Cam selection Part 2: Hydraulic?

[djs]

First, thanks to those who have provided me with valuable feedback so far. I will be going with a stock cam, most likely from Web-Cam. I agree with the ample torque characteristics of tthe stock 2-liter, and I don't want to sacrifice that for more top-end.

But I also have the opportunity to go either mechanical or hydraulic for this rebuild. Since my 2-liter is to be relatively stock, with stock fuel injection, the issue of "float" at high RPMs (> 6000) seems to me to be a non-issue. These engine, in stock form, don't make much power over about 5500 even with mechanical lifters. I don't think I've ever revved my engine that high, anyway.

I'm interested in the reduced noise and maintenance of hydraulic lifters. I have them on my '82 air-cooled and '87 water-cooled Vanagon campers. Can anyone give me a reason for NOT going hydraulic on a stock 914 motor? Is there a horsepower penalty? Also, I note that there are "kits" available to make this conversion. What kind of results have people had with these, if any?

Again, I will still go with mechanical lifters, if there is a clear advantage to doing so. But never having to adjust my valves again is tempting...

Thanks in advance!

Dan

[Joe Bob]

The engine is not designed for the hydralic cam. I tried it because I was talked into it by my rebuilder. It was a nightmare.

Do it if ya want to. But when you have a problem, WebCam will cheerfully give you a regualr cam for replacment. Unfortunatley the R&R of the engine and tear down is on your dime...

Just my $.02.

[Bleyseng]

I check/adjust the valves every 3000 miles when I do the oil change. It is a good time to go over all of the motor to check for any problems. I have never thought of a VW/Porsche motor as low maintaince. Easy to maintain, yes. The guys that don't maintain these engines are always on the side of the road scratching their heads.
I prefer the stock set up, its trouble free and last a long time.
my .02
Geoff

[JP Noonan]

Mikez: was it an oiling problem? I've often thought that the oil galleys on a solid lifter block might be different than the later hydralic bus block but I couldn't find any difference.

[Joe Bob]

Oil is one problem. The engine would not rev past 4500 rpms and #3 valve ate the seat...twice. All on the rebuilders dime...because I had the foresight to ask him to warrentee the heads and valve train...

[This message has been edited by mikez (edited 12-25-2000).]

[Dave at Pelican Parts]

For a somewhat-lengthy discussion of this topic, see the following link: http://www.dgi.net/cgi-bin/HyperNews/get/914modification/1.html . It has thoughts from a number of different people on the subject.

My own take is in this note: http://www.dgi.net/cgi-bin/HyperNews/get/914modification/1/1/1/2.html . In general, I agree with Brian. (Funny how that seems to happen a lot! )

--DD

[djs]

I will submit to the considerable wisdom of this forum and stick with a mechanical setup.

My neighbors in my townhouse complex will be less than pleased with this decision, however. I'm sure they were hoping for a quieter 914.

[Dave at Pelican Parts]

It may be an eternity in "internet years", but it's not a huge amount of time to the automotive aftermarket. And the views and opinions presented are as correct today as they were back then. I still wouldn't go for hydraulic lifters, but RD would do it again in a heartbeat.

Well, I suspect he would... I haven't really "talked" with him since he dropped out of the on-line 914 scene.

--DD

[Ian Cubus]

Here we go again with the hydraulic versus solid lifter thing again! Ha-ha! Since there are not any positive remarks for the hydraulic set ups and I have run both I will add my 2 cents. I currently am running a Web-cam hydraulic set-up with a carburetor grind. My current engine is 2.3, big valves, port/polish, aluminum finned cylinders, custom forged pistons, melling pump, etc.... I built this engine experimenting! I have had several 914's all with the stock valvetrain set ups. To tell you the truth I didn't have a problem then nor do I have a problem now. Other than not having to adjust the valves (which really isn't that bad), being quieter (kind of cool), and having them leak down if the car sits for an extended period of time (4wks plus) I have to say to each his own. I drive this engine hard, at times seeking out a weakness, and have never had a problem with reduced redlines, floating valves, dropping pushrods, lifter failure, etc.... As far as oiling differences I have heard rumors but for some reason no one seems to know what they are. Hmmmm...... In conclusion before this gets too long I have been satisfied with Web-cams set up. I would build another motor using the same set up. I still use solid lifter setups. They both have there advantages. Hydraulic lifters don't require repeated valve adjustments, are quieter, reduce the risk of burnt valves, can reduce top end power, and there is a possibility of failure (oil changes are of course very important). Solid lifters offer better top end performance and a lower incidence of failure. Either way there won't be some wazoo performance advantage. Bye for now, Ian

[scriabin]

Just to add to the information pool . . .

My set up is nearly identical to what Ian described above. More specifically, all German parts installed in a GE case (that's a late 70's 2.0L bus core, I believe) with a #3136 grind cam, which means do-do to me personally as I've no pertinent reference material to elucidate the cam's characteristics (Anyone? Anyone?).
The rocker shafts have the solid bushing spacers with the spring washers on both sides to ensure orientation over the valve, hydraulic valve springs (got me again, I failed to ask about their rate), the push rods are the 60,000 chromolys, the rocker arms have the 911 feet.

I have no basis for comparing power and performance, but I don't seem to have experienced any problems specific to having a hydraulic set up. Did take me a while to figure out how to properly set the initial adjustment though.
Concerning the matter of possible oiling problems, I seem to remember from somewhere that these lifters operate or 'travel higher' in the case bore than the mechanical lifers and that this concern can be addressed by machining the lifter oiling ports to direct the oil appropriately. I have never examined these passages in my case and don't know whether they were machined accordingly, or whether the fact that this was a case installed with hydraulic equipment from the factory would mean allowances would already have been made. Hmmm, if so, that could mean one more possible difference between the VW and 914 type IV case . . .

The engine has around 6 grand on it, no signs of a top end rebuild in sight so far, (oops, did I say that out loud!? knock-knock).

--John Lambert