Others have answered, but yes. He would also machine for full flow oil system to plug in an outboard oil filter. Think he'd advise this for every T1 engine though, not just bigger ones.
I agree with 1776 being a great engine..................but only if you get the spec right and get it built by someone proper not off the shelf. Good and bad engine 'specs' follow for those who are interested, everyone else look away! Properly built 'Good' 1776 Engine Spec: Standard Forged VW crankshaft and stock conrods. Mild performance cam: Bugpack 4061 with 370 duration and 396" lift Oversized New Barrels (I think they were Mahle) & pistons. Pair stock valve VW twin port cylinder heads, cut for 90.5mm (1776cc) with mild port, Stainless steel valves, heavy duty springs & aluminium rocker covers Kadron carbs, with linkage, air cleaners etc. modified for use with vacuum distributor for improved acceleration and economy. So this engine was fairly standard except the heads and the cam. The van would 'fly' up hills and would cruise at 70mph with no problems at all. Off the Shelf 'bad' 1776 spec: Crankcase: Brand new extra strong Aluminium crankcase, drilled and tapped for full flow oil system using the top and bottom gallery method. Crankshaft: Original German forging re manufactured to OE spec. Drilled for 8 dowel holes and then dynamically balanced Flywheel: Brand new cast lightened flywheel with 8 dowel holes Connecting rods: Orig german forgings, remanufactured to OE Spec Oil pump: Melling cast iron Camshaft: Engle 110. Valve duration 284 degrees lift with stock rockers 0.430" Camfollowers: remanufactured to OE spec Barrels & pistons: new barrels fitted with forged 90.5mm pistons, manufactured by MAHLE. Pistons balanced to 1 gram of each other prior to assembly Pushrods: New heavy duty steel manufactured by EMPI Rockers: Stock 1.1:1. Re-manufactured Rockershafts: new bolt up units supplied by EMPI Tappet screws: Heavy duty elephant foot style swivel feet by EMPI Cylinder Heads: EMPI 044s which are stronger than stock style heads as they have extra material around the combustion chambers. They also have larger air intake & exhaust ports. Each is fitted with stainless 40mm x 35.5mm valves, heavy duty springs, steel retainers & long reach spark plugs. External oil cooler, fancy pants oil breathing So the spec of this engine was great on paper, but it never felt as good as the previous 1776 engine, it got hot, p i s s e d oil and was under powered! I tried this engine with the Kadrons and then changed to Dellortos, after being told my Kadrons were not powerful enough to fuel the engine. S h i t & massive waste of money. Steer clear of ‘off the shelf’ engines. This engine caused me 5 years+ of grief and i didn't feel confident driving anywhere in it.
Well that's what you think, but it's probably been rebuilt more than once. In my experience T1 1600 engines are all different. They range from leaping about in a sprightly fashion to barely picking up speed in 4th. No wonder there are different opinions of them. They suffice in modern traffic when good, but a bad one barely suffices. Now, some rebuilders, concious of their warrenty on these small cc engines in heavy loaded up vans err on the safe side and limit the power by limiting the CR. Even the original design CR is low-ish. And a single carb with those long manifolds isn't the best. Before I sold my early I wasn't overly impressed with the 1600 single carb engine performnce and it leaked oil between the barrels and block. When dismantled I found 1mm spacers under the barrels, put there to reset the CR after the ledge in the heads had been machined off at some point. Ah-ha! I calculated I'd be at about 8.8:1 if I removed the spacers so I did. I also fitted tin ICT's with big main jets. It went like a train and returned 28mpg on a run. The danger if a broken ring if the barrels are worn, but I could still see the honing so I risked it and put over 1,000 miles on it to be sure, but a new set of barrels and pistons isn't expensive. For a customer I bought new twinport heads from The Engine Shop. I then didn't notice he'd sent heads that for whatever reason had been machined. The van did not accelerate AT ALL in 4th unless down hill. Figured it out, sent heads back for unapologetic refund, fitted new unmachined heads and it went like a bomb. Compression ratio, when your engine size is only just enough, makes all the difference IMO. And what Paul says. Cams and valves give impressive power figures. The more undriveable you make it, the better the figures and spec look on paper.
...and I made a 2020cc T1 with 76mm crank, 92mm B&P's and heads with 40mm/35.5mm valves, cam with a bit too much duration for a bus. 134HP peak power and what fun to race about in. But at plodding about speeds and revs it wasn't so good, a bit fluffy and lacking at revs below 3,000. It's now in someone's Beetle and fantastic so it's owner says. Think you'll find 99% of engine specs out there are aimed at beetles. Bus Specs and HP don't sound so good.
Harvey has a stock 1600, to which I've added a pair of 36IDFs and a stainless single quiet-pack exhaust. This replaced the stock single carb & standard exhaust. I also replaced the mechanical points with an electronic set (Crane XR700), so the motor is completely stock inside, but with the external peripherals upgraded. The result (apart from finally resolving a chronic intermittent miss-fire) has been improved up-hill performance - whether a short sharp climb or a long shallow drag - as well as a generally more sprightly accelerator response and an improvement in the ability to keep up with traffic - I don't generally do more than 60ish on the motor way, but he is more proactive in getting there and better at maintaining that speed, than before. In comparison, the camper we rented a few weeks ago had a 1641cc motor (stock cam, as far as I know) with a stock carb, points & exhaust. I would say that there was very little difference, if any, in it's performance, as compared to Harvey, before I gave him his upgrades. To be honest, unless I'd been told it was a 1641, I don't think I'd have guessed the motor was not a stock 1600. I guess the point I'm making is that just increasing the CCs, and nothing else does not necessarily guarantee an in improvement performance. My experience with the upgrades I've added to Harvey tells me that the basic 1600cc long block is a capable lump, held back by a rather restrictive stock carb & exhaust. I think the whole process of squeezing performance out of an (any) engine, is just a case of trying to identify the biggest current bottleneck to performance in the current set-up and eliminating/minimising it, then moving on the the next biggest bottleneck, and so on.
