@thedak any complaints with the 1915 with the 3:88? Did you consider the bigger motor?
Thanks
I did not get the $2,500 transmission upgrade. I did get the 3.88/.89 combo at no extra cost. I have "flown on the freeway" a few times to Hawaiian Gardens (30 miles each way) with no problems. The biggest freeway problem is staying out of the way of large trucks and folks in a hurry. Staying with 70MPH+ traffic is not a problem. I don't notice any significant gaps when going up and down through the gears. 2nd in my 356 is a little short, while 3rd is a little long. The 3.88/.89 gives me plenty of torque when accelerating in 4th.
Some roughness can be expected in our VW based hot rods. I think it's part of the fun!
I just don’t like the feeling on the freeway surrounded by large objects people on cell phones and the car weaves all over the place, I think I need some more caster but we’ve discussed a lot here, and 70 is all the blowing around my old head can take.
@R Thorpe posted:I just don’t like the feeling on the freeway surrounded by large objects people on cell phones and the car weaves all over the place, I think I need some more caster but we’ve discussed a lot here, and 70 is all the blowing around my old head can take.
Yeah, I get it- we are vulnerable out there. Do you know if your car has caster shims under the front beam? Does it have offset spindles or is all the drop done by beam adjustment? Does it seem like you're always correcting (and sometimes over-correcting) at freeway speeds?
Yes it has one set of caster shims and measures about 2.5 degrees.I have another set but putting them in is more complicated than on a regular VW. The front bumper attaches to the beams and I have the 356style handbrake that passes through and the mechanism attaches to the beams so adding a set of shims to make about 5 deg (ideal) is a pain. I’m all over the place at freeway speeds so soon I will add the shims. Cheers.
Richard
.
The very light front end doesn't help stability in cross winds one bit, especially in sharp blasts from passing trucks.
And the front end is very sensitive to tire pressure, too. Lowering it a few pounds can help a lot.
But there's still no getting around the fact that these cars were never intended to cruise effortlessly at 80 mph. Sixty was considered 'fast' in 1955 for a road car. There are very good reasons they completely redesigned the front end of the 911.
.
Mitch,
And I am happy with that, I avoid the freeway and when I’m on it I go slow and stay to the right. I’ve temp tested my fronts and get 23.5 as the best pressure and I’ve added about 25 lbs of lead each side of the battery. It all helps. I still need to c get the caster to 5. I took them a while with the 911 the 1970 I had had two batteries each in a cubby in front of the front wheels for the same reasons. The SWB cars had steel weights in the front bumpers.
BTW the lead I put in my car I bought when I must have been stoned one day and decided to go to one battery in the smugglers box. I replaced the 2 Porsche batteries with blocks of lead to maintain the weight in the right place. I came to my senses and went back to two batteries and kept the lead.
Now talking trannies, the setup that appeals to me is the trans and rear axel numbers for the twin cam Speedster ( the second incarnation).Now I don’t know but it put out around 110 hp and was made for driving not freeway flying. It’s impossible to know without trying that’s the rub. Cheers.
Richard
@R Thorpe check your tire pressure, especially in front. Take it down to 20 and see if she's less squirrelly.
FWIW, getting on the highway for the first time each spring with either the Spyder (1914cc/ Stock Bug gears with 3.44 r&p, .93 4th) or the TD (EJ22 Subaru, same gears) is always disconcerting. After a winter in a Corolla, it just feels dangerous.
By the third time out it feels normal.
I run 16 lbs in the TD's front tires and 22 in the Spyder. Both track well even in the wind.
When I first drove it home it had 20 lbs in the front and it would pick up ruts in the surface streets and yawed back and forth like a boat.
.
I have 'gotten used' to the Speedster's handling on the highway, but as Ed notes, it's very different from modern cars.
For me, the freeway is just a 'transit zone' to and from the roads I really want to be driving on. I drone along at 70 in the right lane, and it's pretty stable on a smooth surface, but you need to stay awake. I originally had one shim on each side, but we removed one to correct for a pull in the steering to one side. (This is probably due to a problem with setting up the steering box, but that's a whole other discussion.) I don't notice any tendency to actually bump steer, but see below.
On rough, secondary roads, I need to stay really focused on the road surface. Ruts and potholes are not your friends. This suspension seems more easily deflected by them than in modern cars. It just feels like less grip than we're used to.
If you watch any old footage of these cars being raced in the '50s and '60s, you'll see drivers wildly sawing away through the corners as the rear alternately grips and slides and they try to keep up. Much less smooth than today.
These be wild and wooly machines.
.
I use to drive 70mph with my beam IM and it was very stable even up to 85 mph but it did not have a lot more left after that. I think you can get it more stable. Just saying.
