I would really like to know what you have for 914 in the way of a hi mpg, respectable performance package.

I figure the 914 should be able to kick out 40+ mpg and get a 0 - 60 time in under 7 seconds.

The new tdi jetta coming available in July will go 0 - 60 in 6.9 seconds and get 41 mpg in the city and 53 on the highway. However id does weigh 3300 pounds. I figure the 914 should be able to smoke that with the 1300 pound weight advantage.

I am really looking forward to seeing what you have come up with Jake.

trying not to hi jack the emissions thread but keep it on 914 world

BTW you said you need 10 or 12 additional people. I would be # 2 ... I would gladly buy a super efficient 914 engine as opposed to buying a tdi jetta.

As I said in the earlier thread, I am #1 in line... I can't wait to hear more

The high mpg engine is already in the pricelist. It's called the SUPER 2 liter
http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/Type4.html bottom of the page.
http://www.shoptalkforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=86957

I love the torque curve. Its like a little diesel.

Zach

my 40hp bettle has gotten 45mpg

Jake's in the business to sell engines. That said, I wouldn't hold my breath for lots of technical data shared... proprietary info and all, ya know?

The Super 2 Liter isn't cost effective to build... AND it is very difficult to assemble, so it could never be a candidate for an engine kit.

What I **could** develop would be based on a 1911cc foundation. This keeps the price down and simplicity to assemble way up.

The goal would be 45 MPG and it wouldn't be hard for us to attain stealing some technology from the Super 2 Liter's success.

We would use 1.7L HAM prepped heads and more than likely we wouldn't any exotic components in the recipe for the engine.I would not use our AMC "LE" head castings for these due to the intake ports characteristics lacking the critical velocity that we need for insane mixture quality needed for the drive-ability and MPG goals of the engine..

would you care to make wag on hp that that would make?

and would it be l-jet compatable?

Yes, L Jet compatible versions would hit the ceiling at 110HP, carbs about 120.

This is a realistiically economically feasible combo that could be easily assembled- remember, we aqre looking for a good mix of power/driveability/MPG/reliability/longevity with all being equally important, hence the conservative displacement.

That sounds like a REALLY nice combo!

Jake;

I have a 2.0L original engine now. How much will I have to trade out to use this? Not just a money issue, but I would really like to try to keep my 2.0L engine somewhat intact.

Do you think adding efi to the mix could bump an additional 2 or 3 mpg vs L Jet?

Eric, buy a 1.7 core motor.

is l-jet reasonably comparable to sds in regards to fuel economy?

Bummer

Eric,

I imagine you wouldn't have too much trouble trading your 2.0 for a 1.7. In fact, I might even be interested.

Hey Jake, don't you owe me a call?



pete

I don't wanna trade in my 2.0. I WANT IT ALL!!! I WANT A 2.0L ENGINE THAT GETS 75 MPH at 300HP! AND I WANT IT FOR $2,000.00.

Get busy engine builders!!!

Pete,
Yeah.. I'll ring you this evening..

Keep this realistic guys... If you have the money for programmable EFI- you also have the money to spend on a Super 2 Liter...

There are constraints we must work around on this one:
Prioritized
MPG
cost
reliability
longevity
performance

That means making an engine that needs no special support equipment! No 2K headers, no external oil coolers or DTM systems, cost effective ignition and induction.

Its a big picture and I'll tell you now that programmable FI would not be cost effective on this one, it would cost 3K to get 2 extra MPG. do the math.

The 1911 base engine would be easy for 2.0 guys to source a complete new core to build the engine from and the 1911cc parts are dirt cheap and VERY strong!!

I think the best way to proceed with the design of the project is a "you design it, I build it" approach... I'l start a thread on my forums where I'll give a list of goals and give a list of available components along with a list of objectives. We'll get everyone involved designing the engine online.
Then I'll build it, dyno it and optimize it.

But all that critical info can't be shared where I don't have all copyright control over it, unfortunately..

50 MPG minimum...you can do it...

Rich

Ok I could not resist I went ahead and did the math. If you figure it @ 3 mpg based on 4 dollar a gallon gas and my driving 26K miles a year it would take ~20 years to recoup the investment...

Then I figured well they are saying that gas is supposed to hit 5 bucks a gallon just this summer... At that rate getting just 3 mpg better recoups the investment in only 16 years...

If you give a constant linear growth to the price of gas it gets more interesting though since gas seems to have been going up roughly .39 per year over the last 6 years if it really hits 5 bucks this summer.

so the yearly savings @ just 3 mpg goes from 144 @ $4 ->180 @ $5 -> ~216 @ 6

I am not saying it is worth it ... Just that with a fairly typical bay area commute a 3 mpg difference is worth maybe 1K over a 3 year period.

Oh lets not forget the Iran factor if things heat up there and hello 10 dollar a gallon gas I guess I will have to throw in the towel and put in a cot at work

Yes, and already have... BUT getting the extra 8-10 MPG doubles the cost of the package and there is no way around it..

Like I said, keep the results attainable, simple and make it effective.

Jake, is it possible to start a thread on tuning for MPG??

If so, where would you like to start it, here or on your forum??

OK, I got a chart going with that math.

LOL me too.

i had to see the numbers and spent the last two hours playing with the kids and making a graph.

Base the difference on what you would spend with $5000 as the minimum.

What I am trying to point out is this.
for $5000 you can have a nice 2056 motor built for you.
So,
what would the price of the super 2.0 liter or whatever, in kit form be?
What is the difference?
Personally I would prefer the higher mpg and for me it would also be higher HP from stock...so I win both ways.

If you are already going to spend $5000, then you really need to do the math from that point forward.

Rich

The super 2 Liter does not come in a kit

Well,
I went over to Jakes forum...I looked around, nothing jumped out as the MPG thread or forum....

