I can't believe it but after 1-1/2 years of waiting for my engine components to be machined, I am finally picking up the parts tomorrow . I will post more after talking to the owner about the issues he found with my case. This is what was holding everything up. Luckily. I have source another case (from my shed) and will be using this one instead. Here's a few pics of the my "other '74" after uncovering it today and wiping off a bit of dust. She needs to ride again! Hoping for Okteenerfest. Stay tuned!

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Car looks great . Did this one start out like the Bumblebee ?

Been holding out eh

Yes, it was just as “awesome” as the LE. The hell hole was especially fun. Here are a few pics - just for you

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Turned out alright, I think. Learned a lot!

Click to view attachment

SHOW OFF!!

An engine thread needs ENGINE pictures!

We all know you can work the metal just fine...

Get with the greasy stuff!

Hee, hee… yes, it’ll all start tomorrow, Rick.

Initial Layout (6/27/2026):

After about 5 hours of driving to go get my engine parts, I got home just after lunchtime today. I started laying things out in an attempt to get things organized. I took a few pictures. As I mentioned earlier, my original EA case will not be used on this build. Instead, I will be using my back-up W-case that I had machined late last year. The problem with the EA case is that 2 of the mains are too tight. So this case probably needs align bore. I'll do this at a later date. Hell, I've got the LE case getting worked on at the moment. The machinist bill is high enough at the moment - thank you.

Here's a pic the W-case on the stand. This was align-bored .20, oil-galleys tapped, with the cylinder openings just cleaned-up (no need for decking). Work was done by EMW in 2025.

Click to view attachment

The dual-spring 1.8L heads were cleaned, inspected, and reassembled. These heads were previously reconditioned [back in 2020] and checked out fine. They are port & polished with 44/38 valves.

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Going with a new 78mm crank. This is why my 2.3L will become a 2.2L.

Click to view attachment

Pistons are new 96mm forged JEs with ceramic coating on the sides and top. Rods checked out fine but were modified for better oiling. Note off-center oil grooves.

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Cylinders are original German 93mm, 1.8L units that were sandblasted, painted with flat black paint, and then bored to 96mm

Click to view attachment

During this layout I ran across two different cams that I had purchased last year for this build. I think I'd like to go with the 163/86b for this one. We'll see. Would like input from others on this choice. More to come soon. Cheers!

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

I’m so excited and it’s not even my car.

1. Who’s crank?
2. Is that oiling groove on both sides of the connecting rod?

Looking forward to watching this come together.

Cheers,
Sean

Hi Fred,

Me thinks that's a great cam choice. It's pretty much what Raby developed and sold (maybe with a different LSA, not sure?).

Might want to run it a little advanced. We have two new ones (163/86b) in the boxes for upcoming projects, but was a little disappointed that we could only get them with 104 degrees lobe separation. But, understand that "custom" cams are months and months and months away.

Webcams makes good cams, so hoping you (and we) are happy with them!

WOW, super cool!! Where to begin my comments...

First: hell hole? What hell hole? I am seeing more an abyss!

That car looks beatiful! Did you install the braces for the inner suspension ears? I am seeing the anchor point on the firewall.

Good looking engine parts!

Do yo have the matching lifters for that WebCam camshaft?

EDIT: is there a reason why the notch in the connecting rod is offset instead of centered?

Very soon you will have too many restored 914s, what will you do?

1. I think this is a AA performance forged chromoly crank
2. Yes. The machinist has a lot of experience with VW engines. He said he prefers an offset 'U' groove on both sides of the rod. He mentioned better directed oil spray at the bottom of the piston. I assume the groove would need to be on the top but will verify with him before assembly.

Fred, If she needs some TLC, I would be happy to come over and take her for daily trips so she doesn't get boared.......lol

Yes, I installed Tangerine Racing's "Rear Suspension Inner Pickup Heim Rod Brace Kit" on this car. Easy upgrade if you have the welder out.

Good Question on the lifters. I have a set of LN Engineering solid lifters. I know Web calls for their own lifters. The LNs are obviously high-quality. Do you think using them would be ok?

Ah, meat and potatoes...
Thank you!

So, 2258 with flat tops and the 1.8 heads.

Have you figured compression?

Parts look nice!

Yes. I'm targeting 9.1 - 9.2, depending on deck height. The chambers are 60cc with a 0.9cc valve pocket in the pistons.

You're such a good friend, Kevin. I appreciate your willingness to help out.

Curious , why offset as the published description of this mod was centered ?

Click to view attachment

For a good time (not sure today), WebCam was supplying cams to Raby. One of his popular version for that size engine was the 163/86b but with a twist. I assume yours is also on a 1.063" base circle to clear the connecting rods?