80-100mph ALL DAY LONG in my Spyder is effortless(0.89 4th and 3.44 final) on freeways. I've driven many times to Carlisle, 235 miles from my house. My car tracks and rides well, and is not particularly sensitive to bumps or wind. I would submit that your car needs some setup work if it doesn't behave well.
Alignment(especially), balance, ride height, shocks, tires, pressures: it all matters. Easy peasy in that car.
I would submit that the 4.12 R&P was for the 50 hp cars and the 3.88 was for 60hp late cars, pretty much. 25hp? Those had a 4.37 or less.
And Spyders weighed 1100-1200 pounds so that 110 hp 4-cam moved them along pretty well. My 180 is better, but the car weighs 1500.
The whole reason Spyders exist is the Speedsters and coupes were getting handed their asses on the racetrack. Porsche didn't like that.
@R Thorpe posted:I just don’t like the feeling on the freeway surrounded by large objects people on cell phones and the car weaves all over the place, I think I need some more caster but we’ve discussed a lot here, and 70 is all the blowing around my old head can take.
BTW
I added another shim. Gave me almost 6*
Calmed the car down at highway speeds.
But I think I like the car how it was before.
Will see once it warms back up and I get some more miles on it.
That will do it while it might make your steering a bit stiff to turn it tracks well.
Just to add some perspective to this discussion:
My previous VS was a 1995 with 1776cc, 34mm Kadrons, 3:88 trans (freeway flyer). I later upgraded engine to 1835cc, kept same 34mm Kadrons, added 1.25 rockers, A-1 Sidewinder, external oil cooler. This was my daily driver for 15 years, logged 100,000 relatively trouble-free miles (161,000 Km) on an embarrassingly lax maintenance schedule (tune-up 13,000+ miles, oil change 10,000+ miles). It would cruise all day at freeway speeds driving it up and down California, as well as through Nevada (desert), Utah (mountains), Colorado Rockies at 10,000+ft elevations without any issues.
Lost that car in an accident and used settlement money to buy my current VS. 1915cc with mild cam, 40mm Kadrons, A-1 Sidewinder exhaust, 3:88 trans (freeway flyer), 4-wheel discs, external cooler. Don't drive it as often as previous VS because I keep it in my son's garage 20 miles away but still drive it 3 times a week and in 5 years have logged 45,000 relatively trouble-free miles.
I'm not Racer-X or Formula 1 driver Lewis Hamilton, just a cruiser. However, both cars have been peppy enough for adrenaline rush pushing on those winding canyon and mountain roads, and can cruise all day at 80mph on long-distance freeway trips.
I drive within the car's capacity, let all the boulevard racers, Lambos, Corvettes, WRX (etc) go by without feeling like a lesser man and have NO angst about which oil I use, if 1st or 3rd gear is too short, wheel caster or whatever. All I know is that every time I get in, turn the key and drive off grinning like an idiot, I know it's gonna be a good day! 
Your mileage may vary! (I love that phrase, thanks to @Stan Galat) 
Attachments
Images (2)
I have my gear ratios for my JPS car but not in front of me at this moment. Four cam Subaru motor at roughly 230 HP. Gear ratios still need to be right. I will have to double check my ratios & r & p before I mis speak on gearing...
But I have a tall first. Not easy to take off with, especially on a grade. 4th is tall also. I have to rev 3rd pretty good to pull 4th. I consider 4th as being too much of an overdrive. Freeway is good at 70-80+ and motoring. In the mountain curves 4th is too tall and I have to really haul a$$ to pull 4th or run hi rev's in 3rd. I think its called freeway flyer gearing. I hate the freeway in my car. Not at all what I want to drive on with a cornering machine. I would prefer a tighter 4th and sacrifice freeway flying. 2nd & 3rd are spot on and give excellent results.
Using my Karmann Ghia history (1641) and this JPS trans (Rancho?) feel, I would want a taller than stock 1st and close ratio 3rd & 4th, and a 3.88 r & p (with VW power).
No one has talked of flywheel weight. I think 10 lbs is a standard hi-po flywheel weight (vs 18 lbs stock?) for built VW's. My Ghia had a 4 lb aluminum flywheel with a steel ring gear for reliability starting. It went through the gears super quick. It was set-up for autocross and accelerated very briskly on the streets. I could redline 4th lol. Of course everybody's needs are different.
It would be cool to have a base test car, bigger VW engine and three or four transmissions with different gears to evaluate.
.
There's another issue here that I don't see discussed too often and would like to see some feedback on - the question of long-distance cruising speed and engine longevity.
