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

[realred914]

first I did not see the pistons offered for sale on Rabys website, but it is a big website, can yo post a link to the piston page????? I could not find them. I need to get my pistons pretty soon as the engien is awaiting, all part and ready to get together. pending parts.

http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/store/home.php?cat=273

also are teh KB psitons cast or forged, i was told the 96 mm they make are only cast and not up to snuff compaired to the forged ones such as JE pistons. maybe I am mistaken???

Who were they and how many thousand sets have they had pass through their doors??

These KBs have 160K miles on them. I measured them and inspected them and just dropped the crank back into my personal engine that they came from.. I will be REUSING these same 160K mile pistons with just new rings as they spec out perfectly.

JE pistons and many other forged units have negative aspects on the street, to include oil consumption and rattling when cold, these do not.
http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/index.p...&Itemid=112

I see AA cylinders were used by you, i know a guy who has found AA cylinders to be a bit softer metal when he bores them verse stock cylinders. I have a place that can bore my stock ones to 96 mm, would that be a better choice of cylinder material verse an AA one?

We don't use them off the shelf in our engines. Boring the stock cylinders isn't easy if done right as it requires a torque plate to hone the cylinder under load. It also requires that you know the target roughness average (RA) that the rings you are using and the plateau finish specs.

I am looking to get a nice daily driver with D-jet with a bit of performance boost, fully balanced smooth motor for long life and decent economy on gas.

Exactly what my engine linked above did for 160K miles, exactly what it will be doing for another 160K miles once I complete the work I am doing to it now. Keep in mind that engine saw zero repair in 8 years and 160K and went over 6 years with no valve adjustment necessary, just checks. It went as much as 23,000 miles on a single oil service.

just have to select the best parts for it now.

thanks in advance!!!!!!!!!!

Not a problem at all.

jake: Went to the link you posted, same as the other guys link it takes me to the engine tear down screen, the menu on the left does not have pristons, (I see heads and engine kits) I looked up the 914 menu, found a 2056 menu on that page, and ont eh 2056 page, your websites says the 2056 has been discontinued and you recommend the 2270cc motor for 914 now.



so a couple more qestions;

Do you sell the 96 mm pistons and if so what cost?


what is the new 2270 motor you now recommend over the 2056? is this a big bore and stroked or just a big bore? what is the cost for the pistons/cylinder set for the 2270 motor and can the 2270 be run with the 914 D-jet?

thanks
in advance

[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?

[realred914]

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.

jake: I still cannot fine the page on your website with the piston pricing, would you please post a direct link rather than the link to the engine tear down page. i just cant find it on the massive site. or could you post the price here???

thanks

[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

[Jake Raby]

Nope, no O/S or U/S bearings were used or available.. The variances simply resulted in more or less running clearance because the tolerances are so open... Check out Bentley..

The stock engine is a fairly grossly toleranced unit, look at the tolerance for balance between a set of pistons, or a set of rods.. Its absurd, the same goes with tolerances for runing clearances.

Thats why the engines wake up and run so much better when properly blueprinted and assembled, hell when Blake made 130+HP from a bone stock 2.0 engine and people wonder why, this is exactly why... Control of critical tolerances.

can't see what plating/coating a std bearing is going to do to solve this situation

You missed the point.. We coat bearings for a totally different purpose, to assist with oil retention between the bearing and the journal, not to hone clearances. When this is done the bearing coating takes up some of the clearance, generally .0005" so that has to be considered during the journal sizing.

My numbers just happen to have come out exactly where I wanted them with my very large crank diameters for the weight of oil that I intend to run and RPM that the engine will be used for.

If I ever need to set a clearance to a specific number and the components I have don't add up to that size, we then have to go a full .010 under size, then measure that bearing installed into the big end of the rod and have the crank cut to that specific diameter.. Usually doing this requires the micrometer that was used to set the bore gauge with the crank so that specific tool can be used to measure the journal diameter for absolute accuracy.

Its a bitch.

This post has been edited by Jake Raby: Aug 31 2010, 07:14 PM

[Don M]

Nope, no O/S or U/S bearings were used or available.. The variances simply resulted in more or less running clearance because the tolerances are so open... Check out Bentley.

Jake,
Bentley is of no value in this situation.. wear limits do not apply here unless you plan to exceed recommended housing bore sizes (very bad idea) or run used/worn bearings...all booked bearing specs, using max rod bore and min shell thickness show an interference fit on a 2.1682" journal dia. and that's without allowing for proper crush on the inserts. if you don't mind sharing... what size did you finish the big end of the rods to?

