Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
914World.com _ 914World Garage _ Roller lifters
Posted by: r_towle Oct 26 2015, 09:31 PM
Has anyone tried roller lifters in a type 4, or any flat motor?
Posted by: rdauenhauer Oct 26 2015, 10:39 PM
http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?s=&showtopic=74071&view=findpost&p=923916
Posted by: toon1 Oct 26 2015, 11:26 PM
that was such a cool concept. it would be nice to have a roller setup on the type 4
Posted by: Mueller Oct 26 2015, 11:50 PM
that was such a cool concept. it would be nice to have a roller setup on the type 4
^ditto...
Less friction, more radical profiles and possibly a less noisy or better sounding engine
Posted by: Mark Henry Oct 27 2015, 07:00 AM
that was such a cool concept. it would be nice to have a roller setup on the type 4
^ditto...
Less friction, more radical profiles and possibly a less noisy or better sounding engine
Less noisy type 4
Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 27 2015, 08:21 AM
I build lots of engines with them. Tons of torque across the entire RPM range. The engine pictured in that thread is still in my Wife's car, and it hasn't been apart since it was built.
It only costs money. Thats all.
Posted by: 914werke Oct 27 2015, 08:38 AM
.. and a vendor willing to sell & support them 
Posted by: Mueller Oct 27 2015, 08:47 AM
.. and a vendor willing to sell & support them
I think only available in his fully built motors...so us "normal" folk will never have the chance to purchase them
Pauter sells them, but I have the feeling only all out race motors (and type 1 instead?)
Being that a new solid camshaft kit is $1000 from the TypeIV store, I would venture to say that the roller setup would be minimum 2X that price.
Posted by: toon1 Oct 27 2015, 09:29 AM
.. and a vendor willing to sell & support them
I think only available in his fully built motors...so us "normal" folk will never have the chance to purchase them
Pauter sells them, but I have the feeling only all out race motors (and type 1 instead?)
Being that a new solid camshaft kit is $1000 from the TypeIV store, I would venture to say that the roller setup would be minimum 2X that price.
Mike, with your design skills and your machine tools, I bet you could do it!
Posted by: Mueller Oct 27 2015, 09:49 AM
.. and a vendor willing to sell & support them
I think only available in his fully built motors...so us "normal" folk will never have the chance to purchase them
Pauter sells them, but I have the feeling only all out race motors (and type 1 instead?)
Being that a new solid camshaft kit is $1000 from the TypeIV store, I would venture to say that the roller setup would be minimum 2X that price.
Mike, with your design skills and your machine tools, I bet you could do it!
I'm sure I could, but we'll be in flying cars and using jet packs by the time I get it done
Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 27 2015, 12:00 PM
Selling parts wasn't for me. Took me a decade to figure that out.
My developments have always been for my engines, first, and foremost.... Today, and in the future, engines are my only concern from a sales perspective.
Posted by: r_towle Oct 27 2015, 07:51 PM
Roller rockers need bushings, then we just need to find the right size lifters. Hint, mike....hint
The camshaft, from what I have read, it a different flat grind unlike our camshaft which have a leading edge that is higher to creat the twist of the lifter each Time.
I will see if EMW has any experience with these, they do like the 356 lifters for weight, so bushings are not an issue for them.
Rich
Posted by: Elliot Cannon Oct 27 2015, 09:06 PM
It would be nice if someone made ceramic lifters again. These have about 25,000 miles on them.
Attached image(s)
Posted by: toon1 Oct 27 2015, 09:08 PM
Spoke with a guy today about doing this. He said, for the expense and hassle of doing this, its not worth it.
If it was going in a crazy performance motor, yes, but for normal use, not so much.
Posted by: DBCooper Oct 27 2015, 09:15 PM
You'll up your horsepower by what, five percent? Seriously? By ten percent? Ten percent of what? Why exactly, again?
Posted by: Dave_Darling Oct 28 2015, 09:04 AM
Mostly so we can use current motor oils without wiping the cams..
--DD
Posted by: DBCooper Oct 28 2015, 09:38 AM
Mostly so we can use current motor oils without wiping the cams..
I assume you're talking about solid lifters, not hydraulic? Take a quick look at the experience of the V8 guys with aftermarket solid roller lifters on the street. There are success stories with acceptable longevity, it's true, but there are also a whole lot of horror stories. You may be trading one problem for another that's worse. Proper setup is critical to get the oiling, which may be the reason Jake never sold the solids as parts.
Aren't there high-zinc break-in oils? And I haven't heard bad things about those ceramic lifters, have you? Except for price and availability, of course.
Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 28 2015, 12:11 PM
The problems you will have will be with properly centering the lifters to be perpendicular to the cam. Most T4 cases are NOT properly centered with their original lifters. Bushing must be bored for proper alignment, and a special jig is used to align these from the camshaft centerline.
Once you overcome this, the next challenge is properly locking the lifters so you won't experience "cam walk", which occurs when the lifters travel up one side of the lobe, and down the other. What you will find is the factory thrust control deck is not large enough to control this. This holds true, even if you use the 993 layshaft thrust bearings for the job.
I tried factory Ford, Chevy and Mopar lifters. I then tried .742" Harley lifters, before I realized that I simply needed to man up and manufacture a lifter that was the proper diameter, and had an optimum wheel diameter. I spent two years fooling with it, and solved all the problems in just two months when using a proper lifter.
Making this work was one challenge. Making it live was another, and neither was cheap, or easy. The gains in torque can be HUGE as you can lift up to .010" per crank degree after 8*ATDC, which is extreme compared to any flat tappet. It is HELL on rocker arms, and I broke 3 Pauter rockers in 4 months before I went back to stock on my wife's car.
Other than the rockers, that engine has been flawless for the past 7 years, and 40,000 miles. She and I, drove it 14,000 miles in just one year in 2010. It has flat torque from 1500-6K, and is unreal to drive. The oil samples I gain from this engine are better than any other T4 I have ever evaluated, and this holds true with all roller lifter engines I have built.
As far as ceramic lifters go, yes, they are indestructible, and I still have a few seats on my shelf for my own cars. They look perfect after 15 years in a few of my engines that have come back for service. I first used them in 1999, and have NEVER had one fail.
Posted by: r_towle Oct 28 2015, 06:54 PM
So in following my question, you have done this and it worked, fantastic.
Currently we cannot buy either ceramic lifters nor your roller rockers.
So, Mike......we need to figure this out.
Rich
Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 28 2015, 09:11 PM
So in following my question, you have done this and it worked, fantastic.
