Sterling CCC400 (aka "the V6")
- Thread starter doug-doug the mighy
- Start date
Brett Proctor
Well-known member
That I do not know.
I do know that the 914 had 2 different transmissions. The difference was in the location of the shift linkage and that the 914/6 had different gear ratios in it.
I do know that the 914 had 2 different transmissions. The difference was in the location of the shift linkage and that the 914/6 had different gear ratios in it.
Brett Proctor
Well-known member
Did a little research on why the 914/6 transmission has different gear ratio's.
From what I found, the reason the 914/6 has different ratio's is to provide adequate cooling for the engine.
So using a transmission not geared for the 6 cylinder you may have over heating issues.
From what I found, the reason the 914/6 has different ratio's is to provide adequate cooling for the engine.
So using a transmission not geared for the 6 cylinder you may have over heating issues.
doug-doug the mighy
Member
The Buick engine (according to the casting number on the block) is of 1978 vintage and is a even-fire, split pin crank, tipping the scales at 392 pounds. From what I can tell, the 914/6 comes in at 120 pounds. If this is correct and not accounting for extra hardware bing tacked on (AC stuff, muffler differences, etc, I seem to be shedding 250 pounds by making the switch. Otherwise, the horsepower is 160 v. 110, respectively. Dropping the weight should make up for the loss of horsepower, but upping the performance on the 914 may be worthwhile. At the end of the day, I want pep and pick-up but do not plan on trying to outrun the police or race for pinks. Knowing that I want to have a top speed around 90 means I need to think about front-end lift. Loosing 250 pounds off the back is a good start.
Someone mentioned the Corvair and I did check that out a little. I could definitely consider this but do not know too much about them. I will have to do a little more homework on this (later). For now, I am proceeding with the clean-out and expect to pull the engine and transmission before the end of next month if things stay on track. For now, the Buick is free to a good home if someone wants to pull it for me, otherwise I have no space to hold it for a future project that I cannot even conceive at this point in the far, far future. I hate to waste good, but it is no good to hold what I don't think I can ever use.
But yes, once it is all done and put together, I will use it as my daily driver for the foreseeable future. This means I make the trek from Tampa to Jacksonville every weekend, coming back before my week begins, 3.5 hours each way, so it is not a straight 7 hour shot. Based on nbb350’s remark, I am getting the hint that Sterlings may be a rougher ride than I thought. I have never been able to drive one and have never encountered one in the wild (except for my pilgrimage to unofun’s when I picked mine from his barn collection). I may want to break seating thoughts into a separate thread later if it gets too deep but could someone please shed some more light on this?
Mine is an IRS, but I do plan to rebuild it and can adjust as needed based on the new transmission. I have to replace it no matter what since the 914/6 needs a different transmission and the one in place is not the best for the Buick. My suspension plan is to go with a bag lift system to raise the car for curbs and speed bumps but lower it to “stock” height which is about 5” during normal driving. Since I am going to be replacing the hardware for my shocks and anything related, what can I do to “soften” my ride so I do not hate my life later?
Someone mentioned the Corvair and I did check that out a little. I could definitely consider this but do not know too much about them. I will have to do a little more homework on this (later). For now, I am proceeding with the clean-out and expect to pull the engine and transmission before the end of next month if things stay on track. For now, the Buick is free to a good home if someone wants to pull it for me, otherwise I have no space to hold it for a future project that I cannot even conceive at this point in the far, far future. I hate to waste good, but it is no good to hold what I don't think I can ever use.
But yes, once it is all done and put together, I will use it as my daily driver for the foreseeable future. This means I make the trek from Tampa to Jacksonville every weekend, coming back before my week begins, 3.5 hours each way, so it is not a straight 7 hour shot. Based on nbb350’s remark, I am getting the hint that Sterlings may be a rougher ride than I thought. I have never been able to drive one and have never encountered one in the wild (except for my pilgrimage to unofun’s when I picked mine from his barn collection). I may want to break seating thoughts into a separate thread later if it gets too deep but could someone please shed some more light on this?
Mine is an IRS, but I do plan to rebuild it and can adjust as needed based on the new transmission. I have to replace it no matter what since the 914/6 needs a different transmission and the one in place is not the best for the Buick. My suspension plan is to go with a bag lift system to raise the car for curbs and speed bumps but lower it to “stock” height which is about 5” during normal driving. Since I am going to be replacing the hardware for my shocks and anything related, what can I do to “soften” my ride so I do not hate my life later?
Brett Proctor
Well-known member
Seriously, a 6 cylinder engine weighing only 120 lbs. No way.
That engine is reported to weigh in at 450lb
450 lbs
The Porsche 914 is equipped with a 2.0-liter 6-cylinder flat-six boxer engine2. The weight of the drivetrain, including the engine and transmission, is approximately 450 lbs for an early engine and 100 lbs for the 901 transaxle1Also it will hang out further in the back which will make the front lighter
Brett Proctor
Well-known member
I think you mixed up the weight of the engine with how much foot pounds (lb/ft) of torque it puts out.
