Engine Build Recommendadtion Options

[N_Jay]

OK, we have recently hashed out head gaskets, Pistons, rods, and bearings.
A while a go it was oil pumps.

So what about a fresh build discussion.

I plan on building a decent 2.0 based street engine.
Goals are decent power, longevity and drivability.
Think fun reliable touring with an occasional autocross. (Kind of what a factory 2.0 was good for, but with a little more kick in the pants.)
AND reasonable price (Yes, that is always open to interpretation)

What is recommended displacement? Bore and Stroke?
What pistons, rods and cylinders? What compression?
What cam?
Guessing micro squirt or tuned up D-Jet.

What "tricks" are worth while for a few HP and/or drivability, longevity, etc.
What "tricks" are not worth while (or worst yet help one direction and hurt another)

How much worse would it be to start with a 1.8 base? (Heads, etc.)

[tomh]

light flywheel is always an easy not too expensive add on for a little more kick.

[stugray]

light flywheel is always an easy not too expensive add on for a little more kick.

Be careful with those recommendations.

Lightening the rotating mass does not necessarily give more horsepower.
Reducing the rotating mass of the engine gives an almost negligible difference as compared to removing the mass from anywhere else on the vehicle.

So removing mass from the rotating assembly is the lowest ROI as far as lbs/$$ goes.
Now if you are building a race car from the ground up then, by all means, reduce weight wherever you can, including the engine.

The best reason for reducing rotating mass is to minimize the forces on the crank and allow higher RPMs.
For the greatest effect, the best place to reduce the mass is the conn-rods, wrist pins, & pistons.

Reducing the mass of the flywheel (or crank) cannot give higher HP readings on an engine dyno (or the dyno operator is doing it wrong)
(let the flames begin :-)

[stevegm]

Oil pump is not quite resolved yet. The stock pump is problematic. 300mm is apparently too large. And nobody seems to offer a 26mm type I pump that has been modified for the type IV anymore. I think McMark is working on getting some 26mm units and modify them to be used in the type IV.

[stugray]

Quick Recipe:
96mm jugs & KB pistons from European MS
webcam 86b camshaft & lifters
New FW, & clutch assembly
have rotating assembly balanced
Mallory Unilite (now MSD) with 6AL ignition
2.0L heads and have them flycut/trued a little to get a new mating surface & raise the CR a tad
Deck the case and have it checked for line bore.
Set the deck height for ~.035 (no head gaskets).
This will get you close to 9.0/1 CR. (Edit - Sorry it is more like 9.5:1 CR)

Then install carbs or microsquirt.

[injunmort]

you gotta have a set of HAM,INC heads otherwise it just wont run

[tomh]

light flywheel is always an easy not too expensive add on for a little more kick.

Be careful with those recommendations.

Lightening the rotating mass does not necessarily give more horsepower.
Reducing the rotating mass of the engine gives an almost negligible difference as compared to removing the mass from anywhere else on the vehicle.

So removing mass from the rotating assembly is the lowest ROI as far as lbs/$$ goes.
Now if you are building a race car from the ground up then, by all means, reduce weight wherever you can, including the engine.

The best reason for reducing rotating mass is to minimize the forces on the crank and allow higher RPMs.
For the greatest effect, the best place to reduce the mass is the conn-rods, wrist pins, & pistons.

Reducing the mass of the flywheel (or crank) cannot give higher HP readings on an engine dyno (or the dyno operator is doing it wrong)
(let the flames begin :-)

I guess I just got schooled
LOL
A few extra revs never hurt anyone,
I sure like the little improvement it made on my 2.0

[ConeDodger]

2056. Enjoyable, still driveable. Yes, the LE series heads are a great addition. I'd say LE180 for a 2056. Original Customs can do 2056's in their sleep! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/evilgrin.gif)

[cwpeden]

2056. Enjoyable, still driveable. Yes, the LE series heads are a great addition. I'd say LE180 for a 2056. Original Customs can do 2056's in their sleep! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/evilgrin.gif)

Not to mention, you can save over a $1000 in after market FI. Depending on how much you can do yourself

[Larmo63]

I'd have McMark build your engine if you are up in that part of the country...

