Those of you running a 2276 egine, have you had to modify your engine tins in any way to accomodate the increased width of the engine?

No, your engine will be a 1/4" wider at the most, the tin will still fit.

If the engine is configured correctly with internal components, then the engine width should not change, or will change very little. The engine tins will accommodate around .160" of cylinder spacing per bank before the tins will no longer fit easily. This is usually what an off the shelf stroker piston (1.112" pin height) with a 5.400" rod and a 78.4mm stroke will give as a generic combo.

When I build a 2270 these days, the engine is exactly the same width as stock. The difference in stroke is accommodated by the correct rod length, coupled to the correct wrist pin height location of the piston.

I didn't need to on mine.

Ummmm, measured between the head mating surfaces my motor is 14-15 mm's wider than the old 2.0....


Edit:
I just pulled up the spec sheet the engine builder sent before he started the build and the engine has a 78mm DPr crank with 5,6" rods and KB pistons "for stroker motor". No mentioning of the wrist pin height.

This build has just been one fuckup after the other

My motor is wider by about 1/4 in. I built in the the stone age and didn't know about ordering pistons with pin height change.

Just looking at the math, go to a 5.4 rod and probably smaller spacers.

Carlos

At this stage doing anything means shipping the engine back to the builder in Denmark, and then it'll be another month before I get it back and that means I wont get the car tuned and roadlegal this year and I'll have to wait till someting like April-May next year to drive it.

Once the frost nights has started in october-november and the salttrucks come out I dont let the 914 out of the garage even on a trailer.

Well, I hope it was built with CrMo pushrods, because you won't be fitting any tools on your head to adjust the valves. With CrMo you can set to zero, pretty much do it by Braille.

Yes it was built with Cro-Mo pushrods so the valve gap should be set to zero according to the builder.

Right now I'm a bit torn wether to go ahead and reinstall the engine or send it back..... been waiting for it since mid may.

The tins seem to fit ok'ish except for the long front and rear piece where I will have to elongate the mounting holes. The smaller pieces that goes around the cylinders does leave a gap towards the base of the cylinder.... I'll try to get some pictures up once I get home from work today.

Getting the exhaust to fit will be a whole other ordeal I'm guessing...
Not to keen on modifying my brand new Scart muffler.....

That .2 inch added 10.16mm to your width that wasn't needed.
If the builder had of used the 5.4" rod it would have been only about 5mm wider.

Not just the rods it would also need new cylinder spacers.
Did he use custom pushrod tubes? The stock tubes are a bit short for that width.

I might awell tell the tale from the beginning.

I had a dyno appointment in may for my stock 2.0 with aftermarket injection.
Something went crap and it spewed oil from the #3-4 valve cover.

I had already planned for eventually building a bigger engine and as I had the funds I contacted a well reputed engine builder to discuss it. Discussions went well and after paying the deposit he sent me the spec sheet. I didnt see anything alarming so I went ahead and shipped him my spare 1.7 914 engine block+heads and a set of 94 mm cylinders. This was late May-early June.
The engine was done early august but the clutch hadnt arrived from the US yet so I didnt get the engine untill monday this week.

He sent me a video from the breaking in of the cam and then also asked how to solve the oil fillter since he had used a buss? block for my engine to save time....

I was a bit miffed but I didnt want to wait anymore so I said I could fill oil thru the crank breather hole and he blocked off the buss oil filler port. He also said the engine was a bit wider so I had to trim the engine tins a bit to fit, I didnt reflect much on it since I had read every single 2276 thread on this forum and the shoptalkforums and hadnt read of ayone having issues with a wider engine. He also mentioned that the push rod tubes barely sealed but that engine wasnt leaking. He offered to upgrade the tubes for an additional fee but i declined that figuring I could fix that myself at a later time. Anyway, getting the engine back I realise there is no way in hell I can make the new Scart banana muffler fit the engine with it being 15 mm wider than stock.....

So now I have a +$10k engine that my engine tins for poorly too and my exhaust wont fit at all too. I'm hating the situation but I really dont see any way out other than send it back to the builder and ask him to fix the issues.

Click to view attachment

The engine...

Click to view attachment

Cylinder spacers...

That sucks, in my opinion you need to send it back.

Wow a vanagon case?
I won't use them #1 reason because they are usually beat, the type 4 Vanagon was a dog because the vanagon is to big and heavy for the T4 motor. Every engine I've seen has failed/blown due to overheating.
So IMHO your foundation for the motor, the engine block, is overheated shit.

Using shims that big is just crazy.

Does your builder do a lot of 914 work?

Send it back, hopefully he will do right by you.

I pm'ed him last night but just alluded to the fact that I thought the shop gave him a BS reason to not use his 1.7 case.

Mark you are much more direct than me.

It sounds like he did not complete what you agreed to and created a bigger mess for you to fix. Why would you send him the 914 1.7 case and expect a bus case in return with you figuring out how to fillter oil and get pushrods tubes to seal? It makes me question what he threw together on the inside that you may not be seeing. I'd send it back. Sorry dude.

Thanks guys for sharing your knowledge with me. I will contact the builder and tell him I want these things rectified. Any chance of driving the car this season has already passed so it might awell be made right.

Mats,

The more I think about the situation your in the worse it gets. What a complete fuck up you must be gutted. Having seen your car up close I can say that its a nice build and you've been but fucked at the last hurdle (please excuse my French).
Why was using the bus case going to save time did you get an explanation?

I am assuming this is getbackontrack....

Mats,

Bring it back.

I emailed the builder today about how I feel about it and I'm waiting for a response.

