New 1776cc engine and no power

Early Bay Forum

Help Support Early Bay Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Tofufi said:
Millhouse said:
I've done a compression test, all four cylinders are 90. Is that good?

90PSI per cylinder would be what I'd expect from a very worn engine. Were you doing the tests with the throttle wide open?

I'd be hoping for 140-150PSI per cylinder on a freshly built engine...

Most people don't realise this, but its the difference between the readings you have posted and (hopefully) your actual readings.....fingers crossed for you
 
Thanks for all the replies. I've altered the throttle pedal linkages, the carb linkages and I have set the carbs back to the settings as described in the dellorto manual.
I took it out for a drive this morning and it seemed a little better. When I got home I done another compression test as the last test I done on it was a few months ago. This time I remembered to leave the throttle fully open. The results I got were:
Cylinder 1: 102psi
Cylinder 2: 110psi
Cylinder 3: 100psi
Cylinder 4: 100psi
The readings are higher then last time but still lower then expected. Are these readings ok? With my readings does it suggest a worn engine?
 
megaaircooledvw said:
Send it back.

There's a bit of a problem there. I've had the engine over a year now, I haven't got a reciept or invoice or anyway to prove where I got it.
I expected to fit the engine sooner but I found quite a bit of rust on my van, it's took just under a year to weld the van up.
 
What causes the compression to be low on all four cylinders?
I would understand if it was one cylinder or one side of the engine.
 
Millhouse said:
What causes the compression to be low on all four cylinders?
I would understand if it was one cylinder or one side of the engine.

I don't really know but a quick google came up with this.
http://www.aa1car.com/library/compression.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
StefansBus said:
I'm not an engine expert but I am wondering if this set up is ideal for a bus. This sounds to me like a relatively high horsepower, relatively low toque engine which would work better in a light weight vehicle such as a beetle as opposed to a bus.

I would think that what you want in a bus is primarily torque. The 44 heads have pretty big valves which need high revs to work well.

Smaller valve sizes and smaller carbs as well as a softer cam would probably help with drivability and low end torque (pull).

I would go for a 1776 dual port, with a stock cam or similar and a single carb. Either a re-jetted 34 or a 34 converted to a 37 or 39 (a couple of guys in Germany sell those and they have had really good reviews). You will only get about 75 horsepower but lot's of torque and great drivability in the bus without having to rev the engine any more than stock.

Am I wrong?

Your right, you are no engine expert :roll: This is a perfect set up for a bus!!!! An Engle w110 is 1 of the best cams for a bus. The 044 can have stock valves and even with 40x35.5 and 40's can be choked down to work on a 1600 so more than suitable for a 1776. A 1776 with 40's and a w110 should drive like a stock engine and still make 100hp.
 
StefansBus said:
I'm not an engine expert but I am wondering if this set up is ideal for a bus. This sounds to me like a relatively high horsepower, relatively low toque engine which would work better in a light weight vehicle such as a beetle as opposed to a bus.

I would think that what you want in a bus is primarily torque. The 44 heads have pretty big valves which need high revs to work well.

Smaller valve sizes and smaller carbs as well as a softer cam would probably help with drivability and low end torque (pull).

I would go for a 1776 dual port, with a stock cam or similar and a single carb. Either a re-jetted 34 or a 34 converted to a 37 or 39 (a couple of guys in Germany sell those and they have had really good reviews). You will only get about 75 horsepower but lot's of torque and great drivability in the bus without having to rev the engine any more than stock.

Am I wrong?
No, you not StefansBus.


I have been building a few 1776's with stock cam and dual Weber 34 ICT's. The customers are pretty happy and normally says "This engine has a lot of power". Now that's not power, it's torque. You need torque to take a heavy bus from stand still or when you uphill.
A 110 cam moves the powerband up in the rpm range and kill the low end torque. And the big valved heads does exactly the same adding to those caracteristics.
Take this engine and put it in a Beetle, then you will say" This engine revs a lot and makes the car go very fast". Now that's power, higher in the rpm range. No need for a lot of torque to move a light car.
100 psi compression is really low on any new engine, even on low compression ones. On your combo, the cam requires around 8.5:1, so you should have around 150psi. Probably the deck heigth is wrong or bad ring gaps, or used pistons and barrels, etc.

Abel
 
A 110 is not a fierce cam, that cam in the right set up in a bus is amazing! I've got a bus in my workshop ATM which has a 110, ported stock heads and twin 40's. It's a beautiful thing to drive, pulls straight off idle. Get yours done properly by a decent engine builder and you'll love it.
 
If he will love it or hate it depends on his driving style. If you like to rev your engine all the time, or drive mostly on the motorway you will like it. If you don't rev above 3k rpm most of the time and do loads of city driving, you will hate it.
Abel
 

Latest posts

Top