I've been told these engines (VW Type 1) may rev to 5000 or 6000, but if you want them to last, you should keep long-distance, steady-speed driving under 3500 rpm. This is mainly why I cruise at 70 on the freeway (which comes in at 3300 with my gearing and tires). I could switch to taller tires and drop the revs a little, but I like the torque I get with this gearing, and it's perfect for the foothills driving I do the most. And I know a 3.44 would be too tall for my engine.
Also, there's the question of whether switching to taller gears to lower cruising revs is necessarily any easier on the engine as this increases engine load.
My engine sounds most relaxed just under 3000. There, it just lopes along with the throttle barely cracked. It's just a little less so at 3200, but by 3500 it sounds like it's starting to work. I take it to 4500-5000 merging onto freeways, and have had it up to 100 with no sounds of protest, but it just sounds happiest on a long cruise if I take the advice of keeping it under 3500.
After 30,000 miles, oil consumption is less than a quart between changes and there's no blue smoke at any time. Am I being unnecessarily cautious?
.
I have an older Kirk built Vintage Speedster with a 2276 that I sourced from Greg at Vintage. The motor however was mine and it came out of a dune buggy/sandrailer. I'm only running 1.25:1 rockers and 9.4:1 compression and a Webcam 86b with 105 LSA. I haven't experienced any overheating, but I'm also running external oil coolers. I don't drive much on the freeway, but the Speedster does see spirited run's on the I-5 and on the back roads of San Diego County. I've reached 150 kph after merging on to the I-5 easily, but then immediately backed off. I can drive this car around town in 3rd gear if I wanted to, but I don't. On one hand, it's a stump puller and I can short shift it all day long - but I don't. The torque comes in very very very low and I often shift before 3K rpm. 3000 - 3250 RPMs on the I-5 gets me to where I need to go and I can be in the middle lanes, but I prefer the right lane. So on one hand, the engine is perfect for street performance. But on the other hand, it's almost boring to drive and I got what I wanted. So when the time came to rebuild my 1.6 in my '69 912, rather than going Renegade with a monster VW T4, I decided to have the Porsche engine rebuilt and it will be a 1.7 with approx 125-127 HP that won't mind living at high RPMs (but still driveable on the street). I prefer driving slow cars fast than a fast cars slow so much that I parted with my water-cooled 997 C2S 911.
Ok, I'll jump in here. My car had a CB Performance 1915 with some mystery head work (Pat Down didn't tell me what he'd done) that ran well for 56k miles before I sold it on. It was coupled to a Rancho Pro-Street transaxle with a 3.88 R&P. Quick and responsive in traffic it would cruise for hours on the expressway at 80 even though that was 4000 RPM. While the Weber carbs were my nemesis for a while, the rest of it was pretty low maintenance. One point I'm hoping to make is that it isn't just displacement that matters. When my car was built Beck offered two different 1915 engines - one was a tame, low maintenance 90hp model and the other was a higher performance 125hp (like mine) that was capable of being souped up further. While I can't vouch for the power rating, it was a strong engine that was quite happy at higher RPMs for long stretches.
@MaxMartens posted:I have my gear ratios for my JPS car but not in front of me at this moment. Four cam Subaru motor at roughly 230 HP. Gear ratios still need to be right. I will have to double check my ratios & r & p before I mis speak on gearing...
I'm not buying this. At all. The regular WRX was a 2.0 turbo at 221 hp. The 2.5 STi was around 300hp.
A stock 2.5 EJ25 is rated at 165-170 hp, whether SOHC or DOHC.
Even with headwork, exhaust and ECU changes, you aren't over 200 hp. John Steele doesn't magically get an extra 65hp on a street NA motor. I submit this is typical JPS BS with a little OCCF(Orange County Correction Factor).
Show me the dyno sheet.
I'm not the highway king, or even the daily milage king, but I took 2 trips from Illinois to the west coast and back in 2012 and 2014. Crossing the country, I averaged over 1000 mi/day, and gained some perspective regarding what makes a good road car, etc.
Almost nobody is going to want to use their car like I did (and will continue to) on those trips, but I've got a few observations.
Teby (who no longer stops in here much) made fun of me for waxing on and on about "touch points", but it's my personal belief that how comfortable you are every place you are touching the car is going to determine a lot about how you feel about driving it 1300 mi/day. If your seats hurt you in 200 mi., they're going to become instruments of torture after that. Similarly-- how is your position? Richard noted that the wind batters him around to the point that he's done driving after a couple hundred miles-- that can be corrected by getting behind the short windshield, and building a wind deflector to go behind your head (try it, you'll never go back). Cool weather, top down driving can be comfortable if you have some sort of hard side-curtain or roll-up window (shameless IM plug there) to stop the wind intrusion. Lots of guys have made nice acrylic side-curtains, and @Troy Sloan makes and sells "cruising windows"for this purpose. If you have comfortable seats mounted low enough in the car to get you behind the windshield, you have an effective wind-deflector behind your head, and you have the side curtains (or windows) - you can drive all day and into the night.