The 1970 Porsche 2.0 6-cylinder has a horsepower of 109 @ 5800 RPM and a torque of 120 lb/ft @ 4200 RPM
The 1970 Porsche 2.0 6-cylinder has a horsepower of 109 @ 5800 RPM and a torque of 120 lb/ft @ 4200 RPM
nbb350
Active member
Yes, the ride can be rough (mine sure is), and you might need a Dentist to fix your chipped teeth after encountering potholes or railroad tracks, but it's the "neck angle" that will probably cause you the most problems. TIlt your head down to look at your belly - now imagine driving with your neck in that position! The Whole Time. Granted, I'm 6'-3", so my seating/driving position may be more extreme than yours, but you may be surprised at how "coffin-like" the seating is.
Also, you cannot SEE or BE SEEN in the Sterling. At least for me, changing lanes requires Hope and Faith, and I always want to be Ahead or Behind - NOT Next To - any car on the road that is larger than me...so ALL cars on the road! Why? The Sterling is shorter than anything else out there (even Corvettes), so other Drivers don't see you; they don't look DOWN before changing lanes! Heck, I'm only 3" tallaer than Guardrails! lol
My wife was following me in her Jeep one time and thought it was hilarious how small the Sterling was compared to everyone I passed. I couldn't even SEE most other drivers out my side windows; all I see are door panels!
doug-doug the mighy
Member
Ah, that might be the case. Thanks.
doug-doug the mighy
Member
Awesome pic! That really does provide some perspective. Aside from serious attention while driving, I may need to add a train horn/air horn to the final stage regardless of where I drive it.
Yes, exactly! I was thinking this when he mentioned about worrying about a rough ride. Yes, my car has a rather stiff and rattling ride like they all do — which tires you out — but what really wears me out during a long ride in my Sterling or Cimbria is the feeling of not being able to see or be seen.
In a normal car, a normal daily driver, I think we have all had the experience of being on a highway and getting temporarily caught up in a cluster of tractor trailers. One right in front of you that you can’t see around. One giant grill in your rearview mirror and maybe one in the lane beside you, just hanging there, not really definitively passing or fading back. It’s a really nerve wracking moment, even for those of us who are really chill and enthusiastic about driving.
Well…
Almost every second in traffic in a Sterling feel EXACTLY LIKE THAT. All you see is bumpers, license plates, and door panels. That’s it. You can’t really see what lies ahead. Merging is f#$king terrifying. And the cabin is snug as crap. There are so many things that I love about the car that I tolerate these things. But after a long trip in it I always feel exhausted.
Anyhow, we actually aren’t sharing these things to be negative. It is an excellent topic and we’re just sharing some insider perspective. I love taking the car places and getting smiles and “thumbs up” everywhere I go. I also really love getting out of it and slipping into my daily driver SUV instead.
There is a somewhat secret Sterling project under development right now with major goals of addressing some of those issues. Time will tell.
doug-doug the mighy
Member
I do not take anything here as a negative - this is what the forum is for and sometimes mentoring includes harsh realities and settign a newcomer (or an old dog) right.
I am intrigued by the "secret project" as I was thinking about a way to harvest the cameras, sensors, and head unit from another car (as yet undetermined but let's, for the sake of argument say an Audi or possibly from a RaspberryPi project I had started some time back), thus allowing me to see what is around me better than relying on the mirrors. Had not cracked a good nut on how to be seen other than a train horn and loud pipes...
For now, I continue with the plans to work towards separating the body and chassis.
I am intrigued by the "secret project" as I was thinking about a way to harvest the cameras, sensors, and head unit from another car (as yet undetermined but let's, for the sake of argument say an Audi or possibly from a RaspberryPi project I had started some time back), thus allowing me to see what is around me better than relying on the mirrors. Had not cracked a good nut on how to be seen other than a train horn and loud pipes...
For now, I continue with the plans to work towards separating the body and chassis.
Oh yes, definitely keep going full speed with the project. We like what you’re doing.
Engine choice is very personal. Sometimes a person uses an engine from a donor they just happen to have already. Sometimes they use the tried and true, good old bug engine just to keep it simple and get it back on the road. Sometimes a builder just has a strong pull towards some engine in particular. It’s all good. For me, a flat 6 is an engine that can sound great and fits reasonably well. But I’m scared off by any engine that might end up being scarce, finicky, or expensive. I will probably do a version with a flat 6 some day but I’ll probably use the Subaru H6 because it makes 212 hp (base) and usually runs for 250,000 miles without needing anything. But that commits a person to the radiators and the complicated wiring harnesses, etc. An air-cooled 6 definitely has some advantages. Old Porsche engines just happen to be out of my own comfort zone.
The secret project is an updated model. As it pertains to seeing and being seen, the car’s cabin is slightly taller. But more importantly, I’m hoping we will be able to meaningfully dial in better mirrors and cameras. I did some experiments with dual rear cameras and they were almost useless. The problem is with Field of View. Almost all backup cameras are 170 or 120 degrees Field of View. That’s totally appropriate for backing into a parking spot but is way, way to wide to keep track of traffic behind you. The secret is to use two cameras, each with FOV of about 90 degrees. But that configuration is uncommon and difficult to find. I haven’t found the right combination of cameras and screens… yet.
