Problem with 73 2.0L heads.

[tmk]

The #1 sparkplug hole is stripped. Has anyone ever used one of the sparkplug repair kits? Is there a better way to fix it with out pulling the head?

[tmk]

One more thing. Can the top side tin around #1 and 2 cylinders be removed with the engine in the car?

[Joe Bob]

Unless there is some way to keep the metal shavings out of the head....you will most probably have to remove the head...

[Pritchard]

The guy who rebuilt my heads (a 27 year VW veteran) said that he could install a heilicoil for the sparkplug w/o removing the head. Here's how:

-bring cylinder to TDC
-coat bit with oil to keep as many shavings as possible from falling in the head.
-after installation, open the exhaust valve and blow compressed air through plug hole

I've never done this, but he said it's how he does it.

Good luck.

[This message has been edited by Pritchard (edited 12-16-1999).]

[roadtrp204]

Since it is a 2.0L head I would strongly suggest taking it off the motor. I have pulled the tin off the motor still in the car, but don't think it saved much time by having to work upside down and backwards through the engine access hole. Taking the head off is the only way to be sure the tap goes in straight and no shavings are left in the motor.

[dave914]

I agree, the only right way is to pull it, otherwise you may end up ruining the head or the engine. Yeah maybe it can be done, but I think it is too risky to do it assembled. Maybe on an old beater VW motor that is near the end of life, but a 2.0 914 engine is too expensive to mess up.
Do it right the only time, not the second time is what I recommend.

Dave

PS Blowing air into the cylinder and hoping chips (that were coated in grease) get blown out the valve ports is wish full thinking.
If you don't want to pull the heads, at least pull the motor (drain oil first) and turn it upside down (or rather so the plug hole is Vertical to ground) and tap it dry and vacuum it, Although this is not one tenth a good as doing it right, and pulling the head, it is probably your best shot at keeping chips out. All it takes is one little chip to score your piston, causing you to burn oil, or worse, break a ring.

[Ian_G]

I would agree with everyone here about pulling the head. But only because you really have to drill straight on.

However having owned several abused Al heads that needed helicoiling you can do it in place without getting chips in the cylinder.

The real trick is a very sharp bit, slow dril and synthetic molly. You just dip the tip of the bit in molly, slowly ream the hole pulling the bit every 30 sec and wiping all the molly off the bit. Then reapply molly and repeat until done. I've done this several times and when patient nothing will fall down.

Ian

[tmk]

Thanks to all.
I will be using something called a timesert. This is a threaded sleeve. It comes with a tapered tap and no drilling is needed. They say that you put a lot of oil it and it will trap all the shavings. I will try it with grease on a old VW head I have and see how it works. Anyone wants more INFO go to http://www.timesert.com
The angel should not be a problem if I can get the tin off as the top half of the hole is good and the tap should thread in OK.
More to come later.
TMK.

[Conrad W Peden]

How about a Helicoil "Sav-a-Thread"?
Product number 5329-14
This is a steel sleeve that is screwed in, then a drift spreads it out to seat it in the head.
The tap has about 3/4" of the M14 x 1.25 sparkplug thread then 3/8" of reamer then 1" of thread for the outside of the insert.

I have used them on my car and they have never rusted, seized or come out.

As for chips in the bore. Aluminium was a bit softer than the cylinder wall last time I checked and if there is a gap large enough for a chip to get between the piston and cylinder wall you should be taking of more than the head.

Use grease on the tap instead of oil and fill the flutes up like your putting Cheeze-Whiz on celery.

Hell, I found the nipple from a spark plug in the bore of my engine last rebuild and that was the good cylinder.
http://members.rennlist.com/a914lover/

------------------
CWP/VIR

[tmk]

Well here is the latest. The #1 spark plug hole had a timesert in it. The tap would not cut new threads. It just kind of fell apart. So out came the motor. Well if I am going to pull the head I mite as well go threw the motor. So as I am only a so so mechanic and not a motor builder off it went to Jerry Woods. I am now look to remove the FI have it built up for webers if I can find some with the manifolds.
More to come later.

[bowlsby]

Why go to carbs? Many of the posted dicsussions say that the original FI is what performs the best on the 914 engines. Do the racers go to carbs to sqweek out a bit more torque or what advantages are there? Also, it is my understanding that carbs are illegal here in California because they were not original equipment... even on the 73 and earlier cars. Apparently just because the earlier cars are exempt from having to certify smog compliance, they are still required to maintain original equipment.

[Joe Bob]

Carbs are only illegal on cars that need to be inspected....so 70-73 can use them...

Carbs are the only way to go when you go to a larger bore and stroke and longer lift and duration cam...UNLESS you got big $$ to get a programable FI.

The 30 year old D-Jet and L-Jet (ugh) just don't have the capability to handle the increases...kind of like trying to use a 286 computer today in the age of the Pentium III and higher systems...

[rich]

FYI The state of Minnesota just closed all state inspection sites. No more inspections. Big Brother gave in to Jesse The mind Ventura! Just think, so far we got state rebate checks from a tax surplus, repeal of the jet ski surtax, state instection sites closed, and talk of a flat fee for license plates. (Cool)

[JP Noonan]

Brian is right, (don't know what happened to my last post, oh well) it's illegal to tamper/remove working emissions devices even if the car is "exempt" (Florida and Ohio anyway). I don't know if you are required to fix "broken" equipment though? Most of these laws aren't made to affect privite citizens, most likly a fix-it type of fine. They laws are geared toward large muffler and repair shops so they don't pull off working cats or FI just to make there job easier.