[realred914]

still tyring to get the answer Jake: are you using yoru own mix of oil now rather than the bradPenn, if so, what is the difference you see? or is the snake oil not real? cant tell if it is a joke or what?

[Jake Raby]

Nope, no O/S or U/S bearings were used or available.. The variances simply resulted in more or less running clearance because the tolerances are so open... Check out Bentley.

Jake,
Bentley is of no value in this situation.. wear limits do not apply here unless you plan to exceed recommended housing bore sizes (very bad idea) or run used/worn bearings...all booked bearing specs, using max rod bore and min shell thickness show an interference fit on a 2.1682" journal dia. and that's without allowing for proper crush on the inserts. if you don't mind sharing... what size did you finish the big end of the rods to?

I finished the big end of the rods to the size necessary to attain the running clearance I was looking for with the bearings that were being used. In this situation it was at split low tolerance by the book.

still tyring to get the answer Jake: are you using yoru own mix of oil now rather than the bradPenn, if so, what is the difference you see? or is the snake oil not real? cant tell if it is a joke or what?

I have answered this question 3 times in this thread already.

We are using our own lubricant now and have been for a good while. The Brad Penn remains the only authorized oil other than our own for our engines.

Unless Brad Penn changes it will remain an authorized oil for my engines and kits. Until last week we still had some of our fleet of cars running Brad Penn, now all my cars and my employees cars are running our oil.

The oil IS NOT A JOKE. The break in oil is pour most developed product as of now, it will be the first oil that we begin to market to the public, at a time yet TBD.

[Bleyseng]

Ahh, its just some fancy Snake Oil......

[Jake Raby]

Ahh, its just some fancy Snake Oil......

Exactly!!! Thats the whole reason for the name, its too outrageous!

[realred914]

Nope, no O/S or U/S bearings were used or available.. The variances simply resulted in more or less running clearance because the tolerances are so open... Check out Bentley.

Jake,
Bentley is of no value in this situation.. wear limits do not apply here unless you plan to exceed recommended housing bore sizes (very bad idea) or run used/worn bearings...all booked bearing specs, using max rod bore and min shell thickness show an interference fit on a 2.1682" journal dia. and that's without allowing for proper crush on the inserts. if you don't mind sharing... what size did you finish the big end of the rods to?

I finished the big end of the rods to the size necessary to attain the running clearance I was looking for with the bearings that were being used. In this situation it was at split low tolerance by the book.

still tyring to get the answer Jake: are you using yoru own mix of oil now rather than the bradPenn, if so, what is the difference you see? or is the snake oil not real? cant tell if it is a joke or what?

I have answered this question 3 times in this thread already.

We are using our own lubricant now and have been for a good while. The Brad Penn remains the only authorized oil other than our own for our engines.

Unless Brad Penn changes it will remain an authorized oil for my engines and kits. Until last week we still had some of our fleet of cars running Brad Penn, now all my cars and my employees cars are running our oil.

The oil IS NOT A JOKE. The break in oil is pour most developed product as of now, it will be the first oil that we begin to market to the public, at a time yet TBD.

ok that clears it up, thanks, the labling and all made it appear to me to be a joke, sure is funny. thnaks!

[Bleyseng]

I thought it was quite funny when I first saw it.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)

[pete-stevers]

Geoff...when are you guys coming back for a visit??

[Don M]

I finished the big end of the rods to the size necessary to attain the running clearance I was looking for with the bearings that were being used. In this situation it was at split low tolerance by the book.

not the move I would have made, rather than compromise the bearing crush I would have opted to grind the crank to correct size.... but then it really wasn't my decision to make.

[Aircooledfool]

My 2056 was expensive because I bought an engine from "shit head" Stomburg. Jake and Ron Grider bailed me out. I bought new heads, and a cam from Jake and Ron assembled the engine. I am running Jenvey throttle bodies and an Emerald M3d ECU.

The turning parts were balanced, the cylinders were re-machined, the rods were rebuilt. Getting all the right engine parts was a big and expensive part of the rebuild. The other part that was a big problem was programming the ECU.

Now that all that is behind me the engine is great. I had it dynoed and dialed-in. the printouts indicated an output of about 150 to 160HP and 175 ft.lb. of torque. The car is kick to drive after all is said and done it was great learning experience and fun to do.

Bill

Would you share pictures and details of your FI setup?

Thanks-