Anyone care to post a link??

Rich

Check post #3 for the urls to the forum topic and store

Please point to THIS THREAD....I could not find one with this topic...

Rich

Sorry, I thought you meant the ones above.

Jake,

I like the idea of the 1911cc engine. I have a 74' stupid beetle with the stock 1600 with solex single 40's, header, 3.88 RP and .084 4th etc. But bottom end is all stock. I just put on 185/65/15 tires that scaled in at 16lbs on 914 fuchs with front disc brake kit to reduce drag. The bug is getting about 35mpg average right now and I am betting I could get even better with a stronger 1911cc. I like these engines because you retain the short stroke. I put about 2200 miles a month on my bug.

Good idea on the 1911cc, I think if you put together a simple kit, people would buy it.

Dan

nope, I am waiting for Jake to reply to this.
He will eventually see this and start a thread.

Rich

The thread on super MPG was on my forum when it was hosted at www.shoptalkforums.com

The site is down right now, so I can't rab the link, but my entire old forum is there in archive form.


Its been a while since we had a chat on my community about MPG and its time we have one. I'll put some time into the big picture of the plan and post something next week that can be universally applied to all my TIV applications.

The 1911 is THE way to go... For once I am trying to do something that you guys can afford, and then you want to pay more!

This could be done for much less than 5K.

Hmm. I'm really interested to see where this goes. I think that a 120hp 1911 that gets good gas mileage would be amazing.

A we design -- you build engine sounds like a really interesting learning experience, for those on our end.

One kind of interesting note is that the right combination can sort of optimize fuel economy and performance.

I point to the bmw z3 because I was toying with the idea of picking up one of those since they are light weight (initial assumption) and get descent gas mileage.

When researching what is the best one I was actually shocked that the best MPG was not the 2.5 or the 2.8 it was the 3.0 made in 2001 that goes 0 - 60 in 5.6 seconds and can still pull off 28 mpg..

So I figued ok this must mean the 4 cyl z3 is going to be significantly better with its 2.0. I have to admit I was really shocked to find out it only did about 2 mpg better on the hwy and about the same in the city but yet the 4 cyl goes 0-60 in the mid 6 second range.

I know the fuel miser 1911 wont be a rocket but it would be pretty cool if it got 45 mpg and could still hit 60 in the 6ish second range.

I realize the performace and economy are 2 different objectives but again I point to the Z3 example as to the 'perfect balance' at least for that particular car. The Z3 is pretty heavy though weighing in at 2900 pounds and that 3.0 car started production in 2001.

low end torque and gearing make a quick car get good mpg.

and a really good engine managment system.

remember the c4 corvete pulling down 26-28 mpg highway

Larry,

That is why I drive an old, worn, 1.7 that does 0-60 in the 60ish second range...so anything I do will be a HUGE improvement!!!

Hmmmmmmmmm 76 912E, Super 2... Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

funny, I was thinking hmmmm 65 356 sc coupe....50mpg.....

Look good, and still be green.

Rich

I've got the 1911 and a pair of 36Dellorto carbs... What else do I need? Taller velocity stacks? Helium foot instead of a lead one?
or were the carbs a mistake?

No worries, I'll be cheap.

and you're going to post a link to your MPG thread, like you did with the 1.7/1.8 to 2.0 stuff?

I have to admit I am the typical spoiled american! my jeep is the slowest thing I own and its not a slug. Its 4.0 6 is enough to tow porsches and have tons of grunt to get out on the highway with.

but even a 1.7 stock 914 tired would do better than 60 seconds

FYI...

Theese figures come from a french magazine published in 1970.
Test was made with a factory new VW Porsche 914 1.7 with Michelin 155 tyres.
They mesured the fuel consumption at constant speed in fifth gear.
here are the figures

mph - / - mpg
37 - / - 44
43 - / - 44
50 - / - 43
56 - / - 40
62 - / - 37
68 - / - 34
75 - / - 31
81 - / - 28
87 - / - 25
93 - / - 22
99 - / - 19
104 - / - 16

Thin tyres did help...

They also mesured fuel consumption on a road trip at an average of 55 and mesured 21 mpg

Last test was a road trip at full throttle (no speed limit in France in 1970)
Average speed was 81 mph and fuel consumption was 17.6



...

ABSOLUTELY!!! Combustion effectiveness is everything!!

thats why I GUARANTEE that this 1911 combo built the way I plan will fool most people into believing it is much bigger and has both more TQ and HP than it really has!!!

Mixture quality dictates most everything.. Maximizing the charge is how we have picked up 40HP from the same displacement engine in less than 2 years. without a camshaft change.

The same goes for MPG. The key is putting the peak torque of the engine at the sweet spot for the speed you'll be driving and the gears/tires you are using.

Thats how I configured the Super 2 Liter.

Anybody know how well a Type IV will fit in a Type 3 Squareback? A 40 MPG Squareback would be killer.

seen two and it fits...finding 411 HE's is hard.

I would think, based upon all the stuff out there that a square motor would be possible. a square motor is the most efficient.

Use the largest crank, I think 84mm and use 84mm type one pistons.
Instead of welding the head, install a ring to bring the outer size of the register down in size....(I know its a bit more than that)

this is an 1862 motor, with the higher speed heads of the 1.7, a long stroke for torque and the square motor would be more efficient.

The pistons and cylinders for the type one are out there.

Rich

Hadn't thought about heat... good point.

I'd love to see BSFC graphs from Jake's dyno at various loads. We usually only get the WOT graph, seeing the graphs for 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 50% would be very educational for motor trying for high FE.

Remember, a street car engine typically spends 95% of its time at 15% throttle or less, and it only takes ~10 HP to keep a car moving at 70 MPH once it has gotten there.

--DD