Currently we cannot buy either ceramic lifters nor your roller rockers.
So, Mike......we need to figure this out.
Rich
May the force be with you. You are going to need it.
Posted by: 914werke Oct 28 2015, 09:42 PM
Sigh...
Right Jake you are the only one smart enough to solve the puzzle. 
Since as you have stated you only install this solution in your engines ...
and as you've also stated that the vast majority of those engines dont go into 914s
or stay in the US, why not share some of your knowledge rather than come to this predominantly DIY fourm to beat your breast or guerrilla market your services?
Posted by: 914werke Oct 28 2015, 09:49 PM
where do you (did you) get Ceramic lifters?
Posted by: rdauenhauer Oct 28 2015, 09:51 PM
![popcorn[1].gif](style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif)
Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 28 2015, 10:15 PM
Anyone can do this thats willing to spend enough time and money to stick with it. It may take months, or years to know if it works, and you better have a stock pile of engine cores, and parts that you are willing to throw away.
FYI- 75% of the engines I have on the books now are FOR 914 applications, and all but one is staying in the USA. The applications change like the weather here, sometimes over half of what we are building goes into a beetle, other times a 356.
I am personally building a customer's 2270 T4, and installing it into a 914, and the job will be done by March.
Because I'm an asshole. Now, who wants to argue with that?
Posted by: DBCooper Oct 28 2015, 10:34 PM
75 percent here in 914's? Seriously? How many engines is that? Anyone here know anyone who's buying a Raby engine?
Posted by: poorsche914 Oct 28 2015, 11:11 PM
My 2056 is on the dyno as we speak... err, type.
It will be going in my 914.
Posted by: JoeD Oct 29 2015, 06:43 AM
75 percent here in 914's? Seriously? How many engines is that? Anyone here know anyone who's buying a Raby engine?
Well, I am. Jake has my engine too. Pulled it a couple weeks ago to build into his 2270 SR.
This summer I picked up my first 914, a 1973 1.7. The body was in great condition, but I knew I wanted to replace the 1.7 with something with a bit more punch. My son and I are DYIing everything else... interior, body, electrical, even trying my hand a little welding. But for the engine I wanted the best and it's beyond me and my teenage son so we went to see Jake to talk about what he could do.
I have to say that even though he's just declared himself an a-hole, Jake was anything but. He was incredibly generous and gracious with his time; my boy and I ended up spending the better part of a day with him in his workshop looking at cars, talking engines and life in general.
I bought this car as a project for my son and me to have something to bond over as I see him start to pull away into his teenager years. I watched him light up as Jake walked him around the shop, explained how engines work, described what makes an air-cooled engine special, talked about how he was going to get our engine to make more power, and patiently answered every question.
Since then my boy has jumped in to our build with an enthusiasm and passion he typically only shows for video games. Together we got the 1.7 running like a top this summer and there were times when he literally took the wrench out of my hands while doing it. I'm beyond grateful for what Jake did to inspire a 13-year-old like that.
And incidentally, Jud and everyone else we've talked with at RAT are great folks, too. We can't wait to have that Massive Type 4 in our 914!
Visit to RAT up in Cleveland, GA
Jumping right in
Engine out, now back to our garage to do the interior and fix some other stuff while we (patiently!) wait for the engine!
Posted by: IN RANGE inc. Oct 29 2015, 08:52 AM
A Raby roller motor is the Smoothest type four with the most bottom end torque I've ever seen. I also saw one on the dyno down there. Of course it was balanced but it just reeved smoother and cleaner than the flat tappet motors I've seen him run. Maybe even sound a little different? Here again it all comes down to what you are willing to spend. If you want it. You have to pay for it. Also I was down there last week dropping off another project and he had another 914 engine on the dyno. Didn't get to hear it run because something was out on the dyno but it was clean as a pin. All powder coated etc!!!!!! Even had Sync-link on the carbs. That is way cool too!!!
Posted by: DBCooper Oct 29 2015, 09:39 AM
A Raby roller motor is the Smoothest type four with the most bottom end torque I've ever seen. I also saw one on the dyno down there. Of course it was balanced but it just reeved smoother and cleaner than the flat tappet motors I've seen him run. Maybe even sound a little different? Here again it all comes down to what you are willing to spend. If you want it. You have to pay for it. Also I was down there last week dropping off another project and he had another 914 engine on the dyno. Didn't get to hear it run because something was out on the dyno but it was clean as a pin. All powder coated etc!!!!!! Even had Sync-link on the carbs. That is way cool too!!!
Seriously? The "Smoothest type for with the most bottom end torque you've ever seen"? I'm a little surprised to hear that, since in your posts you said you come from the T1 world and are new to T4's.
Posted by: IN RANGE inc. Oct 29 2015, 09:54 AM
A Raby roller motor is the Smoothest type four with the most bottom end torque I've ever seen. I also saw one on the dyno down there. Of course it was balanced but it just reeved smoother and cleaner than the flat tappet motors I've seen him run. Maybe even sound a little different? Here again it all comes down to what you are willing to spend. If you want it. You have to pay for it. Also I was down there last week dropping off another project and he had another 914 engine on the dyno. Didn't get to hear it run because something was out on the dyno but it was clean as a pin. All powder coated etc!!!!!! Even had Sync-link on the carbs. That is way cool too!!!
Seriously? The "Smoothest type for with the most bottom end torque you've ever seen"? I'm a little surprised to hear that, since in your posts you said you come from the T1 world and are new to T4's.
Really? I have seen and been around type fours for years but have only owned one since I bought my 914. I did a butt load of research thereafter. I have road in and driven MANY in the past year. I've been fortunate to see Jake dyno no less than five type fours in my trips down there this year. If you will look. My last posts were several months back and I have done a BUNCH of research in that time. However I guess since I have no been on this forum since it's conception my observations and comments are unwelcome?
Posted by: DBCooper Oct 29 2015, 10:01 AM
A Raby roller motor is the Smoothest type four with the most bottom end torque I've ever seen. I also saw one on the dyno down there. Of course it was balanced but it just reeved smoother and cleaner than the flat tappet motors I've seen him run. Maybe even sound a little different? Here again it all comes down to what you are willing to spend. If you want it. You have to pay for it. Also I was down there last week dropping off another project and he had another 914 engine on the dyno. Didn't get to hear it run because something was out on the dyno but it was clean as a pin. All powder coated etc!!!!!! Even had Sync-link on the carbs. That is way cool too!!!
