Just another 2056 build, Misc Questions Options

[sdoolin]

Yep, I am building a 2056. Have ordered very nearly a complete 2056 engine kit from Type IV Store (LN Engineering). Some questions (I have searched and read MANY threads)...

I have a "spare" 1976 VW Bus short block (no cyl. heads). Assume this will work for a starting point? Issues with oil dipstick? The bus was an automatic so I assume once I remove the "flex plate" that the flywheel from by 914 engine (in car) will bolt up to the crank without issues? Any issues with engine carrier? The bus used a "moustache bar" for mounting to the frame and I am hoping that the cases from the bus/914 are the same for engine mounting?

Will re-use existing Crank/rods
New crank/rod bearings
Will re-use existing cylinders (overbored)
KB 96 mm flat topped pistons with Hastings rings
Webcam cam (9130 kit from Type IV Store)
Type IV Store pushrods, pushrod ends, parkerized lifters, rocker shafts
Type IV Store cam bearings

Re-use rockers from bus engine? Not sure about this...

HAM (Len Hoffman) RS+ spec cylinder heads
New Oil pump from Type IV Store
New clutch & pressure plate.
Re-use flywheel from 914 engine (in the car)

Dellorto Dual 40mm carbs, CB Perf manifolds & linkage
SSI heat exchangers & Bursch exhaust
New fuel pump - will run return lines (have CFR SS Lines in car now and will re-use)

Not sure what dizzy to run?

I believe I need to check/verify deck height and valve clearance (I know how, just not positive this is required for a 2056 build).

I have read a few threads about "setting" compression ration, but do not understand it yet? Anyone have a compression ratio for dummies guide?

Anything else I'm missing?

Progress so far...

[Dave_Darling]

First: I would try to quantify the effect on deck height measurement of rocking the piston in the bore. You might find it is significant, or you might find it is not so.

Second: Removing material from one or both ends of the cylinder will raise the compression, not reduce it.

Third: If Jake, who designed the cam profile and had input on the chamber shape and porting, says you should target 9:1, I would do what I can to get as close as possible to 9.000:1.

--DD

[sdoolin]

First: I would try to quantify the effect on deck height measurement of rocking the piston in the bore. You might find it is significant, or you might find it is not so.

Second: Removing material from one or both ends of the cylinder will raise the compression, not reduce it.

Third: If Jake, who designed the cam profile and had input on the chamber shape and porting, says you should target 9:1, I would do what I can to get as close as possible to 9.000:1.

--DD

First - I did attempt to quantify piston movement during deck height measurement. I would raise the piston in the bore until it just kissed my calibrated screw, not enough to move/rock the piston. Then lower piston, turn screw 1/4 turn (.25mm) then raise piston again. In all instances the 1/4 turn was too far, essentially using up all available piston "rock" and stopping the piston before it reached TDC (engine would not turn any farther). So - piston rock less than .25mm and my deck height (in the jug) of 1.0mm seems accurate.

Second - agree, I am removing .72mm in an attempt to raise the compression ratio to 9.0:1.

Third - COMPLETELY agree.

Thanks for the input DD.