It's the same deal with the steering wheel and shifter - the places you touch the car. I'm a silverback gorilla, so even low in the car, I like to rest my left forearm on the top of the door, and rest my right one on the wheel.
I've gone on record as being one of the lone doubters regarding crazy-low tire pressures. I've tried it, and there's just no way I'm going to try to run 20 psi in my tires on purpose - the handling becomes a squishy, squirmy mess to say nothing of the terror I feel running half the rated pressure of the tire. I'm also very reluctant to add weight to a car that already seems too heavy for what it is, but I've got the "big tank" option, and carrying the extra fuel up front really does help. I'd like it to be lower and further forward in the car, but that creates some safety issues that most people would not be able to live with (the car becomes a bit of a bomb in the event of a front end collision like @Lane Anderson had).
The alignment and ride height are very, very important (like @DannyP said). Lower is better. Your car will become less of an airplane wing aerodynamically and you'll be less susceptible to cross-winds. There's a limit here, of course - but it's one of the reasons I dry-sumped (insert joke here @Robert M) my car - making the sump no longer the lowest point on the car gave me the confidence to drive it across time-zones without worry of emptying my oil on a pebble in the road. Nobody else is going to do this (even if they should), but you can get pretty low with a CB "thin-line" sump (and please do run a sump - the stock oil capacity is a joke).
@Sacto Mitch wondered about the "happy place" with engines. There's a school of thought regarding engine speed that advocates running 4000 RPM on the highway - the idea being that the fan speed at higher RPMs provides cooler running. I'll buy that for spirited drives in high-load situations (driving like a hooligan in the mountains) - but in my experience on the Great American Open Road, running higher RPM makes the engine run hotter. The absolute sweet-spot is about 3000- 3400 RPM. If you really, really want to drive 80 and you have a .89/3.88, you'll run hot.
And here's where I stand alone in this crowd. I'm not sure that having an engine that will last 100k mi is really such an enormous deal, and here's why:
Most "car-guys" are like ADHD grade school boys. They buy/sell cars a lot. They get bored with the 986 and buy a 987.1. They decide they'd rather have a BMW for a bit, then move to a Mercedes SL. They go though their patriotic-phase and get a GT350. They get tired of that and trade for a 997. Their friends mock them so they buy a 992. They do this every 2 to 4 years and lose $10k- $20k every time they do. Why would I care if I need a new engine after 5 to 10 years of driving a car I'm going to keep? I'm STILL money ahead as compared to Mr. ADHD, and the process of an engine build can be a lot of fun. People wonder what's the matter with me and the musical engines I play with my car. I LIKE the mechanical process, and am always thinking of ways to improve it - this one's a rip-snorting firebrand, that one's a happy cruiser. I've been on a quest to find the sweet creamy center, which is probably not possible with a T1 - but it's been fun trying.
I like teh stock transaxle gearing with a .93 4th and a 3.44. It's not perfect, but it's as good as a guy can get with a 4-speed. I requires a ring and pinion that is generally NLA. Greg's long-legged gears replicate mine very closely with a custom mainshaft, a .82 fourth, and a 3.88 R/P. Almost everybody would like that for cruising or traveling on the highway.
What you want to do depends to a large extent on your expectations. Do you want to have a fun little car to zip around in for a year or two? Do you want to be the king of the mountain? Do you think you can be the boulevard bad-boy (you can't)?
... or are you the kind of guy who's a lifer - the guy who's still married to the girl-next-door, your high-school sweetheart, working the same job you started in back in your 20s. I'm not advocating for anything, but if your tendency is to make lemon-aid, rather than to go to the green-grocer to buy an orange, you can make the car into what you want it to be. Nobody knows what that is but you, and you probably don't know yourself until you are underway.
Welcome to the madness.
Totally agree, Stan. You hit on a bunch of great points. Right now, my trans is perfect for long-distance cruising.
But that really isn't what a Spyder is for, is it? I'm building a close-ratio 4 speed, with a tall first , a shorter 4th, and 2-3 evenly-spaced in between. I'd rather be King of the Mountain.
And before some guy says 5-speed, it's not in the cards in THIS car and THIS suspension. Not gonna happen. So we make do with a near-3000-dollar 4 speed.
Awesome info, Stan. I want to cruise smoothly on country roads with an occasional 250 freeway trip to Central Coast. I’m working on pinning down my hardware. This is helpful
@MaxMartens posted:I have my gear ratios for my JPS car but not in front of me at this moment. Four cam Subaru motor at roughly 230 HP. Gear ratios still need to be right. I will have to double check my ratios & r & p before I mis speak on gearing...
