Stronger Type4 motor for a bay

Discussion in 'Modified Shizzle' started by Michael T., Feb 6, 2018.

  1. Dear fellow bayers, at the risk of raising a cacophony of contradicting views amongst the crew Íd like to collect some experiences of fellow members who have transplanted a stronger Type4 engine into their buses. My 2.0 with L-jet is somewhat weak (so what else is new?) and as I have had my gearbox rebuilt with a longer 4th, a stronger engine seems more appropriate than ever. Ím currently leaning towards a ~2.4 with either 88x93, 86x94, 86x96 or 76x100.
    Who has experience with such an engine?
    Please spare me the „go suby“, etc. nonsense

    Thanks so much,


    Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk
  2. Had mine rebuilt to 2.1 nice and strong. Shame about it overheating and eventually giving up.

    I’m now putting in a scooby
    Pickles, GARRICK CLARK and Sick Boy like this.
  3. @zedders is the man to help with this one, he built a 2.4 that he is very happy with

    Real shame he doesn't post on this forum anymore though.

    you could try and find him on the blunderbus forum
    chad, Fat_Brum, rob.e and 1 other person like this.
  4. This would fit!

    Attached Files:

    Lasty and MorkC68 like this.
  5. I'm puzzled by the term 2.0 is weak?

    Does that mean it needs rebuilding or you want something with some get up and go.

    Our '73 runs a 1915 type 4, 34 ICT's with other tweaks and puts out a nice 96 bhp at the flywheel, it runs along rather well and is quite a torquey motor :)
    IZZYBAY and paradox like this.
  6. Go beyond 80mm stroke and you’re heading for a difficult build. And go beyond 96mm bore and you’re heading for a lot of case machining.

    Of the options you’re considering-

    88x93 is 2391cc - very difficult crank, rods and cam choice, rod to cam interference a big problem and a lot of case machining required. Pistons to suit the small cylinders might not be available although I’ve never looked.

    86x94 - 2387cc, still difficult crank, rods and cam selection, rod to cam interference still a problem but not quite as difficult as 88 stroke, still a lot of machining required.

    86x96 - 2490cc, same problems as 86x94.

    76x100 - 2388cc easiest of your options to build but obviously case and head machining required.

    What I’m trying to say is that there is not much point in considering bore/stroke combinations that are possible on paper but impossible to build, and of your four possibilities really only one is viable.

    Zeds engine is a 71x104 – 2413cc. He used a standard 2.0l cam profile (I wouldn’t) so there is a lot of low down torque but the curve peaks early and the engine runs out of steam. It would probably suit a higher ratio 4th and an option you might want to consider but a lot of case and head machining required.

    Good luck, and let us know what you decide to do.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
    Gooders likes this.
  7. Zeds motor is still going strong. He went past me in the opposite direction last Friday going like the proverbial poo off a greasy shovel.
    chad and Valveandy like this.
  8. @Michael T. I suppose you have looked at the replies here and don’t like what you read, or you have the answer you want from somewhere else? As far as I know nobody on this forum has a 2.4l with the odd bore/stroke combinations you’re considering and I’d be interested to hear if anyone has.
  9. I’ve just noticed this is in the ‘how to’ section, Michael might get a better response if it were in ‘Modified Shizzle’.
  10. Terrordales

    Terrordales Nightshift Admin

    Moved to Modified Shizzle.
    77 Westy likes this.
  11. @Michael T. Did you make any progress with this?

Share This Page