- Nov 14, 2009
- Rocky Mountains
And I often need 'focus' !Okay, those are two good reasons. You've answered my question, which was meant only to help focus on the "why." Thank you.
Hang around, if this develops, if for nothing else but keeping us focused.
When I first came up the the idea that I could 'roll' my own' I looked at 4 cylinders. I found that there just weren't many examples of small displacement 4 cylinders on which to build. I was also constrained by this engine having to be usable on the Quickie.....My personal goal.Just to ask: Why the opposed twin rather than opposed 4? Simplicity, weight vs smoothness, TV?
My original CAD shows this very lineage - except I tossed the constraints imposed by that $#@!%^@ camshaft configuration from the start. My project and Pete's were very similar in approach and philosophy. He started with the O-200 and I with the VW.................. and generic OTS parts for the reasons TFF mentioned.The half-VW is close to the weight, some work could be done to shave off that 5 pounds without too much aggravation, but you'd be making a new case casting, oil pan, rear case, etc. just like Pete did with his project.
That feature HAS to be eliminated. It causes all kinds of problems. Some are:You could keep everything else on the VW - case, crank, rods, pistons, cylinders,
It puts side load on the rocker arms making them prone to pop off the shaft.
It restricts exhaust port configuration.
It puts side load on the lifters leading to increased bore wear.
It's too close to the crank requiring grinding to clear stroker cranks.
Oil for flat tappet cams is not readily available at Walmart.
I'm convinced that Ferdinand chose this configuration for ground clearance reasons only.