Engine choice is very personal. Sometimes a person uses an engine from a donor they just happen to have already. Sometimes they use the tried and true, good old bug engine just to keep it simple and get it back on the road. Sometimes a builder just has a strong pull towards some engine in particular. It’s all good. For me, a flat 6 is an engine that can sound great and fits reasonably well. But I’m scared off by any engine that might end up being scarce, finicky, or expensive. I will probably do a version with a flat 6 some day but I’ll probably use the Subaru H6 because it makes 212 hp (base) and usually runs for 250,000 miles without needing anything. But that commits a person to the radiators and the complicated wiring harnesses, etc. An air-cooled 6 definitely has some advantages. Old Porsche engines just happen to be out of my own comfort zone.
The secret project is an updated model. As it pertains to seeing and being seen, the car’s cabin is slightly taller. But more importantly, I’m hoping we will be able to meaningfully dial in better mirrors and cameras. I did some experiments with dual rear cameras and they were almost useless. The problem is with Field of View. Almost all backup cameras are 170 or 120 degrees Field of View. That’s totally appropriate for backing into a parking spot but is way, way to wide to keep track of traffic behind you. The secret is to use two cameras, each with FOV of about 90 degrees. But that configuration is uncommon and difficult to find. I haven’t found the right combination of cameras and screens… yet.
doug-doug the mighy
Member
Cameras:
Taking note from my own musings and based on my own other vehicles, You get a halfway decent look with one center camera on the back and then a rear-looking camera from the mirrors when changing lanes (activated by the turn signals). For low speed, the side cameras look more out to the side than rearward. The dash screen has been tailored to blend these images (by the auto manufacturer). I figured, using a RaspberryPi and some usb cameras, I might be able to approximate this. MyEYE was a good OS and worked great as a DIY security/monitor system with decent recording capabilities. Latency was a small problem but better hardware might make up for that.
I like my smaller profile mirrors so I would need to mount cameras somewhere else or figure how to hide them somewhere near that area. It would not be hard at all to adjust the code to blend the camera images at the "seams" but minor distortion will always occur. Maybe somewhere high up on A-pillar/windshield looking out might work and would solve my fears about being weather-safe. Maybe later this summer, I will drag that stuff out again and see what I can cobble together from that project now that it has been a few years and technology has caught up to some of my visions. If I can get something stable with off-the-shelf stuff, I will definitely share.
As for seeing what the cameras see, I have a wrap-around dash, so there is sufficient room for a small display screen (7" or so). But having a digital rearview mirror is an option and would allow for side views to blend in nicely. I have seen a few and might consider this rather than a true mirror if I go this route.
But these only go towards the "able to SEE" side of the equation... What about being able to "BE SEEN"?
Taking note from my own musings and based on my own other vehicles, You get a halfway decent look with one center camera on the back and then a rear-looking camera from the mirrors when changing lanes (activated by the turn signals). For low speed, the side cameras look more out to the side than rearward. The dash screen has been tailored to blend these images (by the auto manufacturer). I figured, using a RaspberryPi and some usb cameras, I might be able to approximate this. MyEYE was a good OS and worked great as a DIY security/monitor system with decent recording capabilities. Latency was a small problem but better hardware might make up for that.
I like my smaller profile mirrors so I would need to mount cameras somewhere else or figure how to hide them somewhere near that area. It would not be hard at all to adjust the code to blend the camera images at the "seams" but minor distortion will always occur. Maybe somewhere high up on A-pillar/windshield looking out might work and would solve my fears about being weather-safe. Maybe later this summer, I will drag that stuff out again and see what I can cobble together from that project now that it has been a few years and technology has caught up to some of my visions. If I can get something stable with off-the-shelf stuff, I will definitely share.
As for seeing what the cameras see, I have a wrap-around dash, so there is sufficient room for a small display screen (7" or so). But having a digital rearview mirror is an option and would allow for side views to blend in nicely. I have seen a few and might consider this rather than a true mirror if I go this route.
But these only go towards the "able to SEE" side of the equation... What about being able to "BE SEEN"?
doug-doug the mighy
Member
Engine choice:
Yeah, I am not a fan of the radiators. I just pulled mine out and there was too much make-shift required to hold them in. I got a connection at a Subaru shop and might be able to get some good access to parts and such but I just don't think I want to deal with radiators. What I pulled out was old and leaking. It actually was starting to damage the fiberglass. Maybe if there was a better way to implement them in rather than what I had I might reconsider but I hate to cut anymore when my front trunk and nose are already as cut-up as they are. I mean, since I AM redoing the chassis, this is the time to be open to such options. The serviceability is attractive and It would be great to actually take it to a dealership for service. I have not looked at them too deeply since FactoryFive stopped making their GTR and even then, it was