Researching for a daily driver Thing (Type 181)

[MConstantbabble]

Back at it...re-reading everything I can get my hands on, I have a '74 Thing with a 1776 and I recently fried the #3 piston (well, my Wife did, but I was with her, so it's my fault).
"If" I don't stick with a Type 1, I was sold on building a 2056 Type IV, but might be swaying towards a 78X94.
Just looking for advice and direction.
Thanks!

[Marc]

Any stroker combo is going to entail some complications that you don't encounter with a stock stroke.

94s are promoted as being "thick walled", and they are, compared to classic 92s - but that's not saying much...they're all of .006" thicker than slip-in 87s.

AA makes 92mm cylinders that have the same upper register as 94s, nice and thick and good for heavy vehicles - with a stock stroke that'd give you 1835cc, just a little more performance than the 1775 but with better longevity.

As it happens, if you run "B" pistons and 5½" rods with a 76mm stroke the dimensions work out very close to stock - it's arguably the easiest stroker combo there is to build. Perhaps a little more case clearancing involved than with a 74mm crank - the rod choice influences that - but it's simple to establish a "nominal" piston deck height without thick spacers or barrel shortening, and the engine ends up stock width so there're no issues with sheetmetal fit, etc.

All things considered, 92x76=2020cc is what I'd go for over the 2054 for a Thing. Torque & HP (and cost) should be pretty close and it'd be well-suited for a daily driver. Just don't use the old-school thinwall 92s

[MConstantbabble]

Type IV, correct?
Sorry, I meant to say I was researching a 2056.
Type IV
My fault

[Marc]

Well, then never mind
I'm at fault too for assuming you'd just posted in the wrong forum, since you said it had a 1775 now and mentioned 2054 and 94x78 - I didn't make the leap to considering a Type IV. All my comments (other than you should avoid too-thin cylinders, especially in a heavy vehicle) pertain to Type I.

I'll slink away now and let the Type IV experts weigh in.

[Piledriver]

Still good info, you gave him a ~comparable T1 motor to a basic T4 swap.
With well ported T1 big valve heads, it would make ~as much power, although the t4 chambers seem a little more efficient//need less advance. T1 is down about 30% on cooling fin area tho.

1700 heads have 39x33 valves and outflow 2L BUS heads with the same valves due to different port design.
1800s and 2L Porsche heads have even larger valves//higher flow out of the box than your average t1 heads.
... but even if the 160CFM intake flow potential of the 1700 heads isn't really there if you don't lift to .500", which generally means dual springs and a cam to match.

At least you don't need a counterweighted crank to have a decent rpm range with a t4.

Your T4 motor is probably going to end up with a 96mm bore if building any stroker.

I need to measure a set of T4 96s to compare but I suspect they are still around as thick as the thick wall 92s for T1s. (I guess measure the top lip?) I have a set handy I can dig out in the AM.

But 96 T4 cylinders don't have a 1/2" of sorta kinda cooled cylinder sticking up into the head, the hottest area no less.
Oddly isn't a typical problem area on t1s.

[Marc]

I don't have any cylinder outer dimensions on file for Type IV larger than 1700cc (90mm bore) and can't find any on the 'net. Considering how thick stock Type IV jugs are there's probably no danger in going .040" thinner (might not be the best for a loaded Westfalia but I'd think they'd be fine for a Thing).
But I do recall Jake Raby saying years ago that the preferred way to go 96mm was to have a set of OEM 93s or 94s bored out - he majorly diss'ed the quality of the aftermarket 96 jugs. Perhaps that's gotten better by now, they may still not be up to Jake's standards but they could be good enough for mere mortals.

I do know from experience that the head gaskets are prone to burning/sucking in, and that'd be exacerbated by a larger bore...but I believe most Type IV builders no longer use head gaskets. I'm happy to say that I haven't had to work on one since the early '90s

[Clatter]

I have owned a couple of Things, and (sort of) have an opinion..

My impression of them is that they are very light vehicles.
Say, like, the doors.. Super light weight. Or the top..

Now, aerodynamically, not so much...

And also crash-worthy? Um, no.. not at all.
(isn't that why they only lasted two years here?)

What this leads me to is this:
The thing is best for around-town driving, not the highway.
If the highways where you live are anything like ours here, it's not really that fun in a thing.
Loud, hectic, and the motor is pretty unhappy having to push the brick so hard.

So,

If you plan on tooling around town, sticking to two-lane roads,
The type 1 is perfectly fine.

If you want to run with the Super Racing Truck/SUV/Rice Racer Fast Fast Highway Hater Derby.
(today's modern highway)
I'd say a Type4 would be the tool for the job.
A type 4 is suited for sustained high-speed work FAR better than any tarted-up type 1.

So it all depends upon what you want to do with it;
'Daily driver' means different things to different people.

