A fresh built 1641 with the crank, rods & flywheel balanced as a unit, add mild ported heads, dual 34 carbs and decent exhaust makes for a decent pulling engine. It's not a rocket ship but it does run decent at highway speeds. That's the longblock  I have built for my projects. 

Last edited by Alan Merklin

A fresh built 1641 with the crank, rods & flywheel balanced as a unit, add mild ported heads, dual 34 carbs and decent exhaust makes for a decent pulling engine. It's not a rocket ship but it does run decent at highway speeds. That's the longblock  I have built for my projects. 

That's an awful lot of decent in there 

I suppose it has a lot to do with driving style and whether you use it primarily for cars 'n coffee and Sunday cruises. Hence, the 3000 miles on 10 year old builds.

My motorcycle has 200 more cc than that 1600 and weighs 1000 pounds less.

I had quite a few 1600cc then I tried an 1835cc and finally I bought a 2110cc which was good but the others, were unacceptable for me,  I just don't have the patients to wait to get around someone or out of a tight spot.  Even going up the mountain can be a challenge.  A subie torque band is really awesome.  

@WNGD posted:

That's an awful lot of decent in there 

I suppose it has a lot to do with driving style and whether you use it primarily for cars 'n coffee and Sunday cruises. Hence, the 3000 miles on 10 year old builds.

My motorcycle has 200 more cc than that 1600 and weighs 1000 pounds less.

yeah,that would never cut the mustard. I should have never told my classic car club about my horsepower;  they always stickm with the fast car grouping when I participate in the road rallies.  I do enjoy the fast, but sometimes you just want to see the scenery

Last edited by Marty Grzynkowicz

IaM-Ray I agree, nothing lack the torque and power band of a 2.5L Suby although I am a little excited about getting a car with a nicely modified type1 also. I have never owned a 2110. I have had 2276 and larger I am thinking the 2110 might be a good size for the type 1.

I think it has shown his self to be bombproof and gives you about 140 to 145 horse

There’s just something about the 356 dashboard that is mesmerizing, 

I like the old Karmannghia‘s as well with the metal – I even thought of putting a 356 Dash on a ghia

Last edited by IaM-Ray

That was an amazing pull.

I have zero details on the 1641 in that dyno video-- but I can tell you this: it had 48 IDAs, and what appeared to be a big merge header. It's not your run-of-the-mill 1641.

For what it's worth:

  •  In 2016 Johannes Persson in Sweden made 254 hp with a 1776 Type 1 that looks like it cost more than the entire Apollo Space Program. Mr. Persson is working on an engine to break that record.
  • Jeff Bezos is worth about $145 billion +/-, but things are going pretty well for Jeff during the recent troubles so it might be more by now. 
  • An (obviously) anonymous 3-man team took advantage of the quarantine to set a new Cannonball Run record recently: 26 hrs, 38 min. That's an average speed of just north of 105 mph for 2,825.3 miles.
  • A few days ago, Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson deadlifted 1105 lbs in his home gym in Reykjavik, Iceland. It's clear he's not sitting on the couch binge watching Longmire on Netflix like (ahem) some people.
  • Brittany Force ran a 3.623 at 331.61 in the quarter last September.

I'm none of these people, and schub along with my day to day life, trying to earn a living in a facemask and get 180 reliable horsepower from a 90 year old design.

Your mileage (and power) may vary.

Last edited by Stan Galat

What is more impressive about that number is that it is wheel horsepower, not engine horsepower.  Almost all the big numbers you hear on engines are made on an engine dyno, which don’t acccount for the powertrain losses like a chassis dyno.

@LI-Rick posted:

What is more impressive about that number is that it is wheel horsepower, not engine horsepower.  Almost all the big numbers you hear on engines are made on an engine dyno, which don’t acccount for the powertrain losses like a chassis dyno.

I'll say. That little feller is amazing.

Don't want to be a party pooper but dyno's can be set to read higher numbers than actual to make the customers happy. They are still a great tool to see if tuning changes increase or decrease performance but it is a well kept secret that many dyno shops inflate the numbers instead of arguing with a customer that know's his engine puts out more than that. Just sayin.

Last edited by Jimmy V.

First off, that was an awesome dyno pull. They clearly know what they are doing. Clean area and a clear process.  Process is everything.  In earlier days, I got certified on a SuperFlow CycleDyn.  The real usefulness of a dyno is in crafting the shape of the curves and it's interesting to see how people's  "butt dynos" reacts to documented changes.  By smoothing the curves and increasing the area under the curves you usually get a much faster car, and if you've calibrated the transitions well you get great throttle response.  That's something Stan alluded to elsewhere in our records and it's huge when it comes to the "butt dyno" readings.  

