Engine Build Time- Your Thoughts??

[hank911]

Hello all.

I'm looking for some advise on my New England winter project. I have a 71 that came in from California last Feb that has really been a blast. I have already gone through the suspension, new Bils, springs, bushings alignment ect..
The car has it's stock 1.7 D-jet that is a bit tired but runs well enough,miles unknown.
I don't plan on racing, several DE's a year and I'll AX it 2-3 times a month(wife permiting) The car will also do alot of street duty.
I'd like a torque strong motor that will give good reliability and some extra top end. I'm looking at going with carbs and have allready found some parts locally for starters.

1) a set of 2.0 "big valve" heads- reconditioned with 40 & 48mm stainless valves, new guides springs ect- NO cracks
2) cleaned & polished 2.0 crank & connecting rods
3) new 96mm p&c's- manf unknown
4) new cam C20? manf unknown

I also have two complete 1.7's complete with tin, ect. That's not counting the running 1.7 in my car.

Soooo, should I......

1) Get a 2.0 case, tin ect to build up?
2) Machine one of my 1.7 cases to accept larger cyl's & heads?
3) Which & who's cam for my application- I'll be using 40 or 44mm carbs
4) 96mm P&C's ok? On a budget so I'm not looking to make a monster 2.??
( at least not yet!!)

Did I say I was on a budget?? I meant low budget. I got the heads,crank & goodies at a good enough price I couldn't pass on and would like to keep everything else that way. I have a set of Weber 40's with linkage & manifolds so would love help/ pro's & cons on the above.

Thanks for any & all responces!!
http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=73939&st=0
First car on the link

Phil

[hardflex]

you don't say whether the 96mm p&c's are for the 2.0 crank, or for the shorter stroke 1.7's or 1.8's. The difference is in the piston pin height, so you need to establish what you have. I think the cyl bore size is the same in all motors, so you may be able to build a 2056 using the 2.0 crank and rods and the 96p&c's if they are a match. The 2.0 heads will also fit that combo.

are the heads the 3 bolt porsche 2.0 heads? That would determine the engine tin you might need.

Cam I don't know... I don't know what the current hot setup is.

[hank911]

Yes the p&c's are for a 2.0 crank & rod set. The heads are also three stud 2.0 heads.
What cam are you running in you 2056?

Cheers

[hardflex]

I am running the stock cam because this motor was built 10 years ago and I run the stock Fuel Injection. I would be inclined to buy a Cam from Jake Raby, mostly because I'm told it keeps the head temps down. I used to hear good things about the Webcam 73 as a Torque cam and the the 86 as a higher rev cam, both for if you go carbs.

If you wanted to stay Fuel Injected, you'd have to find a complete 2.0 injection setup to make it work. And get a cam matched to that.

[Dave at Pelican Parts]

The cam and heads will more or less determine where the power band is. With big valves and a big cam, it will make power at big RPMs, and probably not give you that much low down. In general, the stock 2.0 valve sizes are preferred for engines up to 2.2 or 2.3 liters in size, possibly more.

It sounds like you may be starting out with parts that run contrary to your stated desires for the result.

The 1.7/1.8/2.0 cases are all pretty much identical; you can swap the 2.0 crank/rods/P&Cs into any of them with no hassles. The only machining required for any swapping-around is if you try to fit 1.8 or 2.0 cylinders into 1.7 heads, you will have to flycut the heads to fit the larger OD of the top of the cylinders.

If you want to just have some fun and try building up the motor to see what it does, go with what you have and realize that it will not be optimal. If you want to just build the motor, no re-thinking required, spend the extra $$ on a Raby kit. All the thought has been put into it, no experimentation required.

--DD

[hank911]

Thanks Dave,

I'm not married to everything but those big valvle sure look cool! One of Jakes kit's won't budget right now and I don't know what the grind is on the cam. Any idea what I could push the displacement to with a set of carbs & the 2.0 crank and rods? Any cam's come to mind for a street motor that's seeing a few track & multiple AX's ??
Sounds like I may want to just sell these heads and find a good set of stock 2.0 heads that are in good shape as a starting point??

Thanks

[Dave at Pelican Parts]

There are a number of Web-Cams that are supposed to work well with carbs. The 86 grind (not 86a or b or c) is supposed to be a pretty good all-around cam, but I don't have direct experience. But seeing if you can swap the big-valve heads for some with stock sizes might be a good idea...

You can use 96mm P&Cs on the 2.0's 71mm crank for a 2056cc motor. It seems to be quite a fun little motor when done nicely.

--DD

[NOTASIX]

I have alternatives shy of a complete kit...

Today a carbed 2056 with less than 9:1 CR has the potential of 140 HP.

[hank911]

Hi Jake,

Should I send the heads, p&c's,cam & crank to you to check out. Would you match a cam with the heads ect..???
All that I've heard & looked at tells volumes for your reputation and expertice. From my own experience I know what that's worth and know that a kit would be great but piecing it together may be the route I need to go this time. Let me know what you think or if I should email or call direct.
Thanks,
Phil

[NOTASIX]

The onl;y reason that my program is so effective is due to the extreme effort that is put into a proper combination of compatible parts that work together to create an optimized package. This optimized combo is the difference in an engine and a truly designed, well oiled machine that operates much more efficiently, runs cooler, lasts longer and makes more power. This is what i create with my engine kit program, removing all the guess work and offering a proven, very effective option.

I can assist you with a combination of lesser grade using your existing parts- no problem. I will say that 30+ years later rebuilding stock heads is not the wise chice, most of the time the effort needed to get them to the proper level puts them at a cost that rivals a brand new head casting with our LE technology and it's benefits.

