I've had my eye on a Spyder for a long time and finally decided to get on the list. It's a three year wait! Hopefully shorter as I like to do the mechanicals myself and it's partially built.
I'm looking for product and build recommendations from you existing owners... what did you do right (or wrong)?
About the only thing I know at this point is that I want a VW engine in it. Probably 1900CC with 40 IDF Webers... I don't plan on taking it to the track or even the expressway.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
We appreciate the opportunity to spend your money!
Let the games begin...
If you’re looking for a near-universal recommendation, the no-brainer starting point would be Pat Downs Perfomance for your VW T1.
Regarding, “I don't plan on taking it to the track or even the expressway” - build for the worst case scenario. Once (an impossibly long time ago), I advocated for a 100 hp engine to “accurately represent the power of the original” or somesuch.
The truth is that more is more, right up to the point when it’s too much. Aiming for 200 hp gets pretty deep into “erector set/ Inspector Gadget” territory. 130-150 hp is just right for most people.
A small 2L-ish stroker (2110, etc.) is the sweet spot.
A 2110 is the sweet spot in a Speedster.
In a Spyder, because it's a little lighter(200 pounds or more) than a Speedster, a 2165cc is THE sweet spot. That's 78 stroke x 94mm cylinders as opposed to 82mm x 90.5mm of the 2110.
The shorter stroke makes the engine a touch less torquey but more fun to rev(with proper heads/intake/cam/rockers/exhaust/carbs). And if it all is designed properly with a nice high compression ratio(10:1) and a great "squish" chamber and tight deck height, torque won't be lacking at all.
Just remember, every engine part has to work together as a total package. It all matters.
I was looking at boats recently - around 18'. Salesman said if I came in a year and wanted to add 4' it would be very costly.
I'd go for the 2110 cc and fuel injection - maybe even a type 4.
WOW, 3 year wait!
That is good advice here. You may think you want to dawdle down the road with your future Spyder, but once you get it you might actually find you enjoy using that gas pedal.
Start off with a good amount of horsepower, so you aren't looking in a year or two how to add more for a heck of a lot of expense.
@Bob: IM S6 posted:That is good advice here. You may think you want to dawdle down the road with your future Spyder, but once you get it you might actually find you enjoy using that gas pedal.
Start off with a good amount of horsepower, so you aren't looking in a year or two how to add more for a heck of a lot of expense.
Ditto!
Better to have it and not use it than to want it and not have it!!
2110
@Richard S posted:About the only thing I know at this point is that I want a VW engine in it. Probably 1900CC with 40 IDF Webers...
No, you don't want that. The 'sweet spot starts at 2165. And not some namby-pamby single throat carbureted whimper commonly offered as the "big engine". At a minimum you want something like the 2165 specification Beck has offered for decades (150hp +/-). It's bullet proof and proven probably a 1000 times over. You'll hate yourself with anything less and kill the resale.
Remember, just because one displacement is bigger than another doesn't mean it is more powerful. Take for example 2165 vs 2332. One is bigger than the other. But there are probably 120 hp 2332cc builds and there are 200+ hp 2332cc builds. It depends on the build specification within the engine. Somewhere in that range of potential power a build specification for 160-170 hp can result in a 2332 with street-able reliability and durable maintenance. Anything less than that is unutilized and meaningless displacement. If the 2332cc is built for the 120 hp spec, you'd be happier with the more performance built Beck 2165cc spec.
Your best advice will come from Carey. All of us 'out here' have our opinions, but the most professional opinion in all of spyderdom is going to be Carey. You have years before you pull the trigger on final build specification. Price it for the 2165 (if that is still the 2-liter option) and finalize it based on Carey's advice when the build date comes up. Who knows what options you will have 2-3 years from now. But the bottom line is to take Carey's advice. Trust him!
edit: @Richard S, when I said above 2332 is bigger than 2165 that may be misleading, because technically both engines are the same overall physical size. The only difference is the crankshaft for a 2332 has a slightly longer stroke, thus more displacement and proportionally more potential power. Otherwise, except for shorter connecting rods to compensate for the longer crankshaft stroke, a 2332 can be built with exactly the same components as a 2165. Thus, a 150 hp built 2165 would end up around 160-170 hp if the same parts went with a 2332 displacement. There'd be no practical difference in reliability or maintenance, just a difference in displacement/power. So, in this case, "bigger" is better, but you probably won't notice the 5-10% difference in power while everyday driving. However, anything less than the sweet spot realm of 150 hp, you will notice it, and regret it.
