Re[2]: Balanced! Sorted!

[patmor@utu.fi (Patrick Joel Morton)]

At 08:34 2.9.1997, Toby Erkson wrote:

 * Patrick, Patrick, Patrick,

"I don't know, I was really drunk at the time".  Yes, it is me.

 * Well, at least you are true to the pure stock VW.

Yes and no.  Sure, I like to go fast but I have learned that attempting to
re-engineer a Volkswagen engine is a sheer waste of time.  I think that VW
has learned a thing or three in the more than sixty years that they have
been building horizontally opposed four cylinder engines (water or air
cooled).  I have owned stock milled VWs and non-stock.  I have wasted money
building a 2110cc Type I engine and then returned back to planet Earth.

 * However, Toby B. is correct
 * in his statement that "...other attacks of precision help..."  Doing
 anything to
 * improve upon the stock engine will help the engine perform or last (or both).

And in creeps the old notion that "speed costs money, how fast do you want
to go?"  Other attacks of precision will also attack your wallet.  Doing
one thing (porting heads for example) and not doing another (using an
improved exhaust) will create new problems.  Mainly the need for expensive
rebuilds.  As I recall, the initial post referred to using a
counterweighted crankshaft to improve wear characteristics.

My point was that if you start doing things (playing around with the mix),
you **have to** do others to get the results that you want.  Like I said,
it starts from where the fuel and air go in and ends where the exhaust
leaves.  You have to do a complete job to achieve your goal of longevity,
or speed, or higher RPMs.  Can you have all three?  Maybe, if you can
afford it.

 * Many of you forget that the reason VW didn't do these performance mods is
 * because they wanted to build an inexpensive vehicle.  They also didn't
 have the
 * technology and research of *many* years that we have today to find these
 * performance mods.  And to perform such research would've bumped up the
 price of
 * the vehicle and that's counter to what VW was striving for.

(On the subject of this thread) Counterweighting a crankshaft is nothing
new, and was not, even during the time that VW spent millions on R & D (and
they did), which gave us more horsepower over the ages.  These performance
upgrades of 1200 to 1300, 1300 to 1500, 1500 to 1600 and so on improved
many things (performance being one of them).  Volkswagen knew that they had
to make improvements to meet the demands of the driving public - remember,
they wanted to do whatever it took to sell cars, and they had/have more
than enough money to do research into performance modifications, without
worrying about higher prices.  I think that the price question was not at
the forefront after the Beetle had established itself as the market leader.
The "People's Car" idea started by the Dr Porsche and Adolf Hitler was
more myth than reality by the 1960's.  The bottom line was producing cars
that would sell.  It is still working today.

 * Given one pure stock engine and one similar stock engine that has been
 balanced,
 * ported, polished and blueprinted (all of which cannot be seen when the
 deck lid
 * is opened) I will take the 'modified' one and bet it's pink slip that it
 will
 * last longer, operate smoother, and pump out an extra horsepower or two
 over the
 * pure stock engine and still get the same or slightly better gas mileage.

If the engine is built to correct specifications, I might agree with you.
I would also be willing to bet you that it would cost about 40% more.

This post seems to have mixed up a bunch of different thoughts and ideas -
maybe my reply to the original started it all.  Anyway, I hope that through
it all, someone is able to figure out what the hell I was talking about -
if so, could you remind me?

Have a nice weekend.

Patrick