Seriously? The "Smoothest type for with the most bottom end torque you've ever seen"? I'm a little surprised to hear that, since in your posts you said you come from the T1 world and are new to T4's.
Really? I have seen and been around type fours for years but have only owned one since I bought my 914. I did a butt load of research thereafter. I have road in and driven MANY in the past year. I've been fortunate to see Jake dyno no less than five type fours in my trips down there this year. If you will look. My last posts were several months back and I have done a BUNCH of research in that time. However I guess since I have no been on this forum since it's conception my observations and comments are unwelcome?
Of course not. Everyone makes their own observations and yours are as valid as anyone else's. Just odd that a few months ago you were saying you knew nothing, now it's "the best you've ever seen." From that the obvious question is, "so how much have you actually seen?" Several months and a BUNCH of research, and the question's answered. Thanks.
Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 29 2015, 10:18 AM
Classic. DB asks for a show of hands of who is on my list, and all he can do is work to take credibility away from a member that made an honest observation. Those statements were his opinion, does he not rate an opinion?
This thread is about roller lifters. It isn't about who is on my list, nor is it about a member's prior experiences with other engines. Its clear that DB thought he'd hear crickets when he asked for a show of hands of those who are awaiting their T4 engine from me.
Posted by: IN RANGE inc. Oct 29 2015, 10:19 AM
A Raby roller motor is the Smoothest type four with the most bottom end torque I've ever seen. I also saw one on the dyno down there. Of course it was balanced but it just reeved smoother and cleaner than the flat tappet motors I've seen him run. Maybe even sound a little different? Here again it all comes down to what you are willing to spend. If you want it. You have to pay for it. Also I was down there last week dropping off another project and he had another 914 engine on the dyno. Didn't get to hear it run because something was out on the dyno but it was clean as a pin. All powder coated etc!!!!!! Even had Sync-link on the carbs. That is way cool too!!!
Seriously? The "Smoothest type for with the most bottom end torque you've ever seen"? I'm a little surprised to hear that, since in your posts you said you come from the T1 world and are new to T4's.
Really? I have seen and been around type fours for years but have only owned one since I bought my 914. I did a butt load of research thereafter. I have road in and driven MANY in the past year. I've been fortunate to see Jake dyno no less than five type fours in my trips down there this year. If you will look. My last posts were several months back and I have done a BUNCH of research in that time. However I guess since I have no been on this forum since it's conception my observations and comments are unwelcome?
Of course not. Everyone makes their own observations and yours are as valid as anyone else's. Just odd that a few months ago you were saying you knew nothing, now it's "the best you've ever seen." From that the obvious question is, "so how much have you actually seen?" Several months and a BUNCH of research, and the question's answered. Thanks.
I only said I was new to type fours. I have been into aircooled VWs since the 1980s and have gone quicker in the 1/8 mile in a street legal bug than only but maybe one or two people. I have personally built aircooled type ones that made OVER 125 hp per cylinder to the ground. Needless to say I have experience with flat fours.
Posted by: poorsche914 Oct 29 2015, 10:48 AM
This engine is going to add new life to my LE!
Posted by: rhodyguy Oct 29 2015, 11:00 AM
And...when you start 'sharing' proprietary information, people like to have knockoffs made elsewhere and start marketing them as 'their own'. Like the shameless attempted ripoff of the DTM fan/cooling systems and the 'forged aluminum' LN Nickies. Fact, not speculation. (Edited for content)
Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 29 2015, 11:03 AM
And...when you start 'sharing' proprietary information, people like to have knockoffs made elsewhere and start marketing them as 'their own'. Like the shameless attempted ripoff of the DTM fan/cooling systems. Fact, not speculation.
Absolutely.
One photo will show what several years of work has produced, and it's not unique enough to Patent.
I know a few things about that process, I hold one and have 3 more pending.
Posted by: IN RANGE inc. Oct 29 2015, 11:25 AM
Here's what 125 hp per cylinder aircooled looks like on the dyno, five years ago. Needless to say. This was not my first type one and definitely not the first flat four I had seen. BUT! I have slept in a Holiday Inn Express.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgwnJsCaHtw
Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 29 2015, 12:12 PM
Here's what 125 hp per cylinder aircooled looks like on the dyno, five years ago. Needless to say. This was not my first type one and definitely not the first flat four I had seen. BUT! I have slept in a Holiday Inn Express.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgwnJsCaHtw
That guy running the dyno in that video is an asshole!
Posted by: DBCooper Oct 29 2015, 02:15 PM
Classic. DB asks for a show of hands of who is on my list, and all he can do is work to take credibility away from a member that made an honest observation. Those statements were his opinion, does he not rate an opinion?
Of course he does, and like anyone else his opinion is worth more when he knows what he's talking about, less when he doesn't. When he said he'd only been around T4's for a year and doesn't know much about them isn't that curious? That's not what I said, it's what HE said. So I asked, and what exactly is the problem with that? And he answered, and I thanked him. Done, and that should be it.
This thread is about roller lifters. It isn't about who is on my list, nor is it about a member's prior experiences with other engines. Its clear that DB thought he'd hear crickets when he asked for a show of hands of those who are awaiting their T4 engine from me.
Not at all, and I don't care a bit who's on your "list", or even the fact that you have a "list." I asked because I'm curious, just like the original poster. I've never seen an aircooled VW with roller lifters, you said there were some here in the U.S. and I was curious to know 1) if they were anyone I knew, and 2) whether there were any nearby so I could take a look for myself, maybe even see and hear one run. So what, exactly, is wrong with that?
I think you're a little thin-skinned, Jake, and way too ready to be offended or think there's some conspiracy against you. There isn't one, so far as I know. Lighten up.
Posted by: toon1 Oct 29 2015, 03:08 PM
Classic. DB asks for a show of hands of who is on my list, and all he can do is work to take credibility away from a member that made an honest observation. Those statements were his opinion, does he not rate an opinion?
Of course he does, and like anyone else his opinion is worth more when he knows what he's talking about, less when he doesn't. When he said he'd only been around T4's for a year and doesn't know much about them isn't that curious? That's not what I said, it's what HE said. So I asked, and what exactly is the problem with that? And he answered, and I thanked him. Done, and that should be it.
This thread is about roller lifters. It isn't about who is on my list, nor is it about a member's prior experiences with other engines. Its clear that DB thought he'd hear crickets when he asked for a show of hands of those who are awaiting their T4 engine from me.