[aircooledtechguy]

If you build a solid 2056cc type4 with a good Web cam and 42x36 valve heads and keep your cr in the 8.5-9.5:1 range, you will have a really nice motor that should outlast any performance bug motor and provide ultimate drivability and torque. I don't think there is a nicer, more affordable motor to be had in the aircooled family for a DD.

[MConstantbabble]

Thanks for all the advice guys.

Lots of info to think about, I know all of the arguments on Type 1 vs Tyoe IV, here's where I am, and I know it's my decision to make, my Type 1 knowledge is a lot greater than my Type IV, so thinking out loud here.

I guess I should start with cost, because that's always been the biggest argument between the two.

Type 1, If I can afford it, starting with a Todd Francis TF-1 case...I've been following the progress and problems since day one on this case.
This levels the playing field cost wise... New Tf-1 case cost offsets the cost of new heads on the Type IV.
Both quality aluminum cases, both have through bolts, external oil filter blah blah blah.

Exhaust for the Type IV used to be a big concern, not anymore.
I live in South Florida, so I can live without heater boxes.

So...2180 Type 1 versus 2056 (or 2270) Type IV?
Similar power, similar torque curve, similar lifespan if built right.

The part that might be swaying me due to the Things apparent overheating issues is the Type IV's cooling ability.
That's what has me doing my research.

Thoughts?

[Marc]

I'm Persona non grata in any Type IV forum, so take this as a "Devil's advocate" argument.

They came SO close to making the perfect aircooled, but fell short in some key areas (like cam/lifter design - it was crying out for roller lifters but I guess those weren't in the budget). If you spend enough money on improved components when building a Type IV it can indeed outlast any Type I (do your own oil changes, though, unless you want to have to split the case when a Speedi-Lube dolt snaps off the strainer-plate bolt...genius design there, eh?).
It might take you 3 incarnations of a high-performance Type I to live as long as one Type IV - the final cost over ~150,000 miles would end up about the same, assuming even a few of the spendy bits were recyclable when the Type I needed freshening. More often than not these days, ACVWs hardly see 5,000-10,000 miles a year so for those people it's far more cost-effective to stay Type I. The more miles you expect to be putting on your car, the stronger the case becomes for the Type IV...but don't expect to build a good one on a budget.

...end of statement in support of Type Is, I know where I'm not welcome


P.S. you mentioned 2180 (92x82). For a long time back in the day that was about as big as they got, and they were seriously deficient longevity-wise. With the parts available nowadays (such as thick-wall cylinders and longer connecting rods) you can build one with reasonable life expectancy, but you wouldn't want an "old-school" combination 2180 for a DD.

[MConstantbabble]

Definitely AA thick wall on the 92 Pistons.
Thanks again for your help Marc.

[Marc]

My impression of them is that they are very light vehicles....Now, aerodynamically, not so much...

Gross vehicle weight is close to 1½ tons (~150 more than a `74 Beetle). Unladen, they're comparable to a 'Ghia or a `68-`70 Convertible. So, about midway between a typical Sedan and a Squareback. It's those brick-like aerodynamics that make the motor work so hard on the highway, and along with tire size the reason the Thing AV trans is 6% shorter than a `73-up Beetle/Super AT. A 2-liter Type I or IV should have no trouble pulling an AT, or maybe even a late 'Ghia AN (12½% taller in 4th than the AV) provided the cooling system is pumping enough air. If most of the use is around-town, though, I'd stick with the short gearing for a sprightlier feel.

[Clatter]

Marc,
Just had to look it up...

Wikipedia lists curb weight at 2006lb.

The manual says 1984lbs. ready to go..

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/archives/man ... manual.pdf

So, while they have heavy IRS rear suspension, bigger CVs and a few beefier front end parts,
The body parts are light and flimsy as all get-out.
Just the windows alone save a bunch of weight,
And it's all heavy down low and light up top..

If you have ever shut the door on one, it kind of makes you wonder how they got away with it all..

Cool of you (a type 1 guy) to admit that a type 4 will typically last three times as long as a type 1!
First type 1 guy I ever heard admit to it!
And it's even more true that few people drive these things any real miles these days any more...

[Marc]

...Cool of you (a type 1 guy) to admit that a type 4 will typically last three times as long as a type 1!
First type 1 guy I ever heard admit to it!
And it's even more true that few people drive these things any real miles these days any more...

Note that I DID qualify that, I was considering the case of "performance" builds comparable in output. The way they left the factory many had a hard time lasting as long as a stock Type I without a flat cam or dropped valve seat. With those little details attended to, there's no denying the durability advantage of the stronger case.
You can buy tool steel lifters for Type I also, but they don't need 'em since they don't have an idiotic cam design and conventional ones will last until the next time the case is split so IMO they aren't cost-effective.