Skip to main content

I spoke over the phone with Greg yesterday. He said for his 2332cc motor he has been offering a 3.44 R&P which has the following ratios: 3.90, 1.93, 1.21, and .89.  He said these are stock gears which make them cheaper than his 3.88 R&P option with 3.10, 1.93, 1.21, .82 ratios. The 4.12 has 3.90, 1.93, 1.21, and .082 ratios. He told me he cannot guarantee the 3.88 will have quiet gears as it is a custom aftermarket setup.

The 3.44 is a $1,000 upgrade vs $2,000 for the 3.88. He has had good results with the 3.44 and 2332cc motor.

Greg said his 2332cc motor is a mild build at 145hp, and that it is just as reliable as his 1915cc motor.

Greg told me he is primarily sticking to the 3 transmission options he has right now, but it sounded like if one really wanted a custom order, he would be able to do it.

I am now leaning toward the 2332cc motor and 3.44 R&P setup. $3,500 more then my current build. I always try to follow the mantra "buy nice or buy twice". Not that the 1915cc isn't nice - but I know I won't be able to get rid of the nagging thoughts wondering if I should have gone with the 2332cc.

Last edited by TwinCitiesSpeedster

I spoke over the phone with Greg yesterday. He said for his 2332cc motor he has been offering a 3.44 R&P which has the following ratios: 3.90, 1.93, 1.21, and .89.  He said these are stock gears which make them cheaper than his 3.88 R&P option with 3.10, 1.93, 1.21, .82 ratios. The 4.12 has 3.90, 1.93, 1.21, and .082 ratios. He told me he cannot guarantee the 3.88 will have quiet gears as it is a custom aftermarket setup.



Those 1st-2nd gear ratios don't sound right.  VW made 2 mainshafts for the type 1, 3.80 x 2.06, or the later "super beetle" shaft that was 3.78x2.06.

You're correct, Rick. It wasn't a "Super Beetle" shaft, it was just a later one that went in everything VW had with a wider, stronger first gear. It went in standard Beetles, Ghias, type3 and Things as well as Supers.

The stock gears you'll likely get with the 3.44 R&P are 3:80 or 3:78 1st, 2.06 2nd, 1.26 3rd, and 0.89 4th. I have this transmission in my Spyder with a 2165cc. It is a nice all-around combo, and should work very well with a 2332cc in a Speedster. Twin Cities, you should be happy.

VW did make a 1.30 3rd and a 0.93 4th, which IMHO would be VERY sweet in your Speedster. But it really depends on the options of what the trans builder offers.

Last edited by DannyP

You won’t like a 3.44. It lugs a lot around town. It’s great at 75-80 on the highway but in the city you can’t use 4th below 40. It will lug. I had a 2110 and it lost a lot of zip with the 3.44.  If you want to take it on trips get the 3.88 with .82. That is the same as 3.44 with .89.  It won’t lug in town because the first three gears are still stock. If you are not going to travel much, stick with the 3.88-.89. 3.88 gears are nothing special, they are Karmann Ghia stock gears.  The 3.44 gears are aftermarket.

Last edited by Fpcopo VS
@Fpcopo VS posted:

You won’t like a 3.44. It lugs a lot around town. It’s great at 75-80 on the highway but in the city you can’t use 4th below 40. It will lug. I had a 2110 and it lost a lot of zip with the 3.44.  If you want to take it on trips get the 3.88 with .82. That is the same as 3.44 with .89.  It won’t lug in town because the first three gears are still stock. If you are not going to travel much, stick with the 3.88-.89. 3.88 gears are nothing special, they are Karmann Ghia stock gears.  The 3.44 gears are aftermarket.

I have to disagree on several points. I have a 2165, only 55cc more than your 2110.

It doesn't "lug in town". Perhaps your particular 2110 is down on compression and/or power? I know I don't bother with 4th until I'm just tooling along at 50+. In town I'm most often in 2nd or 3rd.

The problem with the 3.88 final with 0.82 4th is the BIG hole between 3rd and 4th. At certain speeds, you'll either be revving or lugging the engine, not a happy place to be with an aircooled car, especially going uphill.

A 3.88 final drive was available after 1971-1972 in everything once VW was using 1600cc engines. The Karmann Ghia had a taller 4th(0.89 instead of 0.93) because it was more aerodynamic than the rest of VWs cars. A 3.88 with a 0.89 is almost the same ratio as a 3.44 with a 0.93, the second is only slightly taller. But the 3.44 with 0.93 is almost EXACTLY the same as what you advocate, the 3.88 with the 0.82 4th.

