1600 TP Verses 2.0 ltr T4 engine

[roymck]

How does the performance and torque compare between 1600 TP and a 2.0 T4 engine fitted to a late crossover bay. It's a late crossover I am looking at with a six rib box . How much better is the performance?.

Thanks Roy

 

[roymck]

Anybody got details from a sales brochure ?

 

[speedwell68]

The answer is a lot better. With the correct box and everthing working properly they are like a different van. I have had two 2 litre T25s and they were awesome. My mate had a '72 westy more or less the same as my '68. I had a 1641 with twin Dellorto 34s and he had a 2 litre type 4 with Dellorto 36s and it was like driving a race car in comparison. So much more power/torque. Generally smoother and you could drive at 70 all day without constantly pushing.

 

[Clem]

The 2 litre Type 4 lump is 70 bhp, so thats compared to 48 bhp from the 1600 engine, so yes, a pretty impressive difference.

My mate had one whilst I had my standard 1600, and he could drop me at the drop of a hat, and on any hill. Different beasts.

One thing to consider though - much greater fuel consumption and parts that are upto 4x the price. Lots of tinware is very scarce now as well.

 

[roymck]

Thanks for the info lads , fuel economy is never good on a T2 , is it that much worse on a 2 litre. If I took a 1600tp out to 2100 could I assume fuel economy would be about the same

 

[Davydomes]

Have you considered a 1776 with Twin Carbs? No tinware issues to worry about.

 

[sparkywig]

Thanks for the info lads , fuel economy is never good on a T2 , is it that much worse on a 2 litre. If I took a 1600tp out to 2100 could I assume fuel economy would be about the same

I'm running a 2054 with a C-35 cam, stock valve heads and IDF 40s. I can get about 35mpg on a roadtrip as I'm sitting on the idle circuit at 60-65.
But if I fancy going a bit faster I can watch the gauge drop and get about 15mpg.

 

[nobbly]

I had this dilemma with my crossover.

Choices were:

• Nice type 1 build, circa 2 litre capacity = £££££
  Type 4 2.0 = ££££
  Subaru = £££££££

Each day I would wake up thinking a different option was best. In the end I went for a 2.0 type 4 + six rib, purely because one came up that was a steal and already had some almost new Dell's on. I don't regret it at all, pulls well, high 20's average mpg and (above all for me) looks/sounds like its meant to be in there! Cumbria to Stanford Hall last Saturday (running late...) 70 all the way with the roof tent on and a mighty headwind, still did 22.5mpg. It would be really nice with a 5-speed box :msn4:

I have to say I was lucky that I got a solid motor at a good price, likewise the gearbox was bought as an unknown quantity, but turned out to be a good one. Tinware doesnt seem to be a problem (try 'the gatekeeper' on here), but heat exchangers can be. I got some tatty OG ones and fixed them up but it was an awful job.

Good luck with your dilemma!

Nobbly

 

[ozziedog]

This is where I'm at right now. Just picked up a two litre type four as a good runner allegedly, also got a six rib box, also a good runner allegedly, zoorst and heat exchangers are toast :roll: which is maybe why it was for sale. Original exchangers are great but non existent and full of lovely asbestos if you want to repair them :? . Modern ones aren't as good but no asbestos but still six or seven hundred sqiddly diddlies plus a zoorst. Plus a few alterations to tin ware and box and engine supports and a few other bits and bobs. I've shoved it under the bench for now and maybe play with it in the winter or might even sell it on :lol:

Ozziedog,,,,,,,,,, what to do :lol: :lol:

 

[Tofufi]

This is something I've kept going back to.

At present, I've got a stock 1600 except for a stainless Beetle (stock style) exhaust and twin Dellorto DRLA carbs - possibly 55-60bhp.

I found that this, combined with a 5-speed gearbox conversion, gives enough power to be comfortable cruising at 65 all day, including up and down motorway hills. It probably helps that I have a tintop van with lightweight interior.

Previously I was only happy cruising at 55mph - the drop in revs with the gearbox makes the van quieter.

I'd also say that you probably don't want to be doing much more than 70mph in a bay window with stock-ish handling and brakes... they're not really built for speed.

My long term aim is to build a stroker motor similar in capacity and ethos to Sparkwig's 2054cc. But I've been saying that at least 5 years...

 

[K@rlos]

I'd rather spend a bit more and get a hotter type 1. As for fuel consumption... my 2110 with an fk8 cam, twin 48's and 40x35.5 valves in street eliminator style heads bolted to a built high ratio box would do about 28-30 on a run sitting at 60ish and made 165hp. I'm upgrading it to an fk10 and ultramag 42x37 heads and will hopefully keep the fuel consumption the same but make 180hp or there abouts. Same as sparky though, if I rinse it the gauges goes down very quickly lol.

Type 4's are good BUT the cost of parts is horrendous and as said the tin is like rocking horse shit.

 

[StuF]

Where is Toffo when you need him to let us know how he is getting on with his Scooby transplant?
Bet they have good economy!