But I have a tall first. Not easy to take off with, especially on a grade. 4th is tall also. I have to rev 3rd pretty good to pull 4th. I consider 4th as being too much of an overdrive. Freeway is good at 70-80+ and motoring. In the mountain curves 4th is too tall and I have to really haul a$$ to pull 4th or run hi rev's in 3rd. I think its called freeway flyer gearing. I hate the freeway in my car. Not at all what I want to drive on with a cornering machine. I would prefer a tighter 4th and sacrifice freeway flying. 2nd & 3rd are spot on and give excellent results.
No one has talked of flywheel weight. I think 10 lbs is a standard hi-po flywheel weight (vs 18 lbs stock?) for built VW's. My Ghia had a 4 lb aluminum flywheel with a steel ring gear for reliability starting. It went through the gears super quick. It was set-up for autocross and accelerated very briskly on the streets. I could redline 4th lol. Of course everybody's needs are different.
It would be cool to have a base test car, bigger VW engine and three or four transmissions with different gears to evaluate.
In order:
1.) 230hp from a NA 2.5 Subie would be impressive indeed. Stock they are about 165.
2.) The 3rd-4th gap suggests you've got the dreaded .82 4th gear with a stock 1.26 3rd. Tons of VW transmissions were made that way from the mid '90s through the late 2000s and called "freeway fliers." The transaxle I got with my Spyder was geared like that, with a 4.12 R&P even though the sheet that came with it said it was a 3.88. And I guess some guys like them. Certainly a 2.5 Soob has the nice wide, flat torque curve to pull it—even with the four-cam. But it still feels wrong....
3.) Ultra-light flywheels are some esoteric stuff and, as you know, not everyone's cuppa when used on a street car. For auto-x, hill climbs and the like though they'll save you a few 10ths.
4.) Yes! I nominate @chines1to bring such to Carlisle every year for the east coast boys to play with. Probably drum up some business!
You're in the wrong business, Stan. With your esoteric analysis of an automobile's 'touch points', surely there are other occupations that would more suit your feng shui approach to design.
Feng Shui: The philosophy of feng shui is a practice of arranging the pieces in living spaces (insert car here) in order to create balance with the natural world (insert speedster driver happiness). The goal is to harness energy forces and establish harmony between an individual (insert speedster driver) and their environment (or car, that is).
But what you write is so true about the fit and feel of a car.
Lots of great points, Stan, especially this:
"If you have comfortable seats mounted low enough in the car to get you behind the windshield, you have an effective wind-deflector behind your head, and you have the side curtains (or windows) - you can drive all day and into the night."
I've got all of that, but at my slowly advancing age I'm pretty much all done after three hours. I think it's the drone, and maybe my newly fitted "Ear Peace" ear plugs will give me a little longer drive time. I can easily do a 3-4 hour jaunt around New England and my low-slung, Cabriolet-like seats stay comfortable - Way better than the 914 seats they replaced, so seat style, fit and position is critical.
My F250 had what looked like shallow, almost bench-style, saddle-leather bucket seats. They didn't look comfortable at all, from a "sports car" point of view, but we would put in 800 mile days on them two days in a row and felt good at the end of the day. Somebody thought out their design to make them comfortable.
Back to the Speedster, My revs, with a .89 fourth and a 3:88 rear, are usually under 3500 on a highway and I do as many highway miles as back roads. That gearing is great for Interstates, but I end up stroking between 2nd and 3rd a lot on back roads. Life is a compromise, isn't it? I just adapt and keep my foot in it. Getting up between 3750-4000 on a highway doesn't bother me, nor do I see it running appreciably hotter, but that could be due to my extra cooler and it's size and good air flow back there.
Whenever I'm out there on I-90/95 or others, I'm reminded of Norm Brust and his original '62 Cabriolet. Put him on a highway and he ALWAYS ran at around 80+ and close to 4K rpm and did that for well over 100K miles with nary a problem. These are tough little engines. They'll take it
Attachments
Based on Gordon's initial recommendation some time back, I bought some Ear Peace earplugs. I don't seem to notice a lot of noise level reduction but what I really like is the elimination of wind buffeting in my ears.
@Stan Galat, as it has been said many times, you are the man. Each of us bring our own peculiarities to the madness, but you frequently find the common truths amongst our divergent paths. Plus, you often bring the data to support your crazy assertions.
Huzzah! Knowing that someone else is just a little bit crazier than I am helps me sleep better at night.
I'd like to see pics of the wind block behind the seats, sounds like a great idea for the cooler days
@msjulie I have the advantage, perhaps, of having a roll bar in my car, so I used that to hold my windblocker. I went to local glass place and bought a bunch of the glass channel used for car door windows and attached that to the inside of the roll bar, then slid a piece of 1/4" thick plexiglass up into the channel. To hold it in place I used another piece of window channel across the bottom and attached that to the roll bar at the ends.