But at the end of the day, the 3.44 will offer evenly spaced gears rather than 3 shorter gears and a long jump to 4th.

Last edited by DannyP

Some people like a "stump-puller" first gear, and that's OK; 3.88 stock Ghia (or even Bug) gears work nice in a Speedster. But I will second Danny on this point: 3.44 R&P doesn't "lug." The RPM/Speed ratios are easy to see in the gear chart. It's not as "snappy" to 30 mph but I have found it very drivable in both local traffic and highway scenarios with two different cars and very different engines.

"I live in the cities and have to do a little bit of highway cruising to get out of town, but I plan to primarily cruise backroads and city streets." - @TwinCitiesSpeedster

I say again, that based on your statement, IMHO the original 1915 & trans set up from Greg will easily meet your criteria without spending mucho $$$ on superfluous modifications.

I didn't notice any statements that said: I want to reach launch speed to initiate earthly orbit; I intend to win the SCCA Championship; I want to annihilate every Mustang, Camaro, F-150 pickup, Volvo S90, Hyundai Elantra, etc. from stoplight to stoplight.

3 pages of info, you have entered the zone of analysis-paralysis.

Looking forward to seeing pics of you and your new Speedster!

Last edited by MusbJim

I had a long response all typed out for @Fpcopo VS's .82/3.88 recommendation-- but you know what? We're asking the OP to drink from a fire-hose.

I don't think he can go wrong with any of Greg's options (except maybe the stock transaxle). I still think my 3.78/2.06/1.30/.93 with a 3.88 for a 1915 or a 3.44 for the 2332 would be quite enjoyable-- but so would either of Greg's suggestions.

At the end of the day, he's not going to end up with something he regrets.

I’m just going on my experience. My 2110 was built by CB and dynoed at 150 hp. It was new with only a few hundred miles when the transaxle went out. I had paid for a 3.88 “freeway flyer “ so that is what I thought was in it. I noticed the car had a ton of power but above 60 it was revving higher than I liked so when the transaxle came out I talked it over with the builder and ordered a 3.44.  I can’t remember exactly what we put in but the final drive equaled 3.06.  It was just too much.  When it came apart, we found a junk trans with 4.12s in it.  That’s why I went so far the other way, I thought it was a 3.88.  Like I said I lost some performance which I figured would happen but what I didn’t like was when I put it in 4th even slightly below 2,000 rpm It felt like it was vibrating or lugging.  It might have been that I’m used to my other 2 cars that have 7 liters and 4 speeds and should have been running it out farther.  

     Anyway, the combination was geared too high for what I needed.  I should have included in my post my too high 4th gear.    Al B and I talked it over quite a lot before I bought the gears and I can’t remember why I went that high.  Now I think the 3.44 with a 1.00 4th would have been perfect. I think this is the same as the 3.88 with .89 4th.  I think the OP would be best advised to listen to Greg. He has built and driven a lot of these so he will know best.  Thanks for your responses, you will never learn if you don’t pay attention to others ideas.

Last edited by Fpcopo VS

@MusbJim Haha, you are correct, I did not initially make any statements like that. Some of the things you mentioned do sound fun though! My thoughts are this - if I am spending this much money on a toy, I might as well spend a little more to get something I will definitely be happy with. I do like power and going fast too. The fact I had to make a thread titled "Is 1915cc enough?" is probably a good indicator that it is not for me. Those nagging thoughts of more power were already creeping in and getting the best of me, and they won't go away!

Thanks again everyone for all of the great information and feedback in this thread. This has been the friendliest, most helpful forum I have ever been on. I have been on plenty of others for motorcycles, snowmobiles, and other cars, but none of them have been this great!

Last edited by TwinCitiesSpeedster
@DannyP posted:


The problem with the 3.88 final with 0.82 4th is the BIG hole between 3rd and 4th. At certain speeds, you'll either be revving or lugging the engine, not a happy place to be with an aircooled car, especially going uphill.

A 3.88 final drive was available after 1971-1972 in everything once VW was using 1600cc engines. The Karmann Ghia had a taller 4th(0.89 instead of 0.93) because it was more aerodynamic than the rest of VWs cars. A 3.88 with a 0.89 is almost the same ratio as a 3.44 with a 0.93, the second is only slightly taller. But the 3.44 with 0.93 is almost EXACTLY the same as what you advocate, the 3.88 with the 0.82 4th.