Not at all, and I don't care a bit who's on your "list", or even the fact that you have a "list." I asked because I'm curious, just like the original poster. I've never seen an aircooled VW with roller lifters, you said there were some here in the U.S. and I was curious to know 1) if they were anyone I knew, and 2) whether there were any nearby so I could take a look for myself, maybe even see and hear one run. So what, exactly, is wrong with that?
I think you're a little thin-skinned, Jake, and way too ready to be offended or think there's some conspiracy against you. There isn't one, so far as I know. Lighten up.
There is a guy on the Samba that did RL's in a type 1 engine a few years ago. Had good luck them.
I think the final version was with Pauter lifters. If you go to the Pauter web site they have an all billet machined block( case) with their RL's inside. VERY cool!
Posted by: mr2by4 Oct 29 2015, 03:31 PM
Here's what 125 hp per cylinder aircooled looks like on the dyno, five years ago. Needless to say. This was not my first type one and definitely not the first flat four I had seen. BUT! I have slept in a Holiday Inn Express.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgwnJsCaHtw
That video is shot from the wrong end! Or is the image of the motor a secret
Posted by: 76-914 Oct 29 2015, 03:46 PM
If your not a CW why spend BIG $$$'s on a 40 year old engine/technology. A modern day engine conversion just makes a lot more sense if you want reliability, HP or a quieter engine. To me, not anyone else, roller lifters in a type4 is akin to buying your Grandmother a Tit Job! 
Posted by: jor Oct 29 2015, 04:07 PM
If your not a CW why spend BIG $$$'s on a 40 year old engine/technology. A modern day engine conversion just makes a lot more sense if you want reliability, HP or a quieter engine. To me, not anyone else, roller lifters in a type4 is akin to buying your Grandmother a Tit Job!
Not grandmother. Your long-time wife. You get to drive that engine.
Posted by: DavidSweden Oct 29 2015, 04:10 PM
If your not a CW why spend BIG $$$'s on a 40 year old engine/technology. A modern day engine conversion just makes a lot more sense if you want reliability, HP or a quieter engine. To me, not anyone else, roller lifters in a type4 is akin to buying your Grandmother a Tit Job!
Now that an idea
Posted by: DBCooper Oct 29 2015, 04:13 PM
Ha ha ha ha. Tits. Ha ha ha ha.
Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 29 2015, 04:19 PM
Somewhere there's a grandma getting a tit job right now.
Posted by: r_towle Oct 29 2015, 04:25 PM
Jake made me laugh, post #24
Something I also say often.
Posted by: Mueller Oct 29 2015, 07:11 PM
If your not a CW why spend BIG $$$'s on a 40 year old engine/technology. A modern day engine conversion just makes a lot more sense if you want reliability, HP or a quieter engine. To me, not anyone else, roller lifters in a type4 is akin to buying your Grandmother a Tit Job!
The block might be 40 years old, but there is new technology in the motor. One could argue how "old" your Subaru motor is......I'm sure it is lacking "modern" tech like direct injection, variable intake and exhaust timing..etc..etc...
Posted by: Mueller Oct 29 2015, 07:20 PM
Even with pictures, I doubt many could replicate this setup....I can reverse engineer many things, but camshafts are like voodoo to me and not something I'd tackle.
Posted by: toon1 Oct 29 2015, 09:00 PM
If your not a CW why spend BIG $$$'s on a 40 year old engine/technology. A modern day engine conversion just makes a lot more sense if you want reliability, HP or a quieter engine. To me, not anyone else, roller lifters in a type4 is akin to buying your Grandmother a Tit Job!
modern engines are awesome! the only reason I don't retrofit the 914 is that fact that I lose the front trunk to the radiator
Posted by: DBCooper Oct 29 2015, 10:36 PM
I generally like buttermilk. Cold. Tall glass. Is that O.K.?
Posted by: Harpo Oct 30 2015, 08:10 AM
Can we please stay on topic of roller cams or even ceramic lifters?
Some may be amused by the name calling and mud slinging but I'm not. I find it amazing that because it is an on line forum and not face to face what people will say to another person
Posted by: Steve Pratel Oct 30 2015, 09:31 AM
I just got done with a 2056 build, following 2 years of research and tear down.
Having an extensive background building GM small and Big blocks, I was very interested in roller rockers and or followers when considering my Type 4 build. As I discovered, the only 'available' roller rockers were the Pauter, and the general consensus was 1 they are really best used in all out racing applications, 2. They break, 3 they are very expensive.
I also found that solid lifters, a performance grind on a cam, modified 1.7 rockers, custom length chrome moly pushrods and swivel foot adjusters are just about the best way to go, especially for the DIY'r. Now where did I get that info? YUP, largely all of the above is RABY developed. ANd I didn't steal it, it was shared and written about. So any accusation that RAT does not share proprietary info is total BS.
Jake, thanks for sharing what you have developed and innovated. I'm sure that much of your cutting edge and new/leading developments are proprietary and you need to guard some of this info. You are a businessman, and enthusiast. and yep, to many you are a jerk, but your a Marine Aviator.... NUF SAID. Hooah - - Oorah - -
I'd love to try Ceramic lifters or Roller Rockers, and hope that the marked pushes someone to develop something, but I doubt that will happen.
Posted by: 76-914 Oct 30 2015, 09:58 AM
If your not a CW why spend BIG $$$'s on a 40 year old engine/technology. A modern day engine conversion just makes a lot more sense if you want reliability, HP or a quieter engine. To me, not anyone else, roller lifters in a type4 is akin to buying your Grandmother a Tit Job!
The block might be 40 years old, but there is new technology in the motor. One could argue how "old" your Subaru motor is......I'm sure it is lacking "modern" tech like direct injection, variable intake and exhaust timing..etc..etc...
Your probably right. My next conversion will be the 3.6 Suby. I was intimidated by the "immobilizer chip" initially. But IF we were to construct a "Totem Pole" ranking of engine reliability, ease of maintenance and "cost to own" I'm thinking there would be several models betwixt the two engines.
I generally like buttermilk. Cold. Tall glass. Is that O.K.?
What the Hell did I miss this time.
Posted by: DBCooper Oct 30 2015, 10:10 AM
I also found that solid lifters, a performance grind on a cam, modified 1.7 rockers, custom length chrome moly pushrods and swivel foot adjusters are just about the best way to go, especially for the DIY'r. Now where did I get that info? YUP, largely all of the above is RABY developed.
i don't think Jake "developed" any of that. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all those things originally came from the T1 world and were used by other T4 builders, mostly DIY'ers, before Jake. You can search the Shoptalk Forums for the history of each of those (and Usenet RAMVA before that). There were a lot more people involved back then, and information was shared more freely than it is now.