Wow...
Now, with that much spacer you have to consider how much the piston is being protruded out the bottom of the cylinder at BDC.

I don't use a spacer that thick to build a 3 liter engine. With that much spacer not much of anything will want to bolt up, and the pushrod tubes will generally be too short to seal, unless he lengthened them.


All builders are different, there's hundreds of "right ways" to build an engine, so whatever he's done (long rods, tall pin pistons and etc) may work for him, but you'll have to live with these caveats.

If you were only waiting since May, he must not be very busy.

That plain sucks.

I'd be pissed he didn't use the case given to him with no warning or explination to you. Besides that, it looks like a below par build. Sorry.

So the engine thats built has 5,6" rods and a 78 mm crank. That gives a rod ratio of 1.8235. Using a 5,4" rod would give a rod ratio of 1,7584. How much of a difference are there between those two ratios?

"It is not possible to stroke the engine without it being wider, then rod ratio goes to "hell", we have used stroker pistons with raised pinheight wich compromises the engines width, but standard widt is not possible. I must admit I thought you new about that. The other engines you refer to must have been big bore engines with standard stroke or only slightly larger stroke, then standard width is possible to obtain."

This is a direct quote from the builder in the reply to the email I sent him. I've spent an hour searching and reading here today and it seems a 5,4" rod would do just fine?

Would it be as easy as switching to 5,4" rods and that would be it or would that affect the compression ratio and cause other added work aswell?

I'm still formulating my reply to his reply and will basically say that I want the 5,4" rods and the proper case on my engine, or a full refund of my parts and payment.

Anyone have any opinion on rod ratios?

Long rods reduce piston scuffing, short rods increase piston scuffing.

Short rods get the heads flowing, good from a performance standpoint.

Using 5.4" rods with your 78 crank is a better match than using the 5.6 rods, my op.

IMHO Rod ratio is really a second order design decision for an engine. I would prioritize deck height over rod ratio since you do have a physical constrain in terms of engine width and deck stiffness. The difference in those rod lengths only amounts to 4% which is nothing; it's not like you're changing from a 1.5 to 2.5.

If I'm remembering correctly, there were some well known engine builders maybe 20 years ago (before my time so I've only read about it) who insisted a 1.9 rod ratio was optimal-they since have changed their minds. Based on his comments, your builder sounds like he might be a little bit old school?

The longest rod I have found optimum for a 78 stroke with a normal rev range, up to 7,500 is a 5.4". Its puts you dead on the Ricardo Rule value, and has proven to be great for wear, and mechanical noises, too.

Rod length does not effect compression ration, it only effects rod angle, and piston speed, along with having less of a necessity for extra thick cylinder shims. These rods are single handedly adding .200" of cylinder spacer (roughly 5mm) under the cylinders.

The longest rod I have ever found optimum with a T4 engine is 5.5", and I don't use that until I reach a stroke of 84mm, to help combat steep rod angles.

Mega long rods just move the power band way up, usually to a point where the heads and cams are no longer efficient. When this happens, the engine is best described as "misconfigured".

What rods were specified in the builder's proposal to you at the onset? Did you ever question why the 5.6" rod was chosen before things got started? What has been his reasoning for using such a long rod?

Like I said before, the design of an engine is a personal preference and differences between builders drive these decisions. Thats what gives an engine it's character. Like all people, some have more character than others.

The builder proposed 5,6" rods and I didnt question that as I assumed the stock width of the engine would be kept. (I'm realizing now that maybe I should have questioned that but on the other hand the builder didnt state anything about the engine becoming 15mm wider in his spec sheet so I had no reason to suspect that it would be an issue)

He hasnt given a reason for it at all except for the above quote about the rod ratios "going to hell" and no reason at all why he used the buss case instead of my 914 1.7 case that I sent him.

At the moment I'm just feeling...

Matt, too bad this happened !
A big issue to start with is that your 914 case was not used 'to save time', but a buss case was used. That is definitely something that had to be approved by you and a weird action of the builder to think this was going to be OK. And then just move/close the oilfill position to sort out the next issue etc
If that was all....maybe it was somewhat acceptable, but since more is wrong or different, I would get in contact with the builder to discuss the options from here and not accept it like this. I know these are the hard talks and not the most fun ones, but I am afraid yo will have to do it. Good luck !
Your car is too nice to put this in now......

on this point, if you were rushing him to get your engine done then you may be in part to blame.
That said the builder should have known better than to use a Vanagon case, and should have refused to do it.

The rod excuse is a poor one, plus the fact the 914 engine bay is narrow due to the suspension ears. Doing a valve adjustment on a stock engine is already a PITA, on that engine you will be lucky if you can even get the valve covers off.

The engine in my 1967 bug is a T4, 102mm X 78mm (5.4" rod), the spacers were around .100", I have 20K miles on it now with no issues.

(EDIT: checked my build notes my spacers were .080")

The 1.7 case is the best that was cast. I prefer them over anything, and everything. When I build a 3.0 engine, they are all that I will use.

Sounds like he just works from an exchange basis, so you got the case that as prepped and yours went into rotation.

Thank you for all your advice and comments.

The builder has agreed to let me return the engine and he will rebuild it with my 1.7 case and 5.4" rods.

Hats off to the builder for doing the right thing.
Glad to hear it got worked out.
Cheers.

Impressive. These situations don't turn out that way very often.

Glad it worked out for you

Glad to hear that the builder is making this right!

Hey Matts, good to hear. too bad you will not be able to finalize it before your winter starts, but it is better this way. Great the builder accepted to take it back. Lucky for you he did not already recirculate your case to the next customer !
I hope it was not a too nasty discussion with him....