Great advice, Mark. Carey is a great resource, as is Pat Downs as previously mentioned.
What did I do right? Pretty much everything on my second build.
Some guys go for as close a recreation as is possible and spend obscene money replicating minor details. Some guys don't care at all, as it's a replica.
Figure out where you stand, and try to stick with what you decide. Any deviations from the initial plan will cost time and money.
@DannyP wrote:
"Some guys go for as close a recreation as is possible and spend obscene money replicating minor details. Some guys don't care at all, as it's a replica.
Figure out where you stand, and try to stick with what you decide."
That sounds like the philosophy of Ralph Lauren when he started his collection of notable, classic cars. They are mostly restored to original, but then he put his own touch on all of them and made them very special. Like his Quicksilver Mercedes 300 Gull Wing coupe, with the baseball-glove-leather interior.
You can do that, too.
Here is my advice from a guy that is currently on the list for a Vintage Spyder. If you are going to do your own engine and transmission, start buying parts now! I wanted some very specific parts, and a lot of these are made in batches, and are frequently unavailable. It took me a year to get all the parts that I wanted to use in my transmission.
I've been on the list for a TF-1 engine case since 10/2020! Todd almost has them ready to ship. Getting cams has been a little problematic also. So plan ahead.
Personally, I can’t imagine building Type 1 engines as a business. Parts availability would drive me out of my mind.
Yup, same thing for me with transmission parts. Cams take a WHILE. CB is pretty quick on cranks/flywheels, PP and balancing. Heads take a little longer. Good luck on pistons and barrels. Rods? Maybe.
.
@RS-60 mark posted:...Your best advice will come from Carey. All of us 'out here' have our opinions, but the most professional opinion in all of spyderdom is going to be Carey...
Lots of good advice on this thread, but I think this one here is the best advice of all.
Thing is, we are all different. We drive differently, we have different budgets and different expectations, and we live in different climates.
Danny, for example, has years of experience building, specing, and driving these cars. He knows exactly what works best — for him, and maybe for a few friends he knows well. But you are not Danny, and you are not me or Stan or Ed or anyone else here.
Carey, though, has built hundreds of cars for hundreds of customers. He has heard all of the kudos and all of the complaints. He knows what will make different customers happy and the best way to get there with the options at his disposal.
When I was putting together a new drivetrain for my Speedster about 10 years ago, I left the details to my mechanic, a grizzled air-cooled VW veteran who had been helping me through the battles I'd been waging with my previous drivetrain. By then, he knew me pretty well, how I liked to drive, and what kind of temperatures and terrain the car would be seeing. I left the details to him and he nailed it. At the time, I didn't know enough to understand the why of some of the choices he was recommending. In time, though, all became clear.
I think I would message Carey and ask if he could call you when he had a free 15 minutes or so to talk. He will already know what questions to ask you, and some of those might surprise you. There will be factors you may not have considered. He, of course, wants to see another satisfied customer, for your benefit (and for his own, too!).
As for interstate driving, none of us dreams of droning along at a numbing 75 mph, mixing it up with Winnebagos, Escalades, and 18-wheeled oil tankers, but this is eventually inevitable if you're to get to some of those leafy, twisty two-lanes you dream about. You really do want a car that can handle both, especially considering how long you'll be waiting for it and what the cost will be.
Cheers!
.
Great advice, everyone. I've recently got an old custom Bug up and running and it was a 2100CC engine with 48 (!) IDF Webers. The engine is LOUD. However, after my first couple of miles, I really did like having the extra power.