Posted by: Mueller Oct 30 2015, 11:32 AM
I also found that solid lifters, a performance grind on a cam, modified 1.7 rockers, custom length chrome moly pushrods and swivel foot adjusters are just about the best way to go, especially for the DIY'r. Now where did I get that info? YUP, largely all of the above is RABY developed.
i don't think Jake "developed" any of that. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all those things originally came from the T1 world and were used by other T4 builders, mostly DIY'ers, before Jake. You can search the Shoptalk Forums for the history of each of those (and Usenet RAMVA before that). There were a lot more people involved back then, and information was shared more freely than it is now.
I'm all for sharing info, I guess since I don't make a living from the parts I've made it is no big deal to share. For the Volvo guys I've publicly released the following 3 engineer drawings of parts I've made: Redbook engine to GM auto transmission (upright version), Volvo whiteblock to Ford T5 adapter and and Hall sensor adapter to replace the VR sensor.
I figure one of these days I'll see an ad from someone selling "my" parts, as long as I don't get an email asking for support, no big deal to me.
Back to the rollers, hope to meet a RAT roller equipped owner one of theses days to get a ride and be further inspired.
Posted by: 914werke Oct 30 2015, 12:42 PM
And...when you start 'sharing' proprietary information, people like to have knockoffs made elsewhere and start marketing them as 'their own'. Like the shameless attempted ripoff of the DTM fan/cooling systems. Fact, not speculation.
One photo will show what several years of work has produced, and it's not unique enough to Patent.
Really?
If you can engineer commercially viable, complex mechanical solution from a pic or two on a website ...more power to ya.
Roller cam technology isnt new, Idea's aren't Patent-able.
Mr Rhodyguy your analogy is crap. From what I read or recall, the item described was purchased and copied.
Now if someone wanted to pony up the 15-20 large then ignore the non-disclosure document that I assume Mr Raby probably has all customers sign, reverse engineer and then market that solution to an VERY small, & close knit market.....
Good luck
Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 30 2015, 05:32 PM
If an idea is novel, then it is patentable, these things are known as "art", nothing more, or less. If the art is presented properly, and you are willing to go back and forth with the examiner on office actions over a period of 33 months, then you might be successful.
My role design was slightly akin to a method of indexing that was used (and patented) for steam locomotives, so it was not patentable.
I've learned a lot about Patents in the last few years. This one took 33 months, I have two more that are already at 38 and 40 months, and another that just had its first office action after one year.
Posted by: r_towle Oct 30 2015, 08:31 PM
I found these, of interest is the roller lifters.
Sad to say I cannot get a picture from a different angle.
Seems to me there is no reason to attempt to lock the lifter in any specific rotational orientation, the camshaft will keep it aligned.
Attached image(s)
Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 31 2015, 05:53 AM
Those are .742 Harley lifters. The wheel diameter is so great that you must have a very large base circle camshaft. These hate lash, the issue that I had with them came mostly from axles failing prematurely do to base circle, and lash. The closest I came to success with these was using a Schubeck RollerX lifter that has no axle, but those went away with Schubeck in 2007.
If the base circle is too small, these things run super loud, sounds like a diesel. They beat themselves to death.
Again, you will have to rework the case to realign the cam tunnel with the lifter bores. These are no where near perpendicular enough for a roller cam to live without cam walk in any T4 case I have seen yet. That includes brand new, NOS cases. Call a company named BHJ, for about 6k they will make some jigs to your design to facilitate this, but when it doesn't work, and you chop up what they made to make it right, you'll be mad enough to spit nails.
You must "nest" the lifter with this arrangement, else the first rotation of the cam, every lifter will turn 90 degrees and crash the cam. We even tried to change the cam lobe to retain the proper lifter orientation, but those oil samples had 12X more iron in them than the worst comparative sample, and visual wear was very clear.
Modern Porsche engines have nested tappets, to allow for variocam plus on the intake, and VVT on the exhaust. In these engines a dowel is employed to do the job of alignment, but the cam profile is kept very conservative. It's no where near the lift per crank degree that the mildest roller profile that you'll find (Fox body Mustang, stock profile).
Don't put too much stock in what the guy in those pics has done... It's clear that he hasn't been able to achieve a proper cylinder head to cylinder seal, which is the first essential to T4 performance. See that nasty head surface? Yep, he had a head leak.
Posted by: r_towle Oct 31 2015, 08:17 AM
I was more interested in the fact that there is no signed of any alignment, or rotational control on the lifters.
Not sure if I am explaining what I mean properly, but I noticed your setup holds the lifter in the bore so the lifter cannot rotate in any direction, while these look like there is nothing designed to do that, and yet the motor did survive and the camshaft did not look totally spent.
Agree on some of the other issues with the motor, not interested in those point....just what you find when you open up these motors...
The lifters, why would they twist and what force is making them twist in the bore, if that is what you are saying....
Posted by: HAM Inc Oct 31 2015, 09:32 AM
Those are .742 Harley lifters. The wheel diameter is so great that you must have a very large base circle camshaft. These hate lash, the issue that I had with them came mostly from axles failing prematurely do to base circle, and lash. The closest I came to success with these was using a Schubeck RollerX lifter that has no axle, but those went away with Schubeck in 2007.
If the base circle is too small, these things run super loud, sounds like a diesel. They beat themselves to death.
Again, you will have to rework the case to realign the cam tunnel with the lifter bores. These are no where near perpendicular enough for a roller cam to live without cam walk in any T4 case I have seen yet. That includes brand new, NOS cases. Call a company named BHJ, for about 6k they will make some jigs to your design to facilitate this, but when it doesn't work, and you chop up what they made to make it right, you'll be mad enough to spit nails.
You must "nest" the lifter with this arrangement, else the first rotation of the cam, every lifter will turn 90 degrees and crash the cam. We even tried to change the cam lobe to retain the proper lifter orientation, but those oil samples had 12X more iron in them than the worst comparative sample, and visual wear was very clear.
Modern Porsche engines have nested tappets, to allow for variocam plus on the intake, and VVT on the exhaust. In these engines a dowel is employed to do the job of alignment, but the cam profile is kept very conservative. It's no where near the lift per crank degree that the mildest roller profile that you'll find (Fox body Mustang, stock profile).
Don't put too much stock in what the guy in those pics has done... It's clear that he hasn't been able to achieve a proper cylinder head to cylinder seal, which is the first essential to T4 performance. See that nasty head surface? Yep, he had a head leak.
