- This topic has 20 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am interested in purchasing an MG TD kit car. One thing for sure is that I do not want a VW based one. Despite their simplicity, the sound of one of those things coming down the street has the unmistakable sound of a VW and is in no small part responsible for the low quality name kits got in the 70s and 80s
That said, a front engine design, more true to the original design is what I’d like. Is there any clear advantage to the chevette based car vs the Ford pinto based design?
IMO, I’d choose the Ford-based kit over the Chevette-based kit. There is FAR more aftermarket support and parts availability for the Ford OHC engines. My personal favorite is not the 2.3L Ford, but the earlier, simpler and more powerful (stock) German-manufactured 2.0L Ford that was used in Ford Pintos and Mercury Capris of the early 1970s.
Then there’s always the option of going to the Ford V-6 instead of the 4-cylinder — but I have limited experience with them. I’ve only owned one, which was in a Ranger pickup years ago. But, that would be a sweet foundation to build upon, especially with a 5-speed tranny…KentT2013-08-01 08:56:39
Early FF TDr on 69 VW pan
Slowly coming back from the ashes...The ford engine is a SOHC, is the chevette engine an OHC engine too or is it pushrod? Aside from the parts availability (which is huge) I am wondering about design related issues, displacement, HP, Carb vs FI, Displacement, etc….
The Chevette engine was a SOHC one also. Here’s a page that lists the different engines available for the Chevette and Pinto. As I said, my choice would be the 100HP 2000cc German Ford engine…
Early FF TDr on 69 VW pan
Slowly coming back from the ashes...I went through this decision and research a while ago.
Points for Chevette: Narrow rear and front track is almost only donor matches MG TD, nearly bolt in front suspension. rack, etc. Front suspension parts shared by Fiero.
Negative for Chevette: 1.6 liter engine not very popular, parts relatively scarce, low horsepower. Rear end is part torque tube, clumsy. Good donor cars are hard to find.
Points for Ford: Mustang/Pinto front suspension and rack most popular of all front suspensions. 2300 very popular engine. Presently used in Pony stock racing, lots of aftermarket parts available.
Negative for Ford: Front/rear has wider track, depending on wheel offset, may stick out some. Narrower aftermarket crossmembers and racks available. Narrowed rear ends available but are expensive.
Other engine possibilities that I researched: Buick Aluminum V8, Chevy S-10 4 or V6, Old Post Office Jeep drivetrains. GM has a 3.4 60 degree V6 crate motor, #12363230, if you want a brand new engine.BTW, I went with the Ford 2.8 liter V6 and a Mustang II donor car. See my thread under My Projects, Building Alfred.
A follow up to Ken’s comment of the Ranger V6. The Cologne V6 came in 2.6, 2.8, 2.9 and ended up as the Ranger 4.2. 2.9 and 4.2 were fuel injected. All were a narrow 60 degree, but the 4.2 had a raised deck to get the extra stroke. The Ranger 5 speed would fit the older 2.8 only with some custom machining.
I had one of the chevette powered Dutchess’s. Getting parts for the engine was difficult.
After much bother I went with the S-10 2.2L engine and 5 speed overdrive tranny. Once I dealt with the computer issues I’ve not been disappointed. The 120 HP engine develops more torque than any sane person needs. Points I liked; the 4 cylinder fits really well with room under the hood, the flex fuel capability lets me run on Ethanol, being a current model parts are easy to get. (see post on Chevy 2.2L dutchess) The best thing is we can do anything with our cars! Pity the poor person who has to settle for what is available at the dealers. (P.S. Turbo is available)No trees were injured in the making of this message, but some electrons were inconvenienced.
The Ford 2.3 was in production for over twenty years. The Chevette not so much. The Ford suspension is the suspension of choice for the aftermarket rod builder. The Chevette…???.
Bill Ascheman
Fiberfab Ford
Modified 5.0, 5sp., 4:11
Autocross & Hillclimb
"Drive Happy"If you really must have a front engined car (which weighs 300 pounds more than a VW-based one, features a teeny-tiny footwell and has no storage space), I’d say go Ford, just on parts availability.
That said, and given the age of these kits, seems likely that suspension work and an engine swap might be in the cards anyway. Everything you’re looking at will be at least 30 years old.I’d be researching Ecotec & Ecoboost engines and drive trains to see what might slot in there.I would be, that is, if I were not preparing to install a non-VW, 4-valve-per cylinder, water-cooled engine in my pan-based car.Ed, I hope that you are planning to come to the Air and Auto Classic in Va Bch. You really should see Happy Jack’s new BCW with its extended body. It was superbly done and you really can’t tell where and how the extension was done without some measuring devices. Inside his engine cover, he has a 2332 cc dual Dellorto carb monster. Are you committed to the Subi? If so, or even if not, you would find it interesting and maybe Jack would let you drive and experience a very TD looking hot rod.