But at the end of the day, the 3.44 will offer evenly spaced gears rather than 3 shorter gears and a long jump to 4th.

^^^What Danny said^^^

@Fpcopo VS- I remember us discussing this a while ago but I'm not sure where it was - I looked in my pm's back to 1916 and didn't see anything.  Do you remember the thread where we talked about your gearing?   I'm pretty sure I didn't recommended pairing a stock 3rd (either 1.30 or 1.26) with a .82 in 4th- I've never been a fan of that combination.

@Fpcopo VS posted:

I’m just going on my experience. My 2110 was built by CB and dynoed at 150 hp. It was new with only a few hundred miles when the transaxle went out. I had paid for a 3.88 “freeway flyer “ so that is what I thought was in it. I noticed the car had a ton of power but above 60 it was revving higher than I liked so when the transaxle came out I talked it over with the builder and ordered a 3.44.  I can’t remember exactly what we put in but the final drive equaled 3.06.  It was just too much.  When it came apart, we found a junk trans with 4.12s in it.  That’s why I went so far the other way, I thought it was a 3.88.  Like I said I lost some performance which I figured would happen but what I didn’t like was when I put it in 4th even slightly below 2,000 rpm It felt like it was vibrating or lugging.  It might have been that I’m used to my other 2 cars that have 7 liters and 4 speeds and should have been running it out farther.  

     Anyway, the combination was geared too high for what I needed.  I should have included in my post my too high 4th gear.    Al B and I talked it over quite a lot before I bought the gears and I can’t remember why I went that high.  Now I think the 3.44 with a 1.00 4th would have been perfect. I think this is the same as the 3.88 with .89 4th.  I think the OP would be best advised to listen to Greg. He has built and driven a lot of these so he will know best.  Thanks for your responses, you will never learn if you don’t pay attention to others ideas.

So you had a 3.88, that wasn't a 3.88, it was actually a 4.12, and you went with a 3.44, which was too far from the 3.88 that was actually a 4.12.

Who's on(in) first? What's on second? I don't know is on third. And don't forget home(4th)! LOL!

Not one soul on here will EVER recommend trying to load ANY type1 engine below 2500 rpm, let alone 2000 like you did. It just isn't designed like a modern engine and can't handle that. It doesn't matter what your gearing is, and isn't the gear's fault.

I know that now!  So what I should have done was 3.44 with a1.00 4th.  It’s slightly more efficient than the overdrive 4th and I’m convinced the gearing was about the best combo for City and freeway.  The engine pulled the high gear with no problems on the road, 75 mph all day and no temperature issues.  The guy who owns it now loves it so evidently he doesn’t try to drive it at 2,000 rpm.

      Some day I may get another Speedster but I would like to try a bigger engine, 2180, or 2276 has anyone had a 2332 and been able to keep it cool?  Sorry to the OP for hijacking.

@Fpcopo VS posted:

Some day I may get another Speedster but I would like to try a bigger engine, 2180, or 2276 has anyone had a 2332 and been able to keep it cool?

If you pay attention to the overall package, you can keep it cool-- but the engine needs to be able to breathe (good heads, good matched exhaust), you need a big aux. oil cooler (96 plate, with fan), and a good cooling shroud. I'm a Type 1 DTM (LN Engineering) fanboy, but other folks have good luck with stock VW tin.

It can be done.

.

I was in the same boat as Frank.

My '3.88' was actually a 4.12.

But, I think Frank didn't find out until after his new tranny was spec'd and built. Thinking he already had a 3.88 (and that that  was geared too low), he ordered a 3.44. What he really needed all along was a gen-u-whine 3.88, but he found that out too late.

I was a little luckier. We were able to figure out the actual gearing inside the old box before ordering a new one. Once the old box was torn down, it turned out it contained too many substandard parts, so instead of rebuilding it we just built a new four-speed from scratch, with 3.88 and .89 top.

My 2024cc is no monster, so I eventually solved the problem with gearbox number three - a five-speed - and this has worked for me. It's got a 3.88, and the old .89 top gear, but the new fourth gear is a 1.14, and that is perfect for hilly, twisty two-lanes, between about 40 and 55 (where I do most of my goofing around). In this gear, there's enough grunt to pull up pretty steep grades at surprisingly low rpm's.

I usually don't shift into fifth until about 50 mph (around 2400). I can sometimes carry the gear down to around 2200, ghosting along really quietly at 45 mph, but downshift to fourth if I need to punch it.

There are many ways to make these ancient engines drivable in modern times, but they all cost money.

.

Add Reply

Post Content
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×