I also grew attached to the Webers and have been thinking that I would really miss tinkering with them once I sell the Beetle. 48s are on the large side, I think.
Anyway, will shoot for 2165CC / 150HP.
I am pretty clueless when it comes to transaxles, as all my cars came with them already installed and I've never actually had to select one. I don't know the first thing to look for.
And while I know I want disc brakes all around, I'm in a similarly ignorant position when it comes to suspensions.
I'll try to book some time with Carey but I am grateful for all of the feedback you have already (and will hopefully continue to) provided.
@Stan Galat posted:Personally, I can’t imagine building Type 1 engines as a business. Parts availability would drive me out of my mind.
That's why the engine builder I've used gave up building engines, parts are junk and out of spec. He just does transmissions now .
@Richard S posted:Great advice, everyone. I've recently got an old custom Bug up and running and it was a 2100CC engine with 48 (!) IDF Webers. The engine is LOUD. However, after my first couple of miles, I really did like having the extra power.
I also grew attached to the Webers and have been thinking that I would really miss tinkering with them once I sell the Beetle. 48s are on the large side, I think.
Anyway, will shoot for 2165CC / 150HP.I am pretty clueless when it comes to transaxles, as all my cars came with them already installed and I've never actually had to select one. I don't know the first thing to look for.
And while I know I want disc brakes all around, I'm in a similarly ignorant position when it comes to suspensions.
I'll try to book some time with Carey but I am grateful for all of the feedback you have already (and will hopefully continue to) provided.
Do a search Richard. Transaxles, brakes, etc. have been discussed at length. It’ll help you find the questions you want to ask.
If your not concerned with top speed and not going to do any interstate driving, you might want to look into getting a close ratio transmission. This is something I wish I had done.
BTW tweaking on the carbs in a Spyder is a piece of cake compared to a Speedster. It's even easier in a Beck than a Vintage.
I have a 1915cc with dual 40 Webers in my Beck Speedster. It is more than enough power for typical use, and I have put many quick and snappy happy miles on Mullholland Drive on early weekend mornings. Nowadays it’s wonderful farmland roads. The Beck Speedster is a very stable platform with its tube frame, rides on rails you might say. Lots of room in engine bay to reach around and adjust carbs.
Welcome to the madness, Richard S.
As you've seen, we all have a lot of opinions, and you will hear them. Here's mine:
As the owner of a fake Beck Spyder (i.e a Thunder Ranch) with a 1915 Type 1 with 044 heads, an Engle W125 cam and a claimed 120 HP at 5500 RPM: It is enough. It's enough even with a 3.44 R&P, which gives a theoretical top speed over 140 MPH.
If I were never going on a highway a 3.88 R&P would be better yet. And a close ratio gearbox would make the car more fun on those windy secondary roads.
Remember: The original 550 had 110 hp and maybe 90 pound-feet of torque. It was blindingly quick by the standards of 1955, but terribly slow by those of 2000 and later.
The current standard built 1915 with Panchitos has about 130 pound feet of torque. You won't beat Danny with it, but nobody beats Danny.
More is more. As Stan said: until it's a burden.
If you go for a 2165 with 165 HP you will be on par with Danny but you still won't beat many modern cars. To get the same power to weight that's in a late model Challenger or Corvette ZR1 you would need at least 330 hp. That's about 140 more than the amount that's too much for a Beck Spyder chassis and suspension.
Our cars don't play on same field as late model Mustangs and Camaros.
And that's actually a good thing. That frees you to enjoy what really matters.
There's little more exhilarating than grabbing second gear and winding it to the red zone, hearing those Weber 44s pulling air at 6,000 RPM for the 3rd gear shift above 60 mph. If you want to feel something like the young Sterling Moss felt, you can hardly do better than a well-sorted Beck Spyder.
Hear, hear.
Happy to schedule a phone call and discuss further.