Holy head-leak Batman!
Those registers have been opened for big bore jugs, which I'd bet plenty of $$ were iron. Leaks in general, and that area in particular, are a classic symptom of big iron jugs, which just don't stay sealed long on T4 engines.
I have seen that soooo many times over the years I can spot it from across the room.
Posted by: Randal Oct 31 2015, 09:46 AM
.. and a vendor willing to sell & support them
I think only available in his fully built motors...so us "normal" folk will never have the chance to purchase them
Pauter sells them, but I have the feeling only all out race motors (and type 1 instead?)
Being that a new solid camshaft kit is $1000 from the TypeIV store, I would venture to say that the roller setup would be minimum 2X that price.
222 has them in the 2.4 liter motor. They work great and are still working great if you look at the GGR AutoX results.
Posted by: WLD419 Oct 31 2015, 12:34 PM
Maybe I'm not seeing something but those roller lifters don't have the oil groove around
the body (to allow the oil up thru the push rods to rockers) and they don't look like they
have any wear marks on the body dia. , maybe I'm wrong & this is not finished being
set up , plus they will need some form of locking the rotation .
Posted by: r_towle Oct 31 2015, 02:09 PM
Maybe I'm not seeing something but those roller lifters don't have the oil groove around
the body (to allow the oil up thru the push rods to rockers) and they don't look like they
have any wear marks on the body dia. , maybe I'm wrong & this is not finished being
set up
, plus they will need some form of locking the rotation .That is the part I don't believe is required, locking the rotation.
What force would make them twist if they are in constant contact with the camshaft.
If they are touching all the time they would be forced to stay square.
For oil, it's possible there is a hole in the middle, not sure, no other pics.
Posted by: scott_in_nh Oct 31 2015, 03:39 PM
Maybe I'm not seeing something but those roller lifters don't have the oil groove around
the body (to allow the oil up thru the push rods to rockers) and they don't look like they
have any wear marks on the body dia. , maybe I'm wrong & this is not finished being
set up
, plus they will need some form of locking the rotation .That is the part I don't believe is required, locking the rotation.
What force would make them twist if they are in constant contact with the camshaft.
If they are touching all the time they would be forced to stay square.
For oil, it's possible there is a hole in the middle, not sure, no other pics.
Rich my Buell has a sportster based motor with roller lifters/cams.
It uses pins to keep the lifters inline and one of them failed.
The lifter turned sideways, ground away on the cam and wheel and when it got hot enough to seize the lifter, the piston hit and bent the exhaust valve.
You would need caster to have them point the right way by themselves.
Posted by: Elliot Cannon Oct 31 2015, 04:03 PM
where do you (did you) get Ceramic lifters?
Mine were for sale on the "Samba" about 12 years ago. $500. (Thanks Clayton, wherever you are). I don't think they are available any longer. I figure I have $1000 worth of valve lifters in my engine.
Posted by: Dave_Darling Oct 31 2015, 07:02 PM
If they are touching all the time they would be forced to stay square.
Well, if there is valve lash, that can propagate all the way to the lifter, so there won't necessarily always be contact. And if there is any tendency at all for the lifter to turn at all, there doesn't seem to be a way that it will correct itself, so it will just get worse and worse until it gets to 90 degrees and turns into a lathe bit.
Remember that the stock lifters are designed specifically to rotate, in order to spread the wear out. I think there is a slight built-in taper to the cam lobes that helps with this, and the lifter bores are offset from the cam axis as well.
If you get the alignment perfect, and spec a cam with zero taper, you might be able to convince the lifter not to rotate. But unless you have a way to correct any rotation that may occur, eventually you're going to get one flipped 90 degrees and you'll be super unhappy.
--DD
Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 31 2015, 09:29 PM
The mechanical tendency of the lifter is to rotate as it travels up the opening ramp of the cam lobe. I found that this tendency occurs at roughly .175" lobe lift with most profiles. It's much easier for the lifter to try to turn, than for it to ascend up the ramp, the more lift it sees, the more valve spring load it sees, and the quicker the issue at hand becomes apparent.
None of the photos that you have seen are of my final lifter/ indexing design. In fact, it's a far departure from those designs, in every way. I abandoned that, and sold the lifters, and tooling on thesamba. The lifter is now indexed with two control surfaces, sharing noting in common with previous attempts.
If one believes that a roller lifter can self index, and maintain alignment with the cam lobe with no mechanical limitation, they haven't studied the fundamentals of roller lifter and cam evolution. The challenge that everyone has had stems from this same issue. Some use dowels, some use links between lifters, and others use tunneled bushings. All of these have caveats. If you just throw a roller lifter in the mix, and expect it to follow the cam lobe, you'll be disappointed before the engine is even assembled. The lifters will roll sideways and crash the lobes before you get all the valves adjusted on the bench.
Once you get the roller mechanicals figured out, then you'll need to pony up for custom springs, retainers, and valves, so you can net dramatically increased spring pressures that will allow for more lift, while handling the insane opening and closing speeds of the roller actuated lifter, and pushrod. Once you tackle that, then you'll learn that the pushrods that are readily available are deflecting under load, and costing you valve timing. You won't notice this at first, but maybe after 3 months of beating your head against the wall you'll remember this post.
If someone has head leaks that bad, less time needs to be spent on the crazy stuff, and more on the elementary level elements of T4 modification. There's a possibility that the engine had a tendency for head leaks due to the cam profile that was used, as it's easy to build too much dynamic CR and cylinder pressure with a roller arrangement. Been there.
The dynamics associated with utilizing a roller lifter impact the entire engine combo. Don't be one of those guys that says "I'll not worry about any of that, because I'll keep it mild". Guess what? You'll hit all the same issues as the engine I have running .700" valve lift.
The last set of ceramic lifters I sold went for 2k, I have one more set that I'd take that amount for, the other 10 sets I'll be selfish and keep for my own cars.
Posted by: rhodyguy Nov 1 2015, 08:33 AM
No mr 914werke, you have no idea what you're talking about, nor my assertions or their validity. The validity of my comments is well documented here, the old shoptalk forums and other sites as well. Events that occurred LONG before you became a member. I suggest you go back to posts starting in the spring of 2005 and sift thru them to find the information. Then you can avoid looking like an uniformed fool in the future. Pretty sure you've used 'analogy' in the wrong context too. Nice try but you've missed the mark. I will give you a 'pass' this time but not in the future. Rookie.....
