Itinerant Air-Cooled

I think a real world test comparing a stock bus vs a Camper Special bus would be interesting instead of Colin’s “I am right you are wrong.” Discussion that toe his line seems to be out of place here...too bad.

Hmm, Colin this chart shows a CS has 20 ft lbs of torque at 1000 rpms. That should make a difference crawling along at idle.

Most people with stock engines are too busy going camping and traveling to put their bus on a dyno… (That being said I got a reading of 28 hp at the wheels a few years ago when my engine was fresher.) I'll bring it by Seattle next summer if you remind me, or come on down to SD and you can drive a dozen VW's in one zipcode with a dozen different engine setups. Of the 100+ Volkswagens I've driven in the last few years, only one performance-engine bus could hold a candle to the smoothness in drivability to a stock bus.

Robbie

Bleyseng wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:08 pm

Hmm, Colin this chart shows a CS has 20 ft lbs of torque at 1000 rpms. That should make a difference crawling along at idle.

Geoff, in order for us to have a nice engineering discussion, you need to be able to read your data and provide a compelling factual argument.
I invite all readers here who have endured this tediousness to go do a Google search of "performance cam" and read about the trade-offs.

Look at your "chart" that claims the CS is putting out 118 ft/lbs of torque before 500 rpm (red line) and
the stock engine is putting out 92 ft/lbs before 500 rpm (blue line).
That chart is useless ad copy and your interpretation of the torque numbers is incomprehensible.
Colin

Who ever made that chart should be given a Yugo as a coffin.

Bleyseng wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:08 pm

I think a real world test comparing a stock bus vs a Camper Special bus would be interesting..

I think this a fantastic idea. Drivability and performance road trials to be held midway through the 2019 Itinerary.

tommu wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:51 pm

Bleyseng wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:08 pm

I think a real world test comparing a stock bus vs a Camper Special bus would be interesting..

I think this a fantastic idea. Drivability and performance road trials to be held midway through the 2019 Itinerary.

I have the perfect trail test . . .

And good ol' stock Chloe knows exactly what to do.

And you have to have a stop and relaunch at mid-grade.

Here is a photograph of what the contestants will be dealing with:

Dirt road Jemez Mountains outside of Los Alamos:



There will be noooooo:

Abscate wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:25 am

Who ever made that chart should be given a Yugo as a coffin.

Here's mine. Great car. I was only ten months late to Jasan's wedding:

Abscate wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:25 am

Who ever made that chart should be given a Yugo as a coffin.

Jake Raby made the chart soo if you want to slam a expert in the field of VW parts engineering go ahead.Yeah, a better cam, bigger valves makes for better breathing and more hp/torque even at idle. (That's exactly what Porsche did to improve the type 4 to improve performance in a 914 in 1972.)

Your being stanch stock nazi on this bbs is one of the reasons I don't come here anymore nor offer any help as the peanut gallery comes out in support of your views/opinions.

Bleyseng wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:09 am

Abscate wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:25 am

Who ever made that chart should be given a Yugo as a coffin.

Jake Raby made the chart soo if you want to slam a expert in the field of VW parts engineering go ahead.Yeah, a better cam, bigger valves makes for better breathing and more hp/torque even at idle. (That's exactly what Porsche did to improve the type 4 to improve performance in a 914 in 1972.)

Your being stanch stock nazi on this bbs is one of the reasons I don't come here anymore nor offer any help as the peanut gallery comes out in support of your views/opinions.

That’s so sad to read. I very much value your posts on here. Not many have your independent and unique experience.

I was being serious about a comparative drive too. It would absolutely inform the debate.

Bleyseng wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:09 am

Abscate wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:25 am

Who ever made that chart should be given a Yugo as a coffin.

Jake Raby made the chart soo if you want to slam a expert in the field of VW parts engineering go ahead.Yeah, a better cam, bigger valves makes for better breathing and more hp/torque even at idle. (That's exactly what Porsche did to improve the type 4 to improve performance in a 914 in 1972.)

Your being stanch stock nazi on this bbs is one of the reasons I don't come here anymore nor offer any help as the peanut gallery comes out in support of your views/opinions.

Geoff, step back. Breathe. Read Jake's posts. Relax. Occasionally, he too is known to get spirited and even cranky. Occasionally, I point out that I do not defer to experts, but I do defer to my own and the experiences of my customers. I have blessed many centermount set-ups, I have blessed some 009 distributors. You know why? Cuz the car ran well.

I have no need to be an expert over anyone's experiences. Experiences. Experience. I have driven a few Headflow Masters engines and found them to be smooth and eager. You know why? Because they were smooth and eager. I don't have an axe to grind, and I am only very insistent, I am only very insistent, Geoff, when so-called experts spew nonsense without benefit of actual road-going experience, and Geoff, I have been with more people than I can count who have been deeply discouraged after spending a lot of money. I have also driven Jake Raby engines, and you know this, and you know that I have always said that a Raby engine is worth the price of admission if you love true automotive art. You know this. Your trying to say that I am "slamming" Jake is just pathetic. Seriously. I observed that that chart is just completely unworkable. That is not slamming anyone. That is observing that a chart makes no sense. I can't change a word, yet. It still makes no sense. So go find a corrected chart! Do it!

I will continue to test you and challenge you and I will ignore any statements about me slamming other other experts (you have seen what I have written about Jake's engines all over the internet) and I will absolutely go off on you if you declare that this place has a "peanut gallery" or that I am a stock nazi. That is disrespectful to the extreme. It really is. I carefully define why I respect stock engineering with real answers.

(p.s. . . . Geoff? What exactly did Porsche allegedly do the cam profile in 1972 . . . "better cam"? How? . . . "bigger valves" in 1972? How much??? You better not be talking about that rare 2.0 that was used for barely a year before they standardized back to L-Jet 1.8 in 1974. Educate me, but don't play with the goal posts, Geoff.)

Show me that you are made of sterner stuff, Geoff. Show me that you are an adult. Show me some facts. Give me a real torque curve comparison. Bring Jake over here, I welcome the schooling and learning at all times. I really do. You'd be amazed at how many times I have had to apologize, and took real pleasure in doing so. Bring Jake over here, and let him tell us all that a performance cam can outpull a stock bus at 1,000 rpm on a dirt trail. Do it. I seriously need the real torque curve.

Then we will meet on a 22* dirt trail. No crazy clutch-slipping. No ridiculous wheel spin.
I'd do that. I love putting my "expertise" to the test.

See you in Free Speech. We can easily agree there. What am I? A Democrat nazi?
(do I have one remaining peanut in the gallery there? I don't think so)
Happy New Year,
Colin

I tried questioning Jake's graphs years ago, yeah, that was something...

sped372 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:26 pm

I tried questioning Jake's graphs years ago, yeah, that was something...

I question any engine that produces torque at 0 RPM.
Robbie