Those road side "star wars" things are an infra red device. It can sense the amount of certain emissions coming from the tailpipe by how well it does or dosen't transmit the infra red. Then a pic is taking and you get a nice letter "gross poluter" in the mail. Don't know if the car is pre 74 weather or not it works. Times like this I wouldn't mind having a Lil' Red Express, tailpipes straight up into the air behind the cab. Or you could buy one of those things they sell in London, has a sensor that picks up on the camera flash and instantly returns a brighter flash to over expose the film. Sold as an anti-povoratzie device, has nothing to do with all the photo-radar they use in Europe. Also there are some licence plate covers that if veiwed at an angle obscure the plate. Most states have laws against licence covers though.

[Joe Bob]

To answer Brian...Merry Christmas BTW....the "Smog Dog" operated by contractors for the California Air Resources Board (aka CARB) reads emissions from gross polluters, they are assisted by CHP who do the actual pulling over...

Now, yes it is illegal to pull smog stuff off of any 914. But as you are aware, the 70-73 914 had minimal if any smog control....FI is not smog control...it is a fuel delivery system...semantics I know....

Now back to smog dog...they will only pull someone over for gross emissions....my 914/6 with no smog on it runs cleaner than the 1.7 that it replaced....anyone driving a hot rod that emits more than the very minimal smog regs that were around in the early 70s deserves a ticket...

Plus a 1970 914/6 came with carbs...my FI equipped six is even cleaner than that...at both @ idle and 2500 rpms...

Just my $.02....

[Dave at Pelican Parts]

You are correct, Brian. I just went through the process (FAILED BIG-TIME!) myself. And it *is* technically illegal to change the fuel system on any post-66 car. It's just very unlikely that you'll get caught on the pre-74s in CA.

To go back to an earlier question, there are a variety of reasons that racers use carbs.

One of the best reasons is that it is a requiement for some race series. In SCCA's EP, for instance, the induction is specified as "Two 40mm dual-throat carbs". So people use Weber or Dell 40s.

The most common reason is to work with a big lumpy cam. The stock FIs do not like lumpy cams, particularly the D-jet which will run TERRIBLY rich at idle.

A side benefit for the serious racers is that the carb setups are lighter than the stock FI. And that's a very good thing indeed for folks who will gladly spend a couple hundred bucks to save 5 lbs.

Finally, the short direct intake path provided by the carbs can help high-RPM flow. This is also good for racers, since they spend almost all of their time at wide-open-throttle and high revs. However, the setup is not good for low-RPM power, since at low revs there is low gas velocity and little momentum to shove air into the chambers.

In other words, it's another one of those classic low-end-torque for high-end-power tradeoffs.

--DD

[Joe Bob]

If you re-read my post, I was talking about pre-74 models and the use of carbs and if it was illegal...

There is no legislation on the books that would require a vehicle to submit to a smog inspection if it is exempt....also there is no way a properly tuned, carbed 914 could be busted as a gross polluter. Carbs fail tests at idle, not at 2500 rpms....all spot checks, visible emissions tests are done on vehicles that are moving up freeway on ramps, in traffic, etc...

Sooo...no way is someone gonna get busted for removing FI on a pre-74 car...if the State were to take action it would incur the wrath of every antique car club around....when the legislature passed the exemption, the unwritted rule was....any car that can last 25 to 30 years...deserves a break...

[tmk]

Well I did not know how much debate this would generate. I want carbs because I like and understand them. This will be a every day car and not have a very lumpy cam. The motor will be built for carbs and mid to top end performance manly for hard street driving and autox. However with jetting and tuning they can be setup for what ever you want to do. (with in the limits of the cam, etc)

So anyone know if the kits like automation's 356/912 Weber upgrade will work on a 2.0L 914? It has Weber 40 IDF WEX carbs. What about the manifolds, linkage, etc?

Thanks to all.

TMK

[Joe Bob]

The 912/356/VW/1.7/1.8/914 manifolds are different....but they 914/2.0 ones are easy and chep to find....try CB Performance aka Claude's Bugs. The 914/2.0 manifolds have three bolts...some 1.7/1.8 manifolds are adaptable or already have the mods...

[turbo2.0]

I did some research and found this at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_285_bill_19990202_introduced.html
(a) Notwithstanding Section 44011, a certificate of
compliance or noncompliance is not required for a motor vehicle that
is driven 6,000 was driven 12,000 miles
or less annually during the preceding
two-year period .
(b) A waiver shall be issued by a referee at a test-only station
upon the request of the vehicle owner for a vehicle that qualifies
for the waiver pursuant to this section.This is also interesting:

(d) Upon the request of the department, the Department of the
California Highway Patrol shall provide assistance in conducting
roadside auditing, to consist of (1) the stopping of vehicles and
traffic management, and (2) the issuance of notices of noncompliance
to gross polluters. The department shall reimburse the Department of
the California Highway Patrol for its costs of providing those
services. The Department of Transportation and affected local
agencies shall provide necessary assistance and cooperation to the
department in the operation of the program.
(e) There shall be no repair cost limit imposed pursuant to
Section 44017 for any repairs that are required to be made under the
roadside auditing program, except as provided in subdivision (c) of
Section 44017.
(f) This section does not apply to vehicles
the following:
(1) A motor vehicle operating under a valid repair cost
waiver or economic hardship extension issued pursuant to Section
44015.
(2) Prior to January 1, 2003, any motor vehicle manufactured prior
to the 1974 model-year.
(3) On or after January 1, 2003, any motor vehicle that is 30 or
more model-years old.
Just food for thought....