In short, and based on what you wrote about your beetle, my initial suggestion would be on par with what Danny said... a Pat built 2165cc targeting 160-180hp with 44 Webers and a Rancho pro-street gearbox with stock gearing and a 3.88 R&P. Tried and true combination that we've used on the Spyder since the 1980s, literally a thousand times or more in this exact combo. Tons of fun.
@chines1 posted:Happy to schedule a phone call and discuss further.
In short, and based on what you wrote about your beetle, my initial suggestion would be on par with what Danny said... a Pat built 2165cc targeting 160-180hp with 44 Webers and a Rancho pro-street gearbox with stock gearing and a 3.88 R&P. Tried and true combination that we've used on the Spyder since the 1980s, literally a thousand times or more in this exact combo. Tons of fun.
That would be good enough advice for me.
Thanks for all of your feedback. With your comments and a bit of searching, I'm learning so much.
So the reality is that I am not going to do ANY street racing. My dad was a somewhat famous driver and had many injuries to show for it. For whatever reason, I inherited the love of automobiles but not of speed.
And in fact, the thing that bothers me most about the Beetle I'm currently working on, is the many concessions made in the quest for more power. I don't want a Subaru but I don't want to be constantly battling the engine either. It's a hard start, takes awhile to warm and the gearing is really finicky. Does it go fast? Yes, but it's not a joy to drive. It's work.
The things I do love about that car are how tunable it is (once you get over that Weber learning curve) and it's lovely simplicity. It's marvelous to work on.
My 1960 MGA is a joy to drive around curves, as is my wife's Porsche Boxster. I'm looking for more of that feeling, if that makes any sense. A little more James Bond and a little less Nascar.
I'm also taking quite seriously @edsnova suggestion about a close ratio gearbox. Winding roads, here I come...
The mirrors on that Sterling Moss/718RS YouTube video are very similar to what my new mirrors will look like..........Bruce
Just found a book, "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn. Learning a lot...
Although I recently sold my Spyder, I agree with everyone that a150hp 2liter+ engine is. the sweet spot. Where I really regretted my build was in the transaxle ratios. It was a close ratio with a 3.88 final. I also thought that I wouldn't need highway gears. Big mistake! You will need highway gears at some point.
@Fastal posted:Although I recently sold my Spyder, I agree with everyone that a150hp 2liter+ engine is. the sweet spot. Where I really regretted my build was in the transaxle ratios. It was a close ratio with a 3.88 final. I also thought that I wouldn't need highway gears. Big mistake! You will need highway gears at some point.
What was your gearing? Saying you had a 3.88 r&p only tells half the story.
I just had a transmission built for my Spyder project. It also uses a 3.88, and is close ratio. But where mine differs from most, I used a .93 4th gear. This gives 70 mph at 3400 rpm.
So how is it close ratio, you are now asking yourself. Imho, since these cars are lighter and have much more hp/torque than an original VW beetle, there is no need for a 3.80 first gear. I used a 3.11 1st, 1.93 2nd, and a 1.32 3rd gears, to push the entire gear stack closer together. This will give reasonable rpm drop between up shifts, and more speed in each gear before shifting. The only downside is a slight decrease in acceleration rate, but I think that is a good trade off for a reasonable cruising speed.
You’ll like that a lot, Rick.
@Stan Galat posted:You’ll like that a lot, Rick.
Did you catch what is written on the side cover?
I'm starting to forget S_ _ T.........Please explain where and why the term "Close Ratio Gearing" came from. In simple terms, using this as a simple example.........
!st gear= 4 to 1
2nd gear=3 to 1
3rd gear=2 to 1
4th gear= 1 to 1
R & P is 4 to 1. So total reduction in 1st gear would be 16 to 1
2nd gear would be 12 to 1 and so on.
So what constitutes "Close Ratio" ?? Closer than a ratio of one to one ? or What ?
Yes, I know about the RPM VS HP and torque stuff and even just the timing of the RPM drop when shifting but what constitutes something being "Close Ratio"?