All I have is a show shot with a couple of NASA Martians trying to figure out how to jump start the car, but look closely at the roll bar and you'll get the idea:
Attachments
Stan your way of framing this hobby certainly consolidates the pieces in our heads and puts them out on paper in a way that we can read our thoughts or rather your reading ours and formulating a truer vision, one that is more realistic anyway.
My first real highway drive was in an IM speedster and I thought my hair follicles were going to come out they seemed to be Crying out to me for help. The top of my head ached for at least 20 mins as I have hair. 
I had to get my head below the windshield and I did in a roadster but the roadster seats were too short.
I finally built an IM with Recaro seats and drove them Low and back as far as IM could make them fit and I am now well below the top of the windshield. I thought of a wind screen, not sure I like the modern look, but the roll up windows works also if I do get too hot or the roll up windows don't cut it I can pop the top up and have the rear window open and folded down.
I drove 12 hours daily top down, south on Hwy #1 and no body issues.
FWIW I also have a 5th but if I was trying to get the drivetrain noise lower the R&P could be dropped lower as it sits, with the engine running at 3K to cruise at 70mph the engine is responsive and you hardly have to press the throttle to be flying at 85mph.
BTW Ed, I thought of E6 when I was building but with little experience with that engine we opted for a SOHC. NAspirated no turbo launch switch for me, and from all my research the SOHC and DOHC builders are very creatively, shilling us stating hp # above 200hp.
I is now 6 years that I have built and received my car. Wow, time has flown and every winter my project list adds some options so the crazyness continues and have no desire for any other vehicle, am I getting old or what. Maybe I am being affected ... covidly yours, Ray
Ed thanks for the Graph of subie engine hp.
I just realized, in looking at that photo above with the two Martians in my car, that Pearl was parked right next to a Puma at that show.
Wow!
Shows how attentive I am!
Not a Puma, @Gordon Nichols. That's a steel-bodied VW from Brazil. Can't remember the model designation but I love 'em!
@Lane Anderson posted:Not a Puma, @Gordon Nichols. That's a steel-bodied VW from Brazil. Can't remember the model designation but I love 'em!
Wow! Never heard of those. Beauty from every angle and with a 2110 (or a suby) and a five speed it'd be the bees knees even right now.
You can find SP2s for sale on thesamba.com. I have seen them at Carlisle. I tend to like them more than Pumas. I especially like them from the A-pillar back. I am not as excited about the front
.
@edsnova posted:.Wow! Never heard of those. ..
Me, neither. Maybe this is why:
"...It developed 75 hp ... propelling the car from 0-60 mph ... in around 16 seconds..."
"... locals gave it the nickname 'Sem Potência', which is Portuguese for 'without power'..."
.
We can fix THAT!
I love the SP2s - there were a few when I lived in Brazil in the early 1980s. I never liked the front end, though.
Regardless, I'd do a Subaru conversion on one and never look back.
When I checked yesterday there were 5 SPS2s for sale on thesamba. They are in Brazil. The price shipped to the US ranged from about $25,000 to $45,000.
A grille between the headlights would completely fix the front. Stan is right, Subaru conversion, add a grille and rock it.
@DannyP posted:A grille between the headlights would completely fix the front. Stan is right, Subaru conversion, add a grille and rock it.
Bam. Next problem?
I like the shape even more than I like the Puma, but I never warmed up to the orange trim on the side. It goes with a few colors and not with others, but it's actually metal trim with horizontal ribs and it is set into an inset on the side panels, so it can't be easily deleted. I could learn to live with it, though.
While we're talking about an engine upgrade I think I'd want 4-wheel disks and maybe a Cool-Ryde front suspension conversion.
People confuse crank hp and rear wheel hp. Completely different numbers. Do that Subi dyno sheet at crank numbers and they will be more in line with posted numbers generally seen, ie bigger numbers. Crank number sound better. ...Playing with numbers... just saying. Talk up a motor, use crank numbers... talk down a motor, use RWHP... Got a killer motor?! Show us the RWHP!!
Also, very few here have VW dyno sheets posting their HP, and probably most rated 120 VW HP numbers are crank HP also... Just saying. Same goes for 90 HP numbers, and probably original Porcshe HP ratings... The factory's generally rate at the crank. Aftermarket will put it on a chassis dyno.
But that is ok, enjoy the build and HP you have!
I can't vouch for JPS's Subie DOHC JDM motor's HP numbers. Trumped up? (sorry) Its a strong revvy engine regardless of the actual crank HP or rear wheel HP.