At the risk of offending a few VW purists, a TD replica utilizing a beetle pan is about the best use for a beetle I know! The original body is butt ugly, but the replica is so cute! I’m just not a fan of the aircooled nowadays. I really don’t know where it got it’s reputation for being reliable!
A 70 year production kinda speaks for itself.
Volkswagen E-motor
Manufacturer Volkswagen
Production 1936???2006
Configuration Flat-4 naturally aspirated petrol engine
Cylinder block alloy Aluminum / magnesium alloy
Cylinder head alloy Aluminum / magnesium alloy
Valvetrain Pushrod OHV
Fuel system Mechanical / Carbeurated
Fuel type Petrol
Oil system Wet sump
Cooling system Air-cooledBill Ascheman
Fiberfab Ford
Modified 5.0, 5sp., 4:11
Autocross & Hillclimb
"Drive Happy"Like I said, the guy who put mine together in ’82 had driven it since ’66, about 10 of those years on a 30-minute commute. Said he did maybe 120k on it, then put in new bearings (no stinking line bore), new jugs kit & it ran it in various other projects for another many years–he figures another 80,000. Refreshed again for the TD and did 30 k miles therein, sold circa 1988. Estimates the case has 250,000 miles as of last month.
She runs pretty good yet.If not for the carb heat tube having rotted away, and my sense of impending doom because of slightly low oil pressure on long highway trips, and the sad fact that 45 horses don’t really cut it on USA highways since the 55mph limit was lifted, I’d be dead set on keeping her as is.I might end up doing that anyway, at least for another season, depending on how easy the early Soob work goes.So anyway, 250,000 miles in 100,000 mile chunks isn’t reliable enough for ye?of course I know, many people, probably most people have happy motoring with there aircooled bug for many years! unhappily it hasn’t been my experience! But then, all mine have been higher milers when I got them. For me, I love the little buggers until I start them then I hate the sound of them! Even the best running ones sound like they are about to fly apart! My high school shop teacher told us over 40 years ago that VW put the engines in the back because no-one would have bought one if that rattly thing was in front of them! The only reason I want rid of my 1600 is to get something a little quieter!
edsnova wrote:Well, there’s no getting away from that “ClatterJet” sound. I’ll grant that.Well, there’s things that will dramatically reduce it…Early FF TDr on 69 VW pan
Slowly coming back from the ashes...Not this specific one from MoFoCo. I ran one from Claude’s Buggies in a bus, back in the day. With a spin-on oil filter and aftermarket cooler (with thermostatic electric fan), I increased the oil change interval to 5,000 miles and no more valve adjustments. I probably put 40,000-50,000 troublefree miles on it before trading it off…
It certainly quietens down the valvetrain because there’s always pressure on the pushrods and zero valve lash…Early FF TDr on 69 VW pan
Slowly coming back from the ashes...This is a pretty good discussion of hydraulic vs solid lifters:
The watercooled vw boxer engine is significantly quieter than it’s aircooled brother though the engines are built very similarly. The differences are hydraulic lifters, no fan, and a water jacket to muffle the sound domewhat. All that tin on a aircooled must contribute to the “can full of washers” sound somewhat too. I was looking seriously into installing a type 4 engine to get the hydraulic lifters and better bottom end but it looks to me like the wasserboxer would be a cheaper and easier conversion. The wasserboxer struggled to drive the huge vanagon but should be loafing to move around my little fiberfab MG! The engines are almost free because the van guy’s don’t want them. AND they bolt right in with the early type 4 flywheels. except for installing the rad and plumbing they should be a real easy conversion!
I bought a 1984 Vanagon Wolfsberg Special Edition and drove it for almost 10 years, putting over 150,000 miles on it. It was simply the best vehicle I have ever owned…
But, that said, the engine was designed more for torque than HP, to push that heavy bus…In a light car like a TDr, I’d go for an engine that had about 100-125 HP and a broad power band, with a 6,000 RPM (or higher) redline. Lightweight sports cars are intended to be driven with their transmissions, not monstrous engines…Yes, I know of Vipers and Vettes as exceptions (owned a high-performance Vette once also), but overall I’d still go toward a higher RPM smaller engine rather than one that would produce tons of torque and HP… IMO, the tranny gearing on a TDr may be more a factor in overall sportiness than the HP of the engine. Too bad those Gen Berg 5-speed kits cost an absolute fortune… if you can find one…My 2 cents, your mileage may vary…Early FF TDr on 69 VW pan
Slowly coming back from the ashes...
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.