Perhaps it's just the term we loosely use when we want to have SOME ratios to be closer to others but not all of them ?
Perhaps I'm just overthinking this but my mind has always liked to be able to break things down to their simplest form in order to fully understand what I'd like to achieve.
Bruce
Check this out, too: https://www.aircooled.net/vw-h...g-suspension-tuning/
.
I think it's a relative term.
I've always understood this to mean closER ratios than some other gearbox you're comparing to.
So, in the case of how a Gene Berg five-speed is typically geared for use in a VW, a new gear is inserted between the old third and fourth, and the old third is maybe lowered a bit, so the spacing of ratios between 2nd and 3rd, 3rd and 4th, and 4th and 5th is closer than the old box you started with.
Technically, it might be more accurate to call it a closer ratio box. I don't think there are any standards for what is 'wide' ratio spacing and what is 'close' spacing.
.
Rick just defined "close ratio" for our purposes: 1st is closer to second, second is closer to third, and third is closer to fourth than they are in a standard box.
It's much better for racing, slightly less good for cruising and noticeably not as good for that one time you're stopped at a red light facing up hill on an extra hot mid afternoon and some chowderhead in an F-250 climbs halfway into your tailpipe whilst texting new instructions to his minions & forgets you're there in the 28 seconds it takes for the light to change. At that moment you want the 3.78-1 first gear.
In no other moment does it improve your life measurably.
Close ratio is indeed a relative term.
In the day, Porsche made the 1-2 and 3-4 gaps tighter than we get with a VW Bug, but the 2-3 gears and gap are very comparable, particularly at the revs we typically shift. If you look at the speeds attainable at red line in a 550 Spyder compared to a modern replica, and adjust for the fact that our Type 1 street rod build is going to be shifted at 6,000, as compared to the Type 547's 7,500, you can see what I mean.
The stock Bug gears paired with a 3.44 ring & pinion get speeds in each gear that are very comparable to an original 550 set up for LeMans. And the extra torque of the 2 (ish) liter built Type 1 will let you pull those gears easily. You'll appreciate 3.8 first gear with a 3.44, since you'll be able to use it for more than pulling the afore mentioned F-250 out of a ditch. But you'll never use the top end, and the car will feel less "snappy" than if it had a 3.88.
The 3.88 stock late model R&P will make the car go faster faster, but at the expense of that cruising speed. The .89 fourth gear gives back a little top end, putting your cruise speed (3,000 rpm) at closer to 65 mph than the flat 60 you'd get with the .93 gear. But it lengthens the 3-4 split.
Now, if we could get the original 550 ratios in a Spyder with a 3.44 R&P...
Gear ratios: (final)
Porsche 550 Beck 550 madness
1st: 3.18 (14.1/1) 3.80 (13.1/1) 3.8 3.18
2nd 1.94 (8.6/1) 2.06 (7.1/1) 2.06 1.94
3rd 1.23 (5.4/1) 1.26 (4.3/1) 1.26 1.23
4th 0.96 (4.25/1) 0.93 (3.2/1) .89 .96
R&P 4.43 3.44 3.88 3.44
Top speed (mph)
1st: 40 35 31 41
2nd 66 64 57 68
3rd 104 104 93 107
4th 133 @7500 141 @6000 131 @6000 137 @6k
@edsnova posted:It's much better for racing, slightly less good for cruising and noticeably not as good for that one time you're stopped at a red light facing up hill on an extra hot mid afternoon and some chowderhead in an F-250 climbs halfway into your tailpipe whilst texting new instructions to his minions &forgets you're there in the 28 seconds it takes for the light to change. At that moment you want the 3.78-1 first gear.
In no other moment does it improve your life measurably.
Now, if we could get the original 550 ratios in a Spyder with a 3.44 R&P...
