CALLING ALL 2056 engine owner/builders, survey for past AND future 2056 builders Options

[orange914]

i am interested in the REAL world cost and issues incured by others who have built these motors. i recently finished one and so far am extreemly happy with how strong and smooth it runs. there where issues as with alot of things but after working thru them, all is well. my 2056 probably has a bit more done to it than most 2056 builds, that may account for the successful outcome BUT maybe not. from what i've seen this is a highly sucessful combination.

don't be shy and tell us what ALL was done and your detailed experiance with building/driving it. this could be a great help for past and present 2056 builds.

if there is interest i'll make another poll on presures and temp.'s

mike (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

EDIT MCMARK: Added "No Problems"

[Jake Raby]

Funny this popped back up.. I am assembling a 2056 tonight, its the 160K mile engine that I tore down in this article on my site. I built this in 2002 for my personal 912E
http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/index.p...&Itemid=112

I am going back together with it almost exactly the same way, except with a new set of RS+ heads because the 2 liter castings were toast (as they ALWAYS are). I am actually going down on camshaft from a 9530 to a 9550 to better match the desires I have for the engine.

I plan on posting the build up with all the used parts and a few new ones on my site.. The 160K mile KB pistons are even being reused! My goal is to only make the same power the engine made previously, around 130HP at the flywheel, I'd like to see 110 RWHP but at a lower RPM than previously, this is for my 30K+ mile per year daily driver that needs to average north of 35 MPG..

This post has been edited by Jake Raby: Aug 23 2010, 06:11 PM

[realred914]

Funny this popped back up.. I am assembling a 2056 tonight, its the 160K mile engine that I tore down in this article on my site. I built this in 2002 for my personal 912E
http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/index.p...&Itemid=112

I am going back together with it almost exactly the same way, except with a new set of RS+ heads because the 2 liter castings were toast (as they ALWAYS are). I am actually going down on camshaft from a 9530 to a 9550 to better match the desires I have for the engine.

I plan on posting the build up with all the used parts and a few new ones on my site.. The 160K mile KB pistons are even being reused! My goal is to only make the same power the engine made previously, around 130HP at the flywheel, I'd like to see 110 RWHP but at a lower RPM than previously, this is for my 30K+ mile per year daily driver that needs to average north of 35 MPG..

so I take it you really like the KB piston? Just wondering what advantages do you find over some of the others from a technical stand point? is the material or build qulaity, piston design (combustion chamber, pin hieght, etc...) that makes the KB your choice? I understand they are forged, which should be a good thing strength wise.

thanks for advice

[Jake Raby]

Funny this popped back up.. I am assembling a 2056 tonight, its the 160K mile engine that I tore down in this article on my site. I built this in 2002 for my personal 912E
http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/index.p...&Itemid=112

I am going back together with it almost exactly the same way, except with a new set of RS+ heads because the 2 liter castings were toast (as they ALWAYS are). I am actually going down on camshaft from a 9530 to a 9550 to better match the desires I have for the engine.

I plan on posting the build up with all the used parts and a few new ones on my site.. The 160K mile KB pistons are even being reused! My goal is to only make the same power the engine made previously, around 130HP at the flywheel, I'd like to see 110 RWHP but at a lower RPM than previously, this is for my 30K+ mile per year daily driver that needs to average north of 35 MPG..

so I take it you really like the KB piston? Just wondering what advantages do you find over some of the others from a technical stand point? is the material or build qulaity, piston design (combustion chamber, pin hieght, etc...) that makes the KB your choice? I understand they are forged, which should be a good thing strength wise.

thanks for advice

My pistons were in such good shape at 160K that I ended up reusing them for the new build. I simply blasted them with corn cob media and cleaned them up well. These were THE FIRST 96mm KB pistons that the company made, they were the prototypes! After all that time they measured out perfectly and had no scuffing or wear, you'll see pics in my "rebuild" thread over on my forums when I put it all together after the engine is on the dyno.

The KB pistons are light, super strong and their composition makes them perfect for a hotter running aircooled engine, due to that we can run much tighter skirt clearances than with a JE, Mahle or etc.

As noted above, the heads can really bite you in the butt. Mine had cracks in the exhaust ports. The options are to have them repaired ($400 to $800) and hope the repair is done right and will last, buy 1.8 liter heads from AA for $950 each or buy new from Jake Raby.

My heads were used up.. Len refused to do any work on them and I respected that. I just picked up my set of RS+ heads from him yesterday for the new engine. Head castings have a service life, people learn that when they TRY to reuse the castings again only to spend a ton of money and still have 30+ year old heads that are on their last leg. I can rebuild these new RS+ heads for the next 30 years as they are at the beginning of their service life.

The only new parts I used in this engine was:
camshaft (changed the profile)
piston rings
cylinder head assemblies
main, rod and cam bearings
rods (swapped out a set to save time)

It'll go another 150K+, the crank has 260K on it now and still mic'd out to 2.1682 which is better than stock sizing with only a .0002 ovality between all 4 journals!

Wait till you see the transformation I have given this baby with minimum expenditure. I have all new stuff 20 feet away, but I'd rather prove how robust the parts are for another 150K!

[Don M]

the crank has 260K on it now and still mic'd out to 2.1682 which is better than stock sizing with only a .0002 ovality between all 4 journals!

is this right? seems to be o/s +.003

[Jake Raby]

the crank has 260K on it now and still mic'd out to 2.1682 which is better than stock sizing with only a .0002 ovality between all 4 journals!

is this right? seems to be o/s +.003

The variance in the stock crank sizes is more than .0045
This crank is one of the largest I have ever seen, especially with 260K miles on it. The numbers are correct.

