Page 1 of 2

1600ct to 1641

Posted: 01 Mar 2009, 16:31
by umgum
has anyone done this what parts do i need
also has it made any differnece to how the van runs,speed or mpg

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 01 Mar 2009, 16:37
by dugcati
By rights to goto 1641 I think you only need barrels and pistons and then a half turn on the mixture screw for the carb... if your up for it try taking it to 1776 - you will need to get the engine cases machines anlong with the heads though :wink:

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 01 Mar 2009, 17:53
by Team28crew
I did this with my bug there was a small differance but the really change in performance came when I added the twin carbs, just be certain the bottom end is ok before splashing out an Barrels and Pistons.

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 01 Mar 2009, 18:04
by highlander
a perfectly tuned and balanced standard 1600 will run just as good and economical as a 1641 with standard carb.. you need to look at a package to get a good increase in power and economy... 1641 barrels and pistons and a nice pair of 36 or 40 dellorto drla's and a full flow system should do the trick... :D

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 02 Mar 2009, 16:34
by reluctantartist
Hi all. Being from the USA, I do not see the 1600's...so my question. What is the fuel economy and how do they drive?

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 02 Mar 2009, 19:46
by A KIRK
I get between 20 - 25 mpg from my 1641, and the only way to describe how they drive is hm slowly.

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 03 Mar 2009, 02:39
by reluctantartist
I take that is 20-24 using imperial gallons. That isn't much different than the 2L. I thought it might be slightly better :shock:

Thanks

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 03 Mar 2009, 07:56
by mrhutch
most cost effective way of increasing MPG and performance is to stick a pair of dellotos on and take to a rolling road... or stick a 2litre AC in it!

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 03 Mar 2009, 12:54
by dugcati
getting it LPG'd would make it cheaper to run :D

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 03 Mar 2009, 12:59
by Gunslinger
I replaced my 2.0 for a 2.4 air cooled and get 25+ to a gallon. I figure its mainly due to the engine not working so hard especially up steep gradients

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 03 Mar 2009, 13:01
by mrhutch
2.4 Aircooled.. more details please!

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 03 Mar 2009, 13:05
by Gunslinger
Its a standard 2.0 bottom end with bigger barrels and piston, a fast cam and adjustable tappets rather than hydraulic.
Top end is slightly better, acceleration is much better and generally more torquey. I dont have to down shift going uphill anymore :D

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 03 Mar 2009, 13:23
by reluctantartist
Did you do this work yourself or is there a performance shop over there doing this? I didn't think the Air-cooled could handle being much bigger than 2L.

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 03 Mar 2009, 13:36
by Gunslinger
reluctantartist wrote:Did you do this work yourself or is there a performance shop over there doing this? I didn't think the Air-cooled could handle being much bigger than 2L.

It was done by a company in Erith, Kent called The Engine Shop

Re: 1600ct to 1641

Posted: 03 Mar 2009, 20:59
by Vanagonman
reluctantartist wrote:I take that is 20-24 using imperial gallons. That isn't much different than the 2L. I thought it might be slightly better :shock:

Thanks

That's because we're running carbs and perhaps your 2 liter type 4 is running fool injection?

Over here in Europe almost all 2.0 Type 4s are dual carbed from the factory.