPG, and it felt like a 15HP increase.

I have not used low CR on my personal engines for close to 10 years...Recently we have used more CR, and even been able to run lower octane with no detonation..

------------------
Jake Raby
Raby's Aircooled Technology
www.aircooledtechnology.com

Steve Arndt · Post by **Steve Arndt** » Thu Aug 02, 2001 10:42 am

Darn straight! 9.4:1 86B daily driver 2276 w/ EFI and HUGE heads.

Steve

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by JohnConnolly:
"Runs Fine" compared to what?
7:1 is too low for that cam IMO. Not as bad as Steve Arndt's old baja engine, but he's fixing that as we speak!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Matt Harris · Post by **Matt Harris** » Fri Aug 03, 2001 1:08 am

Martin, if you want an even more expanded discussion of why you can't run long duration with piss low c/r see the cam vs c/r post. Read John's and Jake's replies in there as well as mine, and other's and decide for yourself. If you're not a believer in increased c/r with more duration after that then there's no hope for you j/k

------------------
Matt Harris
78 x 90.5
2007cc
1971 Super

Post by **Tom Notch** » Fri Aug 03, 2001 5:57 am

MMT (or is it mmbt or something like that) is a serious pollutant. It is collecting in water supplies. It was once thought by the oil companies to be a cure all for bad gas. Unfortunately no research was done or results were hidden and now we have another pollutant poisoning our enviroment. I claim to be no expert on this stuff but I'm sure you can find info on it on the web somewhere.

------------------
Tom Notch
Tom's Old VW Home