Posted by: r_towle Nov 1 2015, 09:14 AM
The mechanical tendency of the lifter is to rotate as it travels up the opening ramp of the cam lobe. I found that this tendency occurs at roughly .175" lobe lift with most profiles. It's much easier for the lifter to try to turn, than for it to ascend up the ramp, the more lift it sees, the more valve spring load it sees, and the quicker the issue at hand becomes apparent.
None of the photos that you have seen are of my final lifter/ indexing design. In fact, it's a far departure from those designs, in every way. I abandoned that, and sold the lifters, and tooling on thesamba. The lifter is now indexed with two control surfaces, sharing noting in common with previous attempts.
If one believes that a roller lifter can self index, and maintain alignment with the cam lobe with no mechanical limitation, they haven't studied the fundamentals of roller lifter and cam evolution. The challenge that everyone has had stems from this same issue. Some use dowels, some use links between lifters, and others use tunneled bushings. All of these have caveats. If you just throw a roller lifter in the mix, and expect it to follow the cam lobe, you'll be disappointed before the engine is even assembled. The lifters will roll sideways and crash the lobes before you get all the valves adjusted on the bench.
Once you get the roller mechanicals figured out, then you'll need to pony up for custom springs, retainers, and valves, so you can net dramatically increased spring pressures that will allow for more lift, while handling the insane opening and closing speeds of the roller actuated lifter, and pushrod. Once you tackle that, then you'll learn that the pushrods that are readily available are deflecting under load, and costing you valve timing. You won't notice this at first, but maybe after 3 months of beating your head against the wall you'll remember this post.
If someone has head leaks that bad, less time needs to be spent on the crazy stuff, and more on the elementary level elements of T4 modification. There's a possibility that the engine had a tendency for head leaks due to the cam profile that was used, as it's easy to build too much dynamic CR and cylinder pressure with a roller arrangement. Been there.
The dynamics associated with utilizing a roller lifter impact the entire engine combo. Don't be one of those guys that says "I'll not worry about any of that, because I'll keep it mild". Guess what? You'll hit all the same issues as the engine I have running .700" valve lift.
The last set of ceramic lifters I sold went for 2k, I have one more set that I'd take that amount for, the other 10 sets I'll be selfish and keep for my own cars.
As always, you raise an interesting set of related factors.
I believe you when you say they turn.
I can't visualize it at the moment, but I will see it over the winter when I go to replace the camshaft....
Most likely won't go down this road unless I can achieve my goals.
After all is said and done, what is the benefit of going this way from a torque perspective?
Ideally, having better tolerances, and less adjustment maintenance would be my personal goal.
Posted by: DBCooper Nov 1 2015, 09:34 AM
After all is said and done, what is the benefit of going this way from a torque perspective?
Ideally, having better tolerances, and less adjustment maintenance would be my personal goal.
With a roller you can have steeper ramps on the lobes to open and close the valve faster. Means you can get the cam profile closer to what you want rather than what's possible. You've got an aircooled engine, though, so unless they're hydraulic lifters you're still going to be adjusting valves in the same intervals.
Posted by: Mark Henry Nov 1 2015, 10:08 AM
I have a set of ceramics sitting on the shelf 
And a set in my 1967 bug.
Posted by: Mueller Nov 1 2015, 10:44 AM
Maybe it's just me, but I want my next Type IV to have more than one cam to open the valves 
Posted by: r_towle Nov 1 2015, 11:21 AM
Maybe it's just me, but I want my next Type IV to have more than one cam to open the valves
Stop it, my head hurts.
Where are those pics of the guys that were working on that?
They even had a website for a while, then the project went quiet.
Rich
Posted by: stugray Nov 1 2015, 12:02 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I want my next Type IV to have more than one cam to open the valves
Stop it, my head hurts.
Where are those pics of the guys that were working on that?
They even had a website for a while, then the project went quiet.
Rich
It's called overhead cams.
If you had your own machine shop and money & time to burn, you could probably convert some 911 heads to fit on a type IV, then make some custom cams....
If you want to talk about radical modifications, then consider my idea where I use a 6 cyl boxer engine and use the two middle cylinders as a supercharger.
Put the largest avail. jugs on the middle two, and the smallest jugs avail on the outer 4, custom heads and bingo - internally supercharged 2.0L 4 cyl.
All it would take is an infinite amount of time & $$ :-)
Noodle on that for a bit
Sorry for the OT
Posted by: Mueller Nov 1 2015, 12:25 PM
Sorry...more OT...dual Ducati converted to single using other cylinder for a supercharger
http://thekneeslider.com/ducati-v-one-twin-to-supercharged-single-conversion/
Posted by: DBCooper Nov 1 2015, 12:58 PM
I don't understand why you wouldn't just add a super or turbocharger to the engine you have.
Bottom line on all those projects is that at the end of the day it's still gonna be air cooled, with all the limitations that are built into that. Means it ends up being a pretty small box to think inside of.
Posted by: r_towle Nov 1 2015, 04:41 PM
I don't understand why you wouldn't just add a super or turbocharger to the engine you have.
Bottom line on all those projects is that at the end of the day it's still gonna be air cooled, with all the limitations that are built into that. Means it ends up being a pretty small box to think inside of.
I think you are coming at this way to binary.
It's not an either or question.
I can have fun with both air cooled and water cooled....no need to limit the fun.
Having grown up rebuilding VW motors for years, it's fun to see if there is any more to find....Jake admitted that 200 was it, now he is at 300hp.
Supercharger, turbo, overhead camshafts, it can all be fun with both water cooled and aircooled.
For me, most of the fun the the project, it's cheaper than therapy.
Posted by: DBCooper Nov 1 2015, 04:56 PM
Sure, but it's a quest of diminishing returns, where to get Jake's horsepower will cost you $25,000. Worse, for you to get near that yourself, with all the dead ends that you'll inevitably have to negotiate, your cost will be a multiple many times that.
That's not cheap therapy in my neighborhood, Rich. I enjoy puzzles and building engines, but more when I was younger than now. For me now the best therapy is going for a fast drive through the mountains, then having a nice lunch up in the hills somewhere and not worrying too much about it. But obviously I understand, it's the quest and everyone does that differently.
Posted by: r_towle Nov 1 2015, 04:59 PM
So you get it, we each do things differently.
Some insist on water, others do both.
It's no big deal to test and talk about the possible ideas.
I was told once that Djet could not do anything more than 2.0 liters.
I figured out that statement was wrong, and it was a great learning experience in the process.