[ClayPerrine]

My engine recipe:

Stock 2.0 crank

Stock 2.0 rods

Any case you want.. they are all the same

96mm pistons and cylinders from LN Engineering. (expensive but worth it.)

1.8 L heads with 2.0 Valves (less prone to cracking)

Raby 9590 cam, plus the whole valvetrain kit. (about 1K in cost)

Lightened Flywheel

Stock FI with an enlarged throttle body

73 2.0 stainless exhaust with a free flow Burscht muffler.


Reliable, easy to drive and once the valves are set the first time, you don't have to do them again.

[HAM Inc]

LN Engineering/Type4Store sells complete, high quality engine kits.

[stugray]

you gotta have a set of HAM,INC heads otherwise it just wont run

I'd have McMark build your engine if you are up in that part of the country...

LN Engineering/Type4Store sells complete, high quality engine kits.

All very well informed, solid suggestions. I second them.
In fact I have started collecting parts for my second engine build for the racecar, and my very first item (#1 in importance) on my list is a set of HAM heads from the type IV store.

And I forgot to add a set of 1.7L rockers modified for 911 swivel feet and chromemolly pushrods to the recipe.

(And I thought for sure I would get comments about my 'lightening of rotating assembly' statements above)

[tomh]

you gotta have a set of HAM,INC heads otherwise it just wont run

I'd have McMark build your engine if you are up in that part of the country...

LN Engineering/Type4Store sells complete, high quality engine kits.

All very well informed, solid suggestions. I second them.
In fact I have started collecting parts for my second engine build for the racecar, and my very first item (#1 in importance) on my list is a set of HAM heads from the type IV store.

And I forgot to add a set of 1.7L rockers modified for 911 swivel feet and chromemolly pushrods to the recipe.

(And I thought for sure I would get comments about my 'lightening of rotating assembly' statements above)

Shame on you for lighting your flywheel

[N_Jay]

OK, I am not looking for someone to build it.

Probably not going with Nickies for this engine.

2056 is 96mm on a stock crank?

What is the next step up? How fast do you get to a size that the D-Jet won't support?

I noticed that et HAM heads are 4 stud (1.8 style). Are they based off 1.8 castings, or are they a fully custom casting?

And what is meant by "Square" vs. "Oval" ports?

[Dave_Darling]

2056 is 96mm on a stock crank?

96mm bore, 71mm stroke from the stock 2.0 engine.

What is the next step up? How fast do you get to a size that the D-Jet won't support?

After 96mm bore you wind up having to cut the heads and the case to fit larger cylinders. Much more than 71mm stroke means interference between the cam and rods. But larger than 71mm stroke means figuring out what kind of rods and which aftermarket crank to use anyway.

D-jet is more freaked out by lumpy cams than displacement. I have heard of people running 2.2 motors off D-jet, but with some modifications.

I noticed that et HAM heads are 4 stud (1.8 style). Are they based off 1.8 castings, or are they a fully custom casting?

Based off of aftermarket castings by AMC.

And what is meant by "Square" vs. "Oval" ports?

Later Bus motors had exhaust ports that were rectangular in shape. Those get called "square port" heads. Our heads have oval-shaped exhaust ports.

--DD

[N_Jay]

Thank so far.

More questions will be coming, but I can't be the only one with questions.

So to give you an idea of what I have current inventory.

Engine #1
73 2.0 rebuilt to original specs, but won't turn. (Was in the weather with carbs and sat a long time. (Built circa 1988)
Have all FI parts (I think)

Engine #2
2.0 case with 1.8 heads 103mm and 82,mm stroke (IIRC) (2.4?)
Lightened flywheel, clearance and balanced rods, lightened flywheel.
big valves (but no extra hand work or porting) (I think FAT did the machine work, but it could have been another Santa Ana shop. (Circa 1989/1990)
SS Heat Exchanges and circa 1988 Bursch exhaust.
Broken valve spring.

Engine #3
Supposedly good, dead stock and mostly original 74 1.8 L-Jet with all parts.

Engine #4
Supposedly good, dead stock and mostly original 75/76 2.0 D-Jet with all parts except computer.