Gear ratios: (final)
Porsche 550 Beck 550 madness
1st: 3.18 (14.1/1) 3.80 (13.1/1) 3.8 3.18
2nd 1.94 (8.6/1) 2.06 (7.1/1) 2.06 1.94
3rd 1.23 (5.4/1) 1.26 (4.3/1) 1.26 1.23
4th 0.96 (4.25/1) 0.93 (3.2/1) .89 .96
R&P 4.43 3.44 3.88 3.44
Top speed (mph)
1st: 40 35 31 41
2nd 66 64 57 68
3rd 104 104 93 107
4th 133 @7500 141 @6000 131 @6000 137 @6k
I guess "art" does imitate "life", eh, Ed? I was rear-ended by some dope in an F-150 in 2006 at a light who must have forgot I was there, because he hit me TWICE not just once. There was no hill, but I was trying to drive like a gentleman as I was on a date with a lovely lady. If she wasn't in the car, it never would have happened. I woulda been GONE already.
And my current trans has the 3.80 first/3.44 final. It launches quite well, thank you.
The trans I'll build one day(I have all the parts, this winter I think) is a compromise, as ALL 4 speeds must be. I am using the 3.44 R & P, as this ratio has served me well for the last 18 years. I chose the 3.44 first gear(yes, it is a also 3.44, but not the R&P), the 3.44 splits the difference between 3.80 and the next step of 3.11 first gear, so it should get off the line pretty well. But, be more usable than the 3.80 which is just too short.
The 1.93 second is a bit taller than the usual 2.06.
Then I have both a 1.32 and 1.30 3rd to choose from. The factory 1.32 should be nice and quiet, I have heard that the Weddle 1.30 can be noisy. These are both a bit shorter than the usual 1.26, making the 2-3 shift ON the powerband instead of falling on its face. The difference is only a tiny bit, maybe 50-100 rpm.
I follow that with a 1.00 4th(which is just about exactly what Rick ends up with using 0.93/3.88). Now, at 70, I'm at 3k rpm. After my new trans is built, I'll only be 2-300 rpm higher. Not much, and certainly not enough to make the car feel "buzzy" or over-revving. At 55, now I'm at 2450, after it will be 2600 or so.
The rpm drops go down as you go up through the gears, the gears are tighter and more evenly spaced than any factory gearing VW ever made. But more importantly, It'll stay on the powerband, no holes where 3rd is too tall and 2nd is too short.
I spent a long time plotting this out, and I think it will be as good as 4 speeds gets. We'll see. To sum it up, 1-2 are taller, 3-4 are shorter.
Mitch is right, it should be closer ratio.
I’ve got the “Super Beetle” (really just a late) mainshaft , a 1.3 third, and a .93 fourth with a 3.44. It would be perfect with a Subaru EJ25 or a big T4, but it’s really too long for a 2110, and almost too long for a 2276.
I do a lot of highway driving, and 4th is a perfect highway gear, but I can easily be doing 55-60 in 3rd, which effectively makes my transaxle a 3-speed. A 3.88 might be better, but really - I need a shorter 3rd and slightly shorter 4th.
Obviously, a 5-speed is the holy grail, but the problem is really with 2nd gear - it’s just too short. For a 4-speed, the 1-2 spread on a stock mainshaft (even with a 3.44) is just too narrow.
If you notice, both Danny and Rick have custom mainshafts. It’s really the only way to get gearing that is acceptably close with a 4-speed.
A man has to give something up with a 4-speed and little-bitty (non-V8) engine- either the digger 1st, the highway 4th, or reasonable gear spreads.
There’s no way to have everything with 4 forward gears.
Sacto......I like that. Closer ratio gears. For me "close ratio" falls into the category of the "freeway flyer", "close ratio" being a lot more descriptive.
I'm always amazed at how much effort goes into selecting a set of gear ratios for our cars. For well founded reasons too ! The difference noticed when driving a car with a well calculated set of gear ratios is like night and day ! It can turn a car into a seemingly different one and a real pleasure to drive.............Bruce
> Obviously, a 5-speed is the holy grail
Are 5-speeds not available?
It can be done, but not efficiently or elegantly in a 550 replica.