There are several places that the operator can make the actual numbers higher or lower on purpose, and some are out if their control.  First is the machine calibration. If the tuner recalibrated the dyno after the baseline run and before the finished tune run...he's playing with you.  There are the expected driveline losses, and for a 4 wheel drive these can be considerable.  Then there are the losses from tire to drum and these can be huge, too. You can change a dyno number by 5% or more going from under inflated to overinflated or simply from cold to hot tires. Then there's air temp and humidity.  They have corrected hp/tq calculations to supposedly make up for that, but they really can't because denser air behaves differently. That won't be a big difference, but it's there nonetheless.  

You can tune an engine with 150 wheel hp, really get it running right and it now makes maybe 155 hp.  You give it the customer without any info and ask them what they think and they will swear it's gotta be making 175 now!  Then you show them the before and after graphs and explain why it's faster.  If they're smart, they are thrilled.  If they only wanter to "hit a number" they won't be happy.  Most tuners aren't good teachers and too many people fit the "hit a number" category. Most tuners just don't want to deal with people because they are less predictable than engines.

I think the air is thinner there... must be why they have the gaz pumps with vent catchers on the pump handles.

What I found interested about the dyno pull video is that it looked like they did the pull in 4 gear. I have always used 3 gear to get the best numbers on a VW beetle transaxle. They may have had a high numerical numbered Ring & pinion gear in the trans.. Anyone else pick up on the car being in 4th gear for the pull and thinking that is weird?

@Stan Galat posted:

That was an amazing pull.

I have zero details on the 1641 in that dyno video-- but I can tell you this: it had 48 IDAs, and what appeared to be a big merge header. It's not your run-of-the-mill 1641.

For what it's worth:

  •  In 2016 Johannes Persson in Sweden made 254 hp with a 1776 Type 1 that looks like it cost more than the entire Apollo Space Program. Mr. Persson is working on an engine to break that record.
  • Jeff Bezos is worth about $145 billion +/-, but things are going pretty well for Jeff during the recent troubles so it might be more by now. 
  • An (obviously) anonymous 3-man team took advantage of the quarantine to set a new Cannonball Run record recently: 26 hrs, 38 min. That's an average speed of just north of 105 mph for 2,825.3 miles.
  • A few days ago, Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson deadlifted 1105 lbs in his home gym in Reykjavik, Iceland. It's clear he's not sitting on the couch binge watching Longmire on Netflix like (ahem) some people.
  • Brittany Force ran a 3.623 at 331.61 in the quarter last September.

I'm none of these people, and schub along with my day to day life, trying to earn a living in a facemask and get 180 reliable horsepower from a 90 year old design.

Your mileage (and power) may vary.

Being a fan of strongman competitions and having watched Eddie "The Beast" Hall win many competitions and set the previous record I had to look it up. So I watched the video of Björnsson setting the new record and he is certainly impressive.

Reading the comments of the video I watched is what really educated me though. One fellow was arguing if Björnsson height was a disadvantage and a conversation commenced between a couple guys. This is where I got my new explanation for your physical characteristics. You've often stated your build is long arms, long torso, and short legs. This was aptly referred to as the "Ape Index". Your condition now has a name. When explaining this to people you can now say, "My Ape Index is..........". LOL

Last edited by Robert M

@Jimmy V. I was thinking the same when I heard him shift to 4th. 

@JMM (Michael) I'd like to hear more about all that. A 5 percent change just from tire inflation?? Wow. How?

Has anyone run an engine dyno pull and then do a wheel HP pull on the same engine that same day just to calculate gear and axle (and wheel?) loss on a Bug or Speedster? Some say 15 percent, some say 25 percent drivetrain loss just in general but they're talking front engine/rear drive usually and I've often wondered if the VW or Porsche transaxles aren't more efficient just based on having less rotating mass than your average Tremec/12 bolt Chebby or Ford Toploader+9-inch.

Ed, i don't know this for fact, but I've read a bunch of different places that the VW drivetrain absorbs 10-15%.

I wonder if that also holds true for the Rabbit and all other transverse FWD cars?

It would make sense that they consume even less. The torque never changes direction(90 degrees) like in a Bug.

I've seen some Spyder tests that have about a 160-170 or so hp engine and the tested 1/4 mile time calculated out to about 145 wheel hp.

Last edited by DannyP
@edsnova posted:

...gear and axle (and wheel?) loss on a Bug or Speedster? Some say 15 percent, some say 25 percent drivetrain loss just in general but they're talking front engine/rear drive usually and I've often wondered if the VW or Porsche transaxles aren't more efficient just based on having less rotating mass than your average Tremec/12 bolt Chebby or Ford Toploader+9-inch.

@DannyP posted:

Ed, i don't know this for fact, but I've read a bunch of different places that the VW drivetrain absorbs 10-15%.

I wonder if that also holds true for the Rabbit and all other transverse FWD cars?

It would make sense that they consume even less. The torque never changes direction(90 degrees) like in a Bug.

I've seen some Spyder tests that have about a 160-170 or so hp engine and the tested 1/4 mile time calculated out to about 145 wheel hp.

The figure I've heard is 12-15% depending on oil, how the trans is set up, and even tire pressure plays a factor.

Add Reply

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