Not just up to 1641, no. Hardly worth the bother. Most people only do it when faced with replacing the B&P's anyway - they make a choice between stock and 1641 and think "might as well".
My 1641 has a progressive and a JK stainess single quiet pack. I added the full flow oil filter and cooler so I can drive it at 65-70mph along most UK motorways, or do the same at 30 degrees C in France with oil temperatures maxing oit around 105 to 110 degreesC. I rebuilt the engine but left the spacers under the cylinders from the previous engine. This has dropped the CR and this engine is only able to climb a reference hill at 45mph instead of 50+ mph with the old engine. Spacers will be going this weekend when I do a post build check and refresh of the bits I didnt do quite right.
I shall check deck height. Current engine reads 100 psi compression with the same gauge that gave 120psi with the old leaky engine with the same heads. My estimate is that losing one millimetre of deck height or 6cc in the combustion chamber should restore it. The old engine ended up with heads with no step but a 1mm steel spacer above the cylinder and another below the cylinder sitting on a +1mm align bored case. The cylinder seats may have been machined. Remtec ? ? The Autolinea heads I now use have a step so should be Ok.. but..
A few years ago, we did Brighton Breeze with a friend. He in his 1776 twin carb bus, us in our old bog stock 1600. We both filled up at Moto services, M1 J23a. Then again just short of Hook Road, we'd driven down together at about 55mph. I can't remember the exact numbers, but he put in approximately £30 to my £20. On the Sunday morning heading home we stopped at Pease Pottage and again he paid fifty per cent more for his fuel than me. It's not the end of the world, but it's food for thought. When my old engine eventually gets rebuilt, I'm going to be looking more for stroke than bore. If chap above is correct and a 74mm stroker will fit easily, I suspect that's the way I'd like to go.
There was something wrong with his engine/fueling then. I drove 325 miles to Scotland with a single port 1600 and got 28mpg, then back again with a 1955cc engine and twin carbs and got... 28mpg.
Doesn't surprise me, but it's stuck with me. He continues to have nothing but problems with the engine, a Laurie whattsisname special.
Hmm, LP wasn't at his best in his last years of engine building. Previously though he supplied sturdy well priced engines decades, going above and beyond what he charged for them.
I only ever got out pulled once when I had my type 1 engined bus, we were fully loaded for two weeks holiday camping with two adults one child and two dogs on board, Going up some long drag on some motorway somewhere darnn sarff on the way to the Kent Vw show with Silver, Just not quite as much torque as a 2.0 type 4 with twin 40's and a nice cam and he started to gradually pull away, I was gutted but on another trip to Keiths field last year and both on our own and not as heavy I got my own back, he reckoned he could'nt keep up even on acceleration, Iv'e never had a type 4 engine but I never needed one
I agree with woody on this one a 1600 "camper " filled for "camping " will struggle a "bit sometimes ".Ive driven my 1600tp up and down most normal roads /motorways and it def makes a difference how much stuff you have on board . So test your vehicle if you need but test it how you are going to use it with or without carlos fandango wide wheels .
There is no substitute for Cubes. I have been building VW engines and doing my best to make them quicker since the late sixties. If you want real reliable power use a Type 4, a 2lt in original spec is the best engine straight out of the box. The !.6 engine is a different proposition. Yes you can get amazing power from them but it all comes at a price. In the 70s I built an 1835 grass track Beetle it produced 180+hp and revved beyond 9500, it took me along time to make it last for a days racing, More revs = short life. At the same time I built many 1776 and 1835 engines for Beetles and Vans. The spec then is the same now. I like the idea of cam that works but the reality as far as Vans goes is that anything above the first grinds shift the power further up the rev range , and also they are rubbish! I have spent the whole of this morning getting a cam to exactly match up with the followers, and then fit and remove timing gears until the backlash is correct. A 1776 and 1835 built correctly with a std cam and a small amount of work to the ports and valve seats will work very well even with the stock carb, it will give you low down power just where you need it. Just make sure you have a really good case to start with. Robert
We camped for 10 or more years with a family with an identical bus except they had a 2L and 6 rib box, we had 1700 with it's standard box. I would say their's was better on acceleration, but we overtook them on every hill. Ours was a knackered old thing, there's a recent Vege one. They had a Cogbox rebuilt gearbox. We had a leaky cheapy. I said it before and I'll say it again - 1700 T4 engines are under rated.
Got to agree with Zed ours has got its standard 1700 t4 motor but on a new genuine progressive Weber, can't believe how well it goes 65 to 70 mph (on the sat nav so accurate) on the motorway no probs. 25 to 27 ish mpg although worst around town if doing lots of stop start. The motor just seems to get into that sweet spot & feels like it will run like that forever, never seems to get to hot either. Will hold 55 - 60 on the long hills on the m5 with no drama. When I got our van I could not work out why everybody seems to drive them at 45 - 50 on the motorway holding the trucks up! I have the original owners manual for Lola in which it says for the t4 engine Maximum & cruising speed 78 mph so guess they were pretty confident it would not explode above 60 mph !
Didnt the engine on the way back turn out to have a really low compression ratio in the end? Im just wondering if that accounts for the good mpg