There are many ways I can assist you, some more effective thamn others and some more cost effective. The only way to get my purely proven combos is with a turnkey engine otr an engine kit, but I also have many individual components that will offer a better solution than anything else "off the shelf" that is availble.

[hank911]

Hi Jake,

The parts I'd like to use that I allready have are the heads( 40 & 48mm valves) 2.0 crank & rods and case. Looking to get close to your "2056 Small Wonder" package. Maybe that's just not possible but if you have a cam & piston( compression) combo that would place me in that catagory with carbs I'd be interested in finding out more. I also saw where you were running a special on heads last week and though I'm sure those five slots have been taken maybe you have some thoughts that might be within my reach. I'm sure down the road when it's in the budget I'll have another car that I can invest in differently but for now this one will be a fun,challenging... compromise.

Thanks,
Phil

[NOTASIX]

Not the dreaded 48mm intake valve!!! That technology has been superseded for over a decade!

We don't even use valves that large on a 2.7L engine. Why? Because the stock heads do not have ports that can sustain those valve sizes and the valves do nothing except hinder the charge. There is an excellent article on this over at my forums under the cylinder head forum, written by Len Hoffman. These valves coupled to a 2056 combination would more than likely render an engine with mismatched port flow or even worse port "stall" especially on the intake side of things.

My "Small wonder" is not based on the "bigger is better" theory- it only needs a 42mm intake valve to make it's 140HP rating-

The head special was offered by Len Hoffman, my cylinder head technician. He does limited runs of "rebuilt" heads but all of the heads we use and sell are based on our new head castings with the "LE" CNC port technology. None of them have a 48mm intake valve :-)

[hank911]

Well with what I have heard so far this is what I'm coming up with.

My 1.7 case
Set of 2.0 heads opened & larger valves by Len H
Have my cyl's honed to 96mm for a set of K Black pistons- 9 - 9.5 comp
My 2.0 crank & rods
A Web 85 or 85B?? or one of Jakes cams
Webber 40mm carbs

With what I have as my objective how do these items match up?
Any machining needed or recommended? (flycut heads ect??)
Best idea's on cam & comp on pistons?
Any other standard mods I should do while in there?

I really want to build a motor that makes some good low end torque and spins up nice & quick. I don't mind doing another one in 25-35k miles so I'm willing to compromise now for a more affordable solution to my stock 1.7 D-jet.

Thanks in advance for the ides!!

Phil

[hardflex]

If you've got 2.0 3 stud heads, everything you have just bolts together for the engine block. Your 1.7 engine tin will have to be adapted slightly to the different spark plug layout is all.

your 1.7 cyls will not work to 96mm, do you have the cyls that came with the pistons?

Cant help with the cam choice, but if you go carbs a mild cam should give you torque and a little more top end, the FI cam is a pretty mild cam, I think.

[hank911]

Yes I have 3 stud heads and 96 mm cyls. I thought Dave stated in the past that cylinders that have been cycled are a better base than the new ones though? That said should I just go ahead with some 103mm's???
What would that yeild? Performance & problems?

Cheers

[hardflex]

If I were you, I'd put together the parts I have, make it a 2056, and put it in. It's a tried and true setup, lot's of people have it. I have one in one of my cars. Just find you some heat exchangers and mufflers off a larger engine to let the bigger engine breathe better. Then start saving to build the engine you want for later. But that's just me.

BTW I had a 1.7, put in 1.8 cyls 20 years ago, before the net and forums like this. Put in larger headers than the 1.7's and the car felt great and rev'd willingly and ably. And that's with the 1.7 heads, 39x33 valves and the Djet.I have a 2056 in there now, but kinda miss the free revving feel of the 1.8, which I sold :-( I am tempted to build a 1911 with 2.0 heads I think that could be a fun motor. Stock Rods are lighter in the 1.7 and 1.8's and I think that makes a difference. But someone else may know differently.

[Michel J]

I don't see how a 1911 would be more fun than a 2056? From what I know and have read, the more displacement always means more power and thus more fun(for most people) Just because the stroke is a little shorter 66 vs 71, it is easier to spin? The rods look almost identical to me. Rod ratio factor maybe comes into play?

[NOTASIX]

From what I know and have read, the more displacement always means more power

Oh no....

I thought that after 10 years of preaching that bigger isn'tr better that we had conquered these thoughts :-(

The Type 4 is a very particular engine that responds violently to the combination used to create it. This combination dictates everything. Thats why my optimized combinations under 2350cc make more power than most 2.6-2.8L engines.

The 1911 is a very peaky, fun to drive engines that will make very similar power to the 2056 but it has a much better rod journal (stronger crank and bearings) and it also has more favorable stock rods.

That said should I just go ahead with some 103mm's???

Not unless you want problems with every aspect of the top end assembly of the engine. Big bores require big budgets to be built efficiently, and if it isn't efficient all you'll get is a fuel hungry, impossible to tune heat generator that gives constant problems ranging from head leaks to overheating.

Bigger isn't the answer.
"Its all in the combo"

[hank911]

So a 1911 with my current case & crank & rods along with a cam and 2.0 heads can work well? What should the compresion be limited to 9.1 to 1?? Jake do you have cams?Looking on your TypeIV store I didn't find cams. Would a Web 86 or a,b be best for my combo.

Just thought I'd throw out the 103mm's, I didn't think it would be a working combo.

Cheers

[hardflex]

I'd sure like to be able to lighten significantly the rods of a 2.0 before I put them in. I've seen pics of some that were drilled to lighten them. I might be up for that. Compare them side by side, 2.0 rods vs 1.7 vs chevy vs toyota, it's amazing. Jake tried to get some built a couple years ago but it didn't work out, but I was ready to buy.