One of the links I posted was to my store site and the piston page.. The prices are there.

what is the new 2270 motor you now recommend over the 2056?

Its not a general recommendation.. The 2056 is the largest that can safe;ly be supported by stock EFI. A 2270 is 78.4X96 so thats both bore and stroke. While the 2270 is my favorite engine in general and we do more with it than any other engine, in many instances it isn't the optimum combo, especially when stock EFI must be retained.

I kept my engine a 2056 for a reason, because it was everything I wanted for my touring car/ full time driver to include 35+ MPG and reliability that most people simply don't believe the TIV can provide.

what is the cost for the pistons/cylinder set for the 2270 motor and can the 2270 be run with the 914 D-jet?

They are in the link I provided as well.The 2270 should not be utilized with stock EFI, the results are very mixed and no guarantees of effectiveness can be made.

Do lots more reading here, on the STF and on my forums, there are thousands of posts about the 2270.

This post has been edited by Jake Raby: Aug 26 2010, 08:58 AM

[Don M]

The variance in the stock crank sizes is more than .0045
This crank is one of the largest I have ever seen, especially with 260K miles on it. The numbers are correct.

seriously this is shocking, what your'e saying is that the OEM would supply a series of oversize bearings to accomodate this kind of screw up rather than correct the error. in 40 + years and 1000s of VW/Porsche cranks I've never seen or heard of this, got any part numbers or OEM tech info to support this?

[Don M]

The variance in the stock crank sizes is more than .0045
This crank is one of the largest I have ever seen, especially with 260K miles on it. The numbers are correct.

seriously this is shocking, what your'e saying is that the OEM would supply a series of oversize bearings to accomodate this kind of screw up rather than correct the error. in 40 + years and 1000s of VW/Porsche cranks I've never seen or heard of this, got any part numbers or OEM tech info to support this?

Jake, you say you are going rebuild so you must have some idea of a part number for the rod bearings to establish the correct clearance or perhaps whatever other method you use to set it up.

[Jake Raby]

The variance in the stock crank sizes is more than .0045
This crank is one of the largest I have ever seen, especially with 260K miles on it. The numbers are correct.

seriously this is shocking, what your'e saying is that the OEM would supply a series of oversize bearings to accomodate this kind of screw up rather than correct the error. in 40 + years and 1000s of VW/Porsche cranks I've never seen or heard of this, got any part numbers or OEM tech info to support this?

Jake, you say you are going rebuild so you must have some idea of a part number for the rod bearings to establish the correct clearance or perhaps whatever other method you use to set it up.

A part number for a set of bearings isn't going to answer the question of actual running clearance. Running clearance MUST BE MEASURED with the components that you intend to install and these include the journal diameter of the crank as well as the rod bearing installed into the big end of the rod and torqued to spec. At this point a dial bore gauge is set up and standardized from the crankshaft rod journal and the running clearance is then possible to calculate.

If the sizing of the big end of the rod, the thickness of the bearing and the diameter of the crank journal changes the actual running clearance will be impacted. See the Bentley manual for the allowable running clearance, ovality and journal diameters, its all there.

Now, the engines may have been used for 40 years but variances in bearing manufacture, machined sizes of refinished parts and etc will always result in a need to measure running clearances for well built engines.

In engine building you assume nothing and quantify everything, thats the first rule.

The rod bearings I used for my build were my "2.0 Race Bearings".
http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/store/p...=262&page=1
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads_offsite/www.aircooledtechnology.com-1095-1283263055.1.jpg)

I ended up with .0021 bearing clearance at maximum and .0019 minimum. These bearings are coated which alters my target running clearance..

I have the crank assembled for my engine and only await the time to set the rest of the clearances before sealing up the short block..

[Don M]

A part number for a set of bearings isn't going to answer the question of actual running clearance. Running clearance MUST BE MEASURED with the components that you intend to install and these include the journal diameter of the crank as well as the rod bearing installed into the big end of the rod and torqued to spec. At this point a dial bore gauge is set up and standardized from the crankshaft rod journal and the running clearance is then possible to calculate.

If the sizing of the big end of the rod, the thickness of the bearing and the diameter of the crank journal changes the actual running clearance will be impacted. See the Bentley manual for the allowable running clearance, ovality and journal diameters, its all there.

Now, the engines may have been used for 40 years but variances in bearing manufacture, machined sizes of refinished parts and etc will always result in a need to measure running clearances for well built engines.

In engine building you assume nothing and quantify everything, thats the first rule.

The rod bearings I used for my build were my "2.0 Race Bearings".
http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/store/p...=262&page=1
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads_offsite/www.aircooledtechnology.com-1095-1283263055.1.jpg)

I ended up with .0021 bearing clearance at maximum and .0019 minimum. These bearings are coated which alters my target running clearance..

I have the crank assembled for my engine and only await the time to set the rest of the clearances before sealing up the short block..

Jake,
I have a complete understanding of how and what it takes to achieve a given clearance however working with an oversize crank presents a unique problem, where as an under size journal can be accommodated by an under size bearing (if available), some form of durable coating or perhaps resizing the big end of the rod to a smaller spec than called for by the Bentley, Clevite, ACL, Federal Mogal or what ever manual you choose, applying the reverse of these methods is not an option to compensate for a plus .003/004" rod journal which would lead me to believe the factory would have necessarily had to provide a corresponding bearing to complete a usable engine package. can't see what plating/coating a std bearing is going to do to solve this situation