Any doubts?... I'll run ya... I have the power I have.
All for fun guys... don't take it too seriously with our plastic Corgi cars lol. Enjoy yours, and I'll enjoy mine. And mine is a coupe with attitude.
@MaxMartens posted:People confuse crank hp and rear wheel hp. Completely different numbers. Do that Subi dyno sheet at crank numbers and they will be more in line with posted numbers generally seen, ie bigger numbers. Crank number sound better. ...Playing with numbers... just saying. Talk up a motor, use crank numbers... talk down a motor, use RWHP... Got a killer motor?! Show us the RWHP!!
Also, very few here have VW dyno sheets posting their HP, and probably most rated 120 VW HP numbers are crank HP also... Just saying. Same goes for 90 HP numbers, and probably original Porcshe HP ratings... The factory's generally rate at the crank. Aftermarket will put it on a chassis dyno.
But that is ok, enjoy the build and HP you have!
I respectfully disagree. Car guys are definitely smart enough to differentiate between crank readings and wheel/chassis dyno numbers. On a type1 VW trans, you typically lose 15-20%. Here's my engine dyno sheet from Jake in Georgia, before my crankfire ignition, dry sump system, and now EFI. This is on Weber 44 IDF and an 009 dizzy:
So, I've got 138 to 145 hp at the wheels, give or take. In a 1500 pound car.
I still say that 230hp(John Steele) number is BS, and BS shouldn't be repeated.
Anyway, I ain't skeered. And yes, I do enjoy the heck out of my car.
Cheers.
Attachments
Images (1)
2250lbs
0-60 9.8 secs
6 cyl 155hp 141 Ft-Lbs (191 NM) 2.2L
Interesting reasons for owning this car.
"The 911 T was the most stripped-down model in the range, and arguably the most pleasurable experience because of it. No excessive luxuries or functionality to take away from a pure driving experience. Read more about this maximally minimalist Porsche and go behinds the scenes during the making of this film at http://petro.li/911TGallery"
@DannyP posted:I still say that 230hp(John Steele) number is BS, and BS shouldn't be repeated.
Anyway, I ain't skeered. And yes, I do enjoy the heck out of my car.
Cheers.
Well I agree to your point on a JDM DOHC NA making 230 HP could be a hard find. I will research my motor more. Mapping/exhaust might be where a power increase comes from? Your dyno sheet looks very healthy.
One of the most fun things about these cars, I think, is how fast they feel. Low and light and open gives such a different experience from sitting three feet up in your Panamera or whatever, cocooned in leather and Blaupunkt-in Vivaldi, texting Kayleigh to find out when practice is over.
It's the difference between acceleration and exhilaration.
Make no mistake: The soccer mommy in the Porsche SUV will beat you, Max. And me and Danny. The Panamara will soundly thrash any of us, even Cory Drake, whose Revell-badged clown car is capable of pulling wheelies on launch. Six hundred twenty horsepower is a lot of hp, and 3.0 seconds to 60 is very fast.
What most guys still don't realize is, it's been about a decade since there was any use in trying to make these cars hang with modern sports and GT cars on the track or street. You might as well try launching yourself "to Mars" with a steam-powered ski jump over the Snake River Canyon.
This huge gap between fantasy and reality is part of what gives rise to the "Orange County Correction Factor" crank HP numbers guys like John Steele (and many others) insist on advertising. Boys who like toys like big horsepower numbers. It's a fact!
But it doesn't matter.
The clown cars' magic is how death-defying they feel even at normal highway speeds. Most times, even 180 horsepower in a 1650-pound Speedster replica is enough to overwhelm the suspension. You're driving for your life, at 10/10ths, within five seconds of putting your foot down. Every time.
That's exhilaration. Now, the acceleration is still pretty good. My guess is Danny's car is in the low 5s— maybe high 4s—to 60 in the real world. A NA Suby-powered Speedster would likely be a couple 10ths slower, depending on gears. Marty's turbo Suby is gonna clock in a 10th faster, probably. That's an honest 265 HP. Ask Cory what his 60-foot slip was. His car weighs about 1200 pounds and the big Type IV he has was built to pull.
Now, the IMs (like Marty's) with 911 suspension bits can certainly safely handle more power than the beam-and-swingaxle cars. I'm sure the new Beck chassis will be as good, if not better. So it's not unreasonable to predict that, in a few years, modernized clown cars with 350 hp and more will be available to the midlife crisis masses. And they will be glorious 3-second-to-60 machines.
But you gotta ask yourself...will they be more fun?
^ that, all day long.