With larger induction you will get more power out of the 86B/86C but all of this is with heads that flow. Your 1.8 heads will have limitations.

All of this is information I have read over the years and wrote down in my notebook. You should check everything. I would definitely make a call to WebCam.

I visited the ladies a few years back when I was planining on building a 2258 for my project and they were very helpful and happy to answer questions. I too was going to use the 163/86b for a good all around cam (civilised ).

All this to say that your LN lifters may be WebCam ones.

Rich, I think it’s a matter of cooling the piston vs the wrist pin. Not 100% sure. I’ll get more details on Monday.

Right! I will find out. Here are the cards from both cams. 104 lc on both.

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

FYI, my intake/exhaust valves are 44/38 and my exhaust is a full 1 5/8” tangerine header + muffler.

Trying to verify dimensions here. What is the standard case bore for the type 4 engine? AI says 2.559”. That seems too small. I’m measuring roughly 2.768 for the rear main on a case with a .02 line bore. Why am I off a decimal place?

I had my local machinist make up a "case gage", it's a couple thou over to allow for some clearance. I can check tomorrow and report back

@friethmiller AI is not your friend. That is for a type 1 motor.

Type4 Saddle bore is 70mm or 2.756. 2.768 is correct

Click to view attachment

Excellent! Thank you.

Ok, I've confirmed two things.

1. My EA block is too tight on #1, #2, and #3 saddles, as identified by my machinist.
2. [Thankfully] My W-block checks out at .020 line bore

Working from a STD bore of 2.756" + .020 bore = 2.776". I used the 2-3" micrometer to set 0 on my bore gauge for #1-#3 saddles. Adjusted tips to set zero on my 1-2" micrometer for the #4 saddle at 1.9685 + .020 bore = 1.9885.

Photos of my work to measure each saddle in multiple directions. Will proceed with verifying my brand new crank next before preparing for assembly. So far so good.

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Thanks again to @cgnj for the specs!

Good news!
Nice metrology tools btw.

Did you get a chance to measure the bearings?

Are bearings MORE available if you need .020 over on the OD?

I thought main bearings were a bit on the scarce side right now.

Nice work Fred!

Yes, nice tools you have there.

With the main bearing tunnel being tight, ask your machinist if doing a line

hone can be achieved to re-new the saddles back to standard bearing size?

AApistons.com shows some .020 case/main bearings available, but not for std crankshaft size. So, depends on what his crankshaft measures at.

Maybe someone else will have the right size. We had a very hard time finding main bearings earlier this year for one motor. The other motor we fortunately already had the proper bearings.

Yes, after I build this motor with my W block, I will likely send the EA block out to be checked and line bored correctly to .020. After waiting for so long for machine work on this build I want, at a minimum, a short block sitting in my garage ready to go. The EA motor will be my back-up

I just ordered another set of .020/std bearings last night from LN, just in case. The crank is brand new so it should measure as STD. @Montreal914 , I started looking at the two sets of bearing I do have on-hand. One looks like std/std, which is unobtainium at them moment. The other set is .020/std, however, the split bearing in the box doesn't match the others. These bearings sat in a box at the machine shop and I don't trust what might have happened to them. The Mahle line-bore (.020) bearings are sold out on AA. The do have some Silverline but not at .020/std as @Jack Standz mentioned. So, @Ninja - I think you can still find other non std/std but even those are a bit scarce at the moment.

I have another question...

How do the main bearing journals get TIGHT????

All the damage I've ever seen INCREASES the bores.

In a normal engine the parting surfaces (both block and cap) get a couple of thousands machined off to reduce the diameter and then a line bore is done back to standard size.

Exception is a "cracked" cap (GM LS series rods) where bore is increased and oversized OD bearings are used.

Never seen/heard about undersized main journals until your thread...

Improper prior machine work, is my guess. The place that did it is no longer in business.

Fred,
If mains are tight, I would see if the shop can machine them just to STD. No need to go overbore, especially for a "down the road" type project.

Ok, three things to report back on. I talked with the machinist and called Web Cams today.

1) The Machinist said he offsets the oil grooves to better cool the bottom of the piston and still splash the wrist pin.

2) He also measured that the saddles #1-#3 on my EA case were all tight. He said he measured between .002 and .0027. This is in line with what I'm measuring. So that gives us a bore between 2.7733" - 2.774". Thats shy of the expected 2.776" for a .020 line bore. Note: #4 (smaller) saddle is spot on. This is a [previous] machining error in my book. Like I said earlier, I'll send this case to get bored to the correct dimensions.

3) The lady at Web Cam said that LN Engineering buys their cams for their builds but they don't buy Web Cam's lifters. She said that both lifters likely derived from the same scat origins and that I'm safe to proceed with using the LN lifters.