Extra parts:
1 pair 73/74 2.0 heads, used good condition
Fresh "rebuilt" unmolested 2.0 rods (From same shop as did the 2.4 machining)

Step one is the engine I was asking about. Not sure which engine I will start with 1, 3 , or 4. (DD and tour engine)

Step two is a rebuild of the 2.4 getting some porting done and probably setting it up for MS fuel instead of carbs. ("Fun" engine to swap in when I feel like it)

[cgnj]

Thank so far.

More questions will be coming, but I can't be the only one with questions.

So to give you an idea of what I have current inventory.

Engine #1
73 2.0 rebuilt to original specs, but won't turn. (Was in the weather with carbs and sat a long time. (Built circa 1988)
Have all FI parts (I think)

Engine #2
2.0 case with 1.8 heads 103mm and 82,mm stroke (IIRC) (2.4?)
Lightened flywheel, clearance and balanced rods, lightened flywheel.
big valves (but no extra hand work or porting) (I think FAT did the machine work, but it could have been another Santa Ana shop. (Circa 1989/1990)
SS Heat Exchanges and circa 1988 Bursch exhaust.
Broken valve spring.

Engine #3
Supposedly good, dead stock and mostly original 74 1.8 L-Jet with all parts.

Engine #4
Supposedly good, dead stock and mostly original 75/76 2.0 D-Jet with all parts except computer.

Extra parts:
1 pair 73/74 2.0 heads, used good condition
Fresh "rebuilt" unmolested 2.0 rods (From same shop as did the 2.4 machining)

Step one is the engine I was asking about. Not sure which engine I will start with 1, 3 , or 4. (DD and tour engine)

Step two is a rebuild of the 2.4 getting some porting done and probably setting it up for MS fuel instead of carbs. ("Fun" engine to swap in when I feel like it)

Lots of stuff to start with. Do you have induction for the 2.4 hand grenade motor? I'd noodle that first, unless you have to source induction.

choice 2 2056 H beam rods, stock bid end, 22 mm little end. Huge difference in rotating mass. Price the cost of rebuilding stock rods, that is when it start to make sense. I have never had a flywheel lightened. I weighted stock vs H-beam rods, 24 mm wrist pins and JE forged 96 mm pistons. Saves more weight than lightening a flywheel.

There is a thread regarding rod bearing quality. I have no experience with this this, but it is something that would concern me. I still would avoid going to buick or type 1 journals because once you start looking at those changes its 20 incremental jumps to stroker 2270. Huge price differentialwhen the project is done.

Glad to spend your dime

[Mark Henry]

I noticed that et HAM heads are 4 stud (1.8 style). Are they based off 1.8 castings, or are they a fully custom casting?

They are built on new AMC 1.8 castings. They are welded and machined to the 914 2.0 chamber spec, plugs moved and they take the 12mm plug size. New seats, 2.0 size SS valves, HD springs and retainers. If going bigger than a stock FI compatible cam you should step up to dual springs. You can get them in 3 or 4 bolt, you only need the 3 bolt if using the 2.0 D-jet intake.

If going stock FI another good choice is the 914 1.8 L-jet system. I'd still get the 3 bolt heads and use the 2.0 runners, they fit with a slight tweak on the one tube.

[porschetub]

light flywheel is always an easy not too expensive add on for a little more kick.

Be careful with those recommendations.

Lightening the rotating mass does not necessarily give more horsepower.
Reducing the rotating mass of the engine gives an almost negligible difference as compared to removing the mass from anywhere else on the vehicle.

So removing mass from the rotating assembly is the lowest ROI as far as lbs/$$ goes.
Now if you are building a race car from the ground up then, by all means, reduce weight wherever you can, including the engine.

The best reason for reducing rotating mass is to minimize the forces on the crank and allow higher RPMs.
For the greatest effect, the best place to reduce the mass is the conn-rods, wrist pins, & pistons.

Reducing the mass of the flywheel (or crank) cannot give higher HP readings on an engine dyno (or the dyno operator is doing it wrong)
(let the flames begin :-)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) and well put in that answer.it about fu#king with what Porsche never did,when I was young and silly I did this and the the result was a lack of torque and an engine that got no where really.
Read up on what the other members are doing here,you will start to find out what to do,get your flywheel balanced and reep the benefits of that.