I once bought a JPS speedster with a "110 hp" 1776: stock heads, stock crank (not even couterweighted), stock internals, with a 90.5 Mahle kit, a W110 cam, and dual ICTs that had never been tuned. It breathed through an EMPI "Monza" exhaust with the dual tips cut off and single pipes welded in their place. If that engine made more than 75 hp at the crank, I'll eat my hat.
Also, has anyone actually witnessed Cory's car pulling the wheels?
@Stan Galat posted:Also, has anyone actually witnessed Cory's car pulling the wheels?
No. For all the hype attributed to that car, I've not seen the same in the real world. Nobody knows what it actually weighs either.
We did run on I-76 back to Mechanicsburg, and I pulled several car lengths on him each time of three times. Jeni was in the passenger seat of his and Chuck Heath was right seat in mine. LennyC and Todd El Taher and wife Sarah also witnessed this. Ended up in the 110 mph range.
Right after that, a hopped-up Miata tried spanking my Spyder. He failed as well.
Fortunately, we all slowed down to a reasonable pace(under 70), there was a PA State Trooper lying in wait. Didn't get a one that day.
I am also trying to plan out my powertrain options... I came across this calculator, that has a really neat shift point simulator, that will account for drops in rpms between shifts. . Just input your transaxle gearing, and tire height.http://www.subarugears.com/Ratios/Ratios.html
On my recent (last week) bike season kickoff, I stopped by Rich MacKoul's shop on the other side of town and his son, Jessie, asked if I saw his wife's new ride out front. It turned out to be a twin-turbo V6 4-door Panamera which has now been chipped up to around 480hp which should shave a little off the stock, published 0 to 60 time of 3.6 secs.
What really gave me a chuckle about @edsnova's piece, is that her license plate says:
"HKYMOM"
Ya gotta love it.
Each of us find what we're looking for in our clown cars. Some want perfect replication, some want a sleeper that will blow the doors off those boyz in their new Camaros, some want a car that puts a smile on the face of bystanders while being comfortable to drive for a few hours. To each his or her own.
My old supercharged Miata did 0-60 in 4.25 seconds but had way too much power for me to EVER bring home a first place trophy in Solo II (couldn't have been the driver so it must have been lighting up the rear tires too much).
My old franken911 turbo did 0-60 in the mid-3 second range and would light up the 10" rear tires at 45mph if you stepped on it. I never raced it or spun it even though it was sitting on the old 1982 SC suspension design. I built the engine to handle up to 700 crank HP, but kept the boost restricted to 425 at the crank. It really didn't need any more. It was simply a beast that you had to respect or it would kill you.
When I built the speedster, I was looking for something different. I didn't want to worry about overtaxing a 50 year old chassis or getting wiggly going around a corner because I was tempted to light them up. I wanted the comfy seats and something that you didn't see everyday. I built what I wanted.
Each of us should buy or build the thing that fits what we want at our time in life. But, we shouldn't take offense that other members of the clown car club don't have the same vision or desire for their cars. Make it your own and appreciate what others have done to do the same.
That being said, I do want to see Hoopty do a wheelie. Maybe @MusbJim can do a video for me???
How bout a few photos‘Michael...
Best
Mike
@MikeM and to you all - thanks for such a lively forum. Like Mike M, I'm new to 'the madness' and exploring options... and your knowledge and experience with the various builders etc. is proving very valuable. Mike - I'd love to connect once you decide on your build with Greg... Enjoy and thanks again.
well said @Michael Pickett.
I've always latched on to something I read here awhile ago (I believe mentioned by @Stan Galat a number of times)......It's a big enough tent for all of us.
You have the speedster/coupe/spyder, conv. D you want, and I'll have the one I want. What matters is that we are all enjoying them the same.
Holy shite! That new build on BaT with a $51k sticker just went for $71k!!!
You are wrong @MikeM it actually sold for $74K + 5% buyer fee....demand for these is through the roof and not everyone has the patience to wait. Have to pay to play right now. For those on the East Coast who have a little patience I would be happy to have that exact car or one similar built for you at a greatly reduced price. Roy, Cloud 9 Classics, 770-359-8400.
The madness is real!!!!
I don't think new owners/potential owners should expect a replica 356 to be as fast as most modern cars. But you can have the expectation for your replica to be faster than an original 356. Maybe handle better too... or not, depending on how well set up it is.
Its a bonus if your replica 356 is as fast as a modern Camaro, and if it is you have a lot of time & money in the motor/trans package to get that performance. Most don't need or want a dyno sheet, or continual tuning. Turn key & take the wife to lunch is usually enough. Or a Sunday rev through the mountains.
I regret talking performance here, as some just want to shove their own spectacular performance in your face. It is really just a touring car, and thats all my whatever horsepower it is Subaru motor provides. Treat it as a touring car, work out any bugs, and enjoy your time with your 356 VW Bug!