I would love to do the overhead cam heads, I recall they were based upon Subaru heads, then they decided to do new castings, then I lost track of the progress because there was no progress for a few years...
Rich
Posted by: DBCooper Nov 1 2015, 05:24 PM
Sure, I understand it, Rich. You mentioned me being "binary," but that's not how I see it, I prefer to see myself as "rational." But I've read Cervantes so I understand you, I do. 
Posted by: Jake Raby Nov 1 2015, 09:32 PM
To many the quest of taking something that many consider nothing, and making it into something thats very potent makes sense. They don't care how much it costs, how long it takes, because they'll have fun with it the whole time.
Its called "Hot Rodding" and the numbers of those who still appreciate it from a raw level are fewer and further between every year.
Look at the guys taking 36HP VW based engines to Bonneville, and setting Land Speed Records with them. Sure, they could put a Suby in that car and go a hell of a lot faster, and do it a hell of a lot cheaper, but thats something that anybody can do.
I work with modern Porsche engines everyday, I appreciate the opportunity to build something thats based from a near 50 year old design, that makes more HP per cylinder than the modern engine. Sure, its a pain in the ass to modify everything to make it work, and having to start from scratch, but thats why I started this company, in the first place.
Posted by: veekry9 Nov 1 2015, 10:48 PM
An answer to the question:What is your quest?
edit:I'm guessing,no needle rollers,a custom axle(for longevity).
The uniform gets them every time.
'The Sand Pebbles'
Posted by: DBCooper Nov 2 2015, 10:47 AM
Jake, you really don’t need to explain hot rodding to me. I grew up in Modesto the same time as George Lucas, so American Graffiti is the story of my high school years. I was even a shop-rat at Gene Winfield's before he went Hollywood. I was just different because I did VW’s and English sports cars while my friends did American cars.
I also think you misunderstand the term hot rodding. You said “they could put a Suby in that care and go a hell of a lot faster, but that’s something that anybody can do” and hot rodders “...don't care how much it costs...” but real hot rodders absolutely cared how much things cost, and cost was the entire reason for the do-it-yourself ethos. A big part of hot rodding was pulling those old flatheads and putting new OHV “Corvette” engines into old Fords. The reason? Hot rodders are the opposite of purists, the goal was to make a fast and cool ride as cheaply as possible. SBC in a Ford? Never an issue, the SBC was a better motor, stronger, it fit, and it was cheap, so it was strictly a cost-benefit decision. That’s what hot rodding was, flexible thinking, style and performance on the cheap, with no concern for what purists thought. And in that vein putting a different marque's engine into your car is pure and basic hot rodding, exactly the way it used to be done.
Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying, T4’s will always be the lifeblood of 914’s, and I'm fascinated as hell by the idea of roller lifters in an aircooled engine, but dismissing any modern alternative is, in my view, well.... just not hot rodding.
Posted by: rhodyguy Nov 2 2015, 10:54 AM
'Evolving'. Either that or parish.
Posted by: Jake Raby Nov 3 2015, 11:07 AM
This thread is wildly off topic. When anyone who wants to try this posts purely technical questions, or comments, I'll be willing to weigh in again.
Posted by: Mueller Nov 3 2015, 12:48 PM
This thread is wildly off topic. When anyone who wants to try this posts purely technical questions, or comments, I'll be willing to weigh in again.
Is the cam base circle increased or decreased with the roller cams? I would guess it depends on the rod clearance or did you pick one cam base circle and stick with it for all builds?
I stumbled upon some Mack truck roller lifters that use ceramic rollers, ever play with that style roller?
I almost want to buy one at $25 just to check it out!
Posted by: Jake Raby Nov 3 2015, 10:24 PM
This thread is wildly off topic. When anyone who wants to try this posts purely technical questions, or comments, I'll be willing to weigh in again.
Is the cam base circle increased or decreased with the roller cams? I would guess it depends on the rod clearance or did you pick one cam base circle and stick with it for all builds?
I stumbled upon some Mack truck roller lifters that use ceramic rollers, ever play with that style roller?
I almost want to buy one at $25 just to check it out!
Base circle is dependent upon the ramp speed that you intend to apply. The ramp speed, and the wheel diameter are critically related, as the roller can stall, or loft off the nose of the lobe.
Base circle is also dependent upon the way you have indexed the lifter.
The diesel rollers are a poor choice, because they are designed for low RPM, and slow ramp rates. Their axles can't take high speeds well, and the lifters themselves are very heavy, which adds more necessity for valve spring rate.
Posted by: ablesnead Nov 3 2015, 10:26 PM
I think Cervantes would agree that D B Cooper has a binary thought process , and therefore somewhat mad.....
Posted by: 76-914 Nov 4 2015, 09:18 AM
Jake, you really don’t need to explain hot rodding to me. I grew up in Modesto the same time as George Lucas, so American Graffiti is the story of my high school years. I was even a shop-rat at Gene Winfield's before he went Hollywood. I was just different because I did VW’s and English sports cars while my friends did American cars.
I also think you misunderstand the term hot rodding. You said “they could put a Suby in that care and go a hell of a lot faster, but that’s something that anybody can do” and hot rodders “...don't care how much it costs...” but real hot rodders absolutely cared how much things cost, and cost was the entire reason for the do-it-yourself ethos. A big part of hot rodding was pulling those old flatheads and putting new OHV “Corvette” engines into old Fords. The reason? Hot rodders are the opposite of purists, the goal was to make a fast and cool ride as cheaply as possible. SBC in a Ford? Never an issue, the SBC was a better motor, stronger, it fit, and it was cheap, so it was strictly a cost-benefit decision. That’s what hot rodding was, flexible thinking, style and performance on the cheap, with no concern for what purists thought. And in that vein putting a different marque's engine into your car is pure and basic hot rodding, exactly the way it used to be done.
Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying, T4’s will always be the lifeblood of 914’s, and I'm fascinated as hell by the idea of roller lifters in an aircooled engine, but dismissing any modern alternative is, in my view, well.... just not hot rodding.
Now that you mention it; In August my wife and I attended a small gathering of Hot Rodders. My buddy that invited us has a sweet '57 Chevy. Some damned nice cars there. A couple of Woody's, a Kaiser, etc. Out of respect for the American Muscle, we parked on the fringe. When we went back to our "Turd in the Punch Bowl" car, some of the other owners were around our car when I heard one say, "Now that is real Hot Rod". Turns out that I met their requirements; 40+ years old and non-stock. I encountered less resistance from the Hot Rod group than the Porsche group.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)