2.0L FI cam options

Ian_G · 12-03-1999, 08:49 AM

Hey y'all,

Well this weekend I split the case and find out exactally why the lifters are sticking. Funny heads are off, valves are all fine and not stick. Pushrods all straight. Can insert finger into inside of lifter and draw them all in and out easily without stick.

So we're down to the camshaft and I can't think of what I'll find. . .

Anyway, since I'm splitting the case for the second time this year and everything is rebuilt 2.0L (with euro p&c's) I'm pondering other cam's. I originally put in a stock cam because I am keeping the FI, it just works great.

However, I've seen posts stating that you can use a higher lift or slightly longer duration cam with the stock 2.0L FI.

Does anyone have experience on this?? Could y'all point me somewhere that does?

Tom says that there is a mild one out from WebCam just for this, anyone running one that'd like to brag?

Thanks
Ian

Ian_G · 12-03-1999, 10:26 AM

OK y'all here's the problem. . .

My lifters are sticking in their races. Now why? Well when you pull one out, after much work, you notice that there are Al shavings in the oiling groove. These shavings catch the oiling passage that sits on all the races. So when you pull one out and wipe it down, volia no more stick!

So where did the shavings come from? Well there are only two Al peices, the case and the timing gear. Funny but both are involved. Durring rebuild I replaced my cam with a stock WebCam, this because my timing gear is a -5. With WebCam shafts you have to drill out the rivvets holding your timing gear to the original cam and reattach it to the new WebCam shaft. How do you reattach? Well with five bolts. These bolts have lock washers and this is what I used.

Guess what I found when I split the case over lunch? One timing gear retaning bolt had backed out and impinged on the case. Here are those shavings out of the case wall. Luckily there apperas to be no permanant damage. I'm stripping the case and having it dipped. Then cleaning all engine parts, then re-assymbleing.

OBSERVATION: Every bolt that I did not use LocTite on has backed out. Yes the CV bolts, a timing gear bolt. Even the bolt that supports the oil pick-up tube shook out. This is surprising because the engine has been balanced and is MUCH SMOOTHER! Still I LocTited 95% of the fasteners the last time. This time it's 100% baby!

Ian

BTW I'm still interested in y'all's opinions on hotter cams. While I'm in here I might just replace it. . .

mike mueller · 12-03-1999, 10:54 AM

You might want to lock-wire the bolts,
if done correctly they will not back out.
You'd have to drill small holes in the heads of the bolts , or you can purchase them already drilled from Spruce Aircraft Supply.
Sorry can't help you with the cam issue, but I am interested as well.

------------------
Mike Mueller
Antioch, CA
1970 1.8

Dane · 12-03-1999, 12:03 PM

I have a mild cam in my 1.7. I called Competition cam today and they said it would work fine with the stock fuel injection. I've yet to try this. Mine has carbs. I'm selling my newly rebuilt engine to replace with a V8. I have someone interested in buying my engine and he's planning on putting the FI back on. I'll let you know how it turns out. Christian

Dane · 12-03-1999, 12:04 PM

I have a mild cam in my 1.7. I called Competition cam today and they said it would work fine with the stock fuel injection. I've yet to try this. Mine has carbs. I'm selling my newly rebuilt engine to replace with a V8. I have someone interested in buying my engine and he's planning on putting the FI back on. I'll let you know how it turns out. Christian

Ian_G · 12-03-1999, 12:59 PM

Mike,

I did LocTite every other reciprocating nut in the engine. I really don't know why I didn't when I did this one part. . .

Well my good luck, how many get to see how the bearings are wearing after 2200mi??

Ian

Dave at Pelican Parts · Dave at Pelican Parts's Garage

I don't know much about the WebCam grind. I would bet that it's pretty similar to the FAT "HP440" grind. I got to drive a 2.0 with one of those a while back, and it seemed pretty decent.

My own car had a *really* tired (100# compression in all four cylinders) 2.0 motor, so that was all I could really compare it with. It felt like it was stronger throughout the rev range. (Could easily have been because the motor in question was NOT worn-out like mine.) It did not run out of "oomph" for another 500 or 1000 RPM over the stock one. The power drops off really fast with the stock grind, while the HP440 seemed to last just a bit longer. It was a difference, but not a huge one.

Just two more cents for ya.

--DD

Ian Cubus · 12-04-1999, 08:15 AM

Hey Ian I am running a Web-Cam (I think 91) complete hydraulic (I will expound on that later for everyone who just frowned) setup for CARBURETORS in a 2.3 four banger. They do make a mild performance for FI. This is an awesome cam setup. It has a very smooth idle and comes on strong at about 2000 on up! My next motor will get the same one. As far as the cam gear goes. It only cost a little over 20.00 for a new one. You don't have to mess around with grinding off the old one (new cam, why not new gear? Ha-ha!) My Web-cam setup had the cam, special lifters with radiused heads for even wear, a new cam gear, and most importantly (shallow head cam gear bolts) for proper clearancing to prevent the bolts from hitting when it rotates. VERY IMPORTANT! Now to the hydraulic issue. I have read the pro's and con's about hydraulic setups and have had many VW buses with them and many 914's without them. Loss of upper end power? No. Worried about someone else adjusting MY VALVES and not knowing they are hydraulic. Come on! Anyway this is the first 914 engine I have ever put them in and to tell you quite honestly I wanted to play and experiment. So far so good. We will see how it fairs in the long run. It's nice, quiet, and I haven't floated a valve yet and believe me I push it to the limit. Okay everyone can gang tackle me now! Ian

Ian_G · 12-06-1999, 05:02 AM

Y'all,

Thanks for all the advice. I will be getting a new cam as the cam gear attachment surface is all Fed up! I think that I will go for the mild FI cam from WebCam.

Ian,

For clarification WebCam sent shallow head bolts for the cam the first time. They ust backed out and tore things up, like the back of my new Hi-flow oil pump. This time I am going to wire them!

BTW my cam gear is a -5, anyone have a used one lieing around? I don't think I can get a new one that's -5.

Ian

JP Noonan · 12-06-1999, 10:33 AM

Ian Cubus: You say that you don't have valve float, did you use the different/correct valve springs? The 2.0L bus motors I've taken apart with hyd lifters had much stiffer springs than solid lifter engines.

For the adjustment issue, why don't people just paint "Hydralic Lifters" on the valve cover?

Just mentioning it for anyone else considering the conversion.

Steve M · 12-07-1999, 07:55 AM

My FAT performance modified 2.0 (stock) has their cam grind that DD mentioned. My 2 cents may not be worth much now since you already ordered a cam but I'll talk anyway. The cam I have is slightly more aggresive than a stock. As the engine is now its pretty rev happy and the power is at the higher end of the RPM range. On the highway I can keep going up to 6000 rpm and possibly past it and the engine will continue to pull. But I think part of the benefit comes from FAT's work on the cylinder heads, so the benefits depend on one another.

My .02 cents not adjusted for inflation.

Steve M

Ian_G · 12-07-1999, 12:15 PM

Well. . .

After all that's been said I'm still wondering, stock or the 440?? Drivability is the consern here, but a mild cam would be nice too. . .

I guess I'll just decide when I order it. On to the nex discussion.

Are bus 2.0L con rod bearings the same as 914 2.0L cons??

I ask because I think mine are overly scored. When the cam gear got tore up not only did aluminum shavings enter teh case but steel as well. I'm popping off the cons tonght to see. However, as of right now the cons tend don't slid down smoothly when dropped. We'll see. . . sooo depressing. . .

Ian