Please help play.... read the micrometer! This is a 2-3" micrometer. I get 2.776. I hope I'm wrong.

Click to view attachment

I'm watching now because you lost me.

Yep!
I'm seeing 2.776 too!

I'm ALSO seeing a cheap mic.

Do you have a 2" and 3" standards?
I'd want those to zero that mic.

One of my favorite mics is a Starrett 1.5-2.5 mic that can be zeroed at the center point with a 2" standard.

Cheap mics can work KICK-ASS but a known accurate standard is a must...

The method you were using the bore gauge (setting zero to your required measurement) is the ONLY way to go in my book.
Hats off to you Sir!
Many so called "machinist" don't do it that way.

Using one tool to determine your clearance is far more accurate than using two

I'm thinking this must be my problem. I swear this W case spec'd out the other day but when I rechecked it yesterday it was .002 - .003 too large. I have a 2" inch standard. let me verify/reset the mic.

Nice parts Fred

A tip I got long ago was to always store engine cases bolted together to

prevent warping. Check the camshaft saddle under the #2 bearing to see

if it had collapsed or rocks using a straight edge. Run the straight edge

horizontally over all 3 cam saddles, on both sides of the saddles, and

vertically over the #2 main bearing saddle, and out to the case perimeters.

A problem there might mean a cam tunnel line bore. And there’s 1 more

check to do. Bolt the case together with the 6 big nuts and torque it to

25lbs. Back light the center main at the parting face. If you see any light

between the parting faces, that means you’ll have low oil pressure,

because oil will be leaking out from the back side of the bearing.

Will do! It's together with the case bolts torqued at the moment. I'll start with the backlighting one first. Thanks!

UPDATE: It all looks fine. Everything checks flat and no light can be seen between any of the saddle parting lines.

To summarize my current issue, I'm measuring my W case with a 0.020 bore at 0.022 - 0.023. I have a new 2-3" micrometer coming in tomorrow. If the results are the same, I'm sending out the EA block to get fixed or sourcing another case.

So, until I'm satisfied with the case measurements, I'm NOT proceeding. Doing so is a fool's errand.

Have you checked it with bearings installed? With the variation in new bearings maybe you got lucky and have some bearings that are on the large size and will work with the case. I've heard of guys ordering multiple sets of bearings to get a fit they like.

Thanks @Nogoodwithusernames

Interesting... my second set of bearings just showed up today.

Wanted to verify the oil clearance on the mains. AI says:

0.03 mm to 0.08 mm (0.001" to 0.003") for journals #1, #2, and #3
0.05 mm to 0.10 mm (0.0019" to 0.004") on journal #4

Does this sound correct or is this AI screwing up and giving me Type 1 specs? I think .002 is desired, if I'm remembering correctly. TIA.

Those clearances look good to me, have you installed the crank/bearings with a bit of oil, torqued the case bolts and see how she spins?

Not yet. I’m asking if these are the recommended clearances. I’m about to start measuring crank to bearing clearances. I will be mic’ing the main journal, zeroing the dimension to my bore gauge, and then measuring the clearance with the bearings mounted/torqued in the case.

Update:

I spent a lot of time this weekend in the garage attempting to get good measurements on both my EC and W cases. While I measured the EC block's saddles a little tight, the W case measured a little loose from the .20 bore specs. However, once the .50/STD bearings were installed in the cases things changed a bit.

The saddle measurements where taken in relationship to a book value of 2.776 +/- .0004. I basically adjusted my 2-3" micrometer (zeroed with a 2" standard) to 2.776" and locked it in a vise. Next, I took my bore gauge and zeroed in the micrometer. From here, I measured roughly in the 9-3 o'clock and the 12-6 o'clock positions.

To determine the bearing clearance, I first measured the crank main journals with the digital 2-3" micrometer. From my measurements, all 3 main bearings were 2.3616". Locking in this value, I then clamped the micrometer in the vice and zeroed the bore gauge to this value. From here I measured several times in each of the clock positions on either side of the oil groove for each bearing. I did this multiple times throughout Saturday and Sunday to come up with a set of clearances for each of the first 3 mains on both blocks. These numbers represent the "tightest obtainable value" in and around the measurement areas using the bore gauge.

Click to view attachment

Not that these are set in stone. I want to continue working the instruments till I'm satisfied with all the numbers I'm getting. Repeatability is the word, I guess.

Including other photos I took while measuring the cases. Note the arrows showing the oil relief in the rear main of the EA Case as well as the "relief" areas that were required to handle the previously installed 82mm crank. We will be switching down to a more manageable 78mm unit with this build.

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment