TheSamba.com :: View topic

Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:26 pm

So, i got the tranny out of Marilynn (62). 2 questions:
1) I have to take the axles off to turn the tranny in for a core charge. Anyone know a good way to get the wheel bearing off? I know it's a bitch, but any ideers are appreciated.
2) Anyone have an idea how much a taller R&P will actually impact driving? I have a 1641, 110 cam, kadrons, merged header etc, so I know I have enough power. I mean, about how much can I expect to drop freeway rpms at, say, 70mph with stock rear tires? Anyone with a tach who could answer would be great, but I'll take whatcha got :wink:
Thanks

Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:02 pm

SlimJimVinny wrote: I have a 1641,
You need a 4.12 R&P. Just like a stock 1600 had.

Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:01 am

Try a search on the wheel bearings - theres some folks that have done it a variety of way - what I had done (was just replacing bearings and not yanking tranny) was to use my angle grinder to grind 3 notches in the outer race and used my 3 jaw puller with a hose clamp around the jaws to hold them tight in the notches. First side took me 45 minutes - second side maybe 10.

Obvisouly I trashed the bearings, but I was replacing them anyway.

The big C-clip that holds the axle in the tranny is a bear - I used a long set of cheap needle nose pliers that I ground the ends to fit in the holes and bent the ends in slightly.

The fulcrum plates like to move around when putting it back together, so I used grease to "glue" them in place.

As far as the ratio - I have upgraded 3 of my 4 VWs to "late" gearing, which I believe is what was posted. We run a mild 1600, a 1776 and a 1914. You can cruise at 70-75 all day with no issues. Pretty sure on the buggy the tach reads a around 2800 RPM at 65. Changing the ratio dropped me almost 1K RPM at 65.

Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:29 am

A freeway flyer may not be the best for the torque range of a 1641 at highway speed! The 4:12 would keep it in a better rev range for my liking, especially if you have to pass people!
Just my 0.02

Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:21 pm

Thanks for the replies guys.

So, a 4.12 is what a stock 1600 had, like my 71? So a taller R&P is the 3.79?

As far as torque range, I'm doin 75-80 on California freeways, so I imagine I'll be in the proper power band 8)

Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:44 pm

SlimJimVinny wrote: So a taller R&P is the 3.79? There's no such thing as a 3.79.
The next taller stock R&P is 3.875:1, AKA, 3.88.

Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:43 am

I am siding with Bruce on this one. With a 1641 it wont like the 3.88 that much.

I have a 3.88 with a .89 4th in my bug (so a freeway flyer), and I am running a 1.7L type 4 out of a 914 that has been modified to make quite a bit more horsepower and torque than a 1641, and sometimes I feel that the 3.88 is still a little tall. And my 1.7L is putting out about 100hp and over that in torque, so if your not running a medium to large displacement motor, stay with the 4.12. Its not worth bogging your little motor, having it run hot, and failing sooner because it couldnt pull the taller gears.

My 1.7 will become a 2.0 sooner or later to make more power and to utilize the gearing more. The 1.7 was just a deal that fell in my lap that was new and I used some of the parts for my 2.0 build to get it on the road sooner.

Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:59 am

To get the axle tubes off with bearings after ya take the bolts loose at the pivot...get a big hammer (hand sledge) and pound the inside of the shock mount close to the axle tube and drive the axle tube off...some are easy and some take some muscle.If the bearings still hard to get of after the tube comes off after ya pull the snap ring and take out your axle just bump your splined end of the axle in the tube and it will pop right out.

Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:55 am

one of my old setups was a single carb 1600 coupled with a Strictly Foreign transmission- 4:12 RP with .89 final. really didnt like the stretch from 3rd to 4th and you really had to get it going to smoothen it out. Id say that final is better suited to a 1776 range and up. your kadrons and cam might help a little bit.

Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:38 pm

smitty24 wrote: - 4:12 RP with .89 final. really didnt like the stretch from 3rd to 4th ......
I bet you had a 40hp 3rd gear. It's 1.32 vs. 1.26, so the gap between it and 4th was big.

Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:46 pm

Just to be sure we (and by we I mean me) are all talking about the same thing...
A freeway flyer can be 1 of 2 configurations. Stock everything with a taller 4th gear, or stock gears with a taller R&P, yes?
I'm looking to have stock gears with a taller R&P, so each gear is a little taller, I don't want to run 3rd all the way out to climb into 4th.
Having said that, does that change anyone's mind about 4.12 or 3.88?
I was led to believe that the 3.88 was a good choice with all gears stock and my motor combo. (which, by the way, is 1641, engle 110, kadrons and a merged header...)
Also, what is my (presumably stock) gearing now? (1962)
Am I making sense, or am I missing something that should be clear?

Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:54 pm

A 4.12 with all stock gears will be taller in all the gears compared to what you have now.
A 3.88 would be a mistake for your small engine. You don't have enough hp.

Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:15 am

I posted the answer as well earlier - running 4:12 on 3 of ours - 1 being a 61 with a mild 1600. car runs great, not spinning too high on the highway and still geared low enough that I dont have to drive in 3rd all the time. This tranny was built by ACE and the way Art describes it is a late tranny in a swing case.

Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:55 am

Bruce wrote: smitty24 wrote: - 4:12 RP with .89 final. really didnt like the stretch from 3rd to 4th ......
I bet you had a 40hp 3rd gear. It's 1.32 vs. 1.26, so the gap between it and 4th was big.

Yeah Bruce, probably. it was an IRS transmission (not sure on year) that Strictly Foreign had done for me back in '04. I had originally asked Mark if the stock 1600 configuration would power the gearbox enough to transition smooth through the gears, he said it would be perfect for it! once I got to know that transmission, I ONLY liked it going 70 or above! most city driving was taking place in 3rd gear and low 4th range---which on the "freeway flyer" with the stock 1600 was literally a pig to drive. actually got worse mileage everywhere but the highways... but hey, according to Mark-that is what I 'needed' at the time. That was what I got for not researching ahead of time and listening to a "pro." Strictly Foreign has really gone down hill over the past years. The sad part was that the original core that I exchanged to him was far more driveable with that car/engine setup.

my current '63 daily driver has an IRS stock geared 4:12 converted to swing that I am far happier with, throughout the whole rpm range.

Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:41 pm

Bruce wrote: A 4.12 with all stock gears will be taller in all the gears compared to what you have now.
A 3.88 would be a mistake for your small engine. You don't have enough hp.

i respectfully disagree, vw beetles made in brazil came with 3.88 and .89 4 th , 1600 cc and dual solexes stock from the factory .
i have a transaxle like that in my bug it i feel it is still short .

Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:57 pm

itHaKa wrote: Bruce wrote: A 4.12 with all stock gears will be taller in all the gears compared to what you have now.
A 3.88 would be a mistake for your small engine. You don't have enough hp.

i respectfully disagree, vw beetles made in brazil came with 3.88 and .89 4 th , 1600 cc and dual solexes stock from the factory .
i have a transaxle like that in my bug it i feel it is still short .
I never said VW didn't make a gearbox with such gears. IMO, a 3.88 R&P with less than 100hp is a mistake.

My own car has a 2 liter engine that puts out about 120hp. When I first built the engine, my gearbox was the stock 3.88 VW put in there. For winter use, I would drive a different, earlier car with a stock 1600 and a 4.12 R&P. Even though I had double the hp with the 3.88, every time I got into the 4.12 car, it was much nicer to drive.
I have since replaced the 3.88 gearbox with one that has a 4.12.
There are times when I recommend a 3.88. When you have more than 200hp, anything lower than a 3.88 is a mistake.

If you think your gearing is too short, why don't you change out your 4th gear to a .82 from a Combi? Then get back to us with how you like the gap between it and your 1.32 3rd gear.

Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:38 pm

I had a 67 bug with the 3.88n it and it ran just fine call the guys at German Transaxle of america. They built mine it was the best trans I ever had with a 1600 and dual carbs. I had no problems it neaver ran hot. thats my 2 cents.

Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:59 pm

kokanee wrote: I had a 67 bug with the 3.88n it and it ran just fine call the guys at German Transaxle of america. They built mine it was the best trans I ever had with a 1600 and dual carbs. I had no problems it neaver ran hot. thats my 2 cents.
probably had the 3.88 w .92 stock 4th for 3.88.. i always used a 4.12 w beetle .89 th (stock setup on 67/68 beetles in usa.)

Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:31 pm

stock 67 gears with a 3.88 ring it worked just fine

Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:29 am

74-79 export type I had the 3.87 with .92 4th behind a FI 1600.

I would agree that if using a .82 4th you need at least a 1800 but for a commuter a 3.87 with .89 4th will be fine.

Since he is running thin wall 87s those pistons and cylinders will need replacing soon. He will upgrade the engine to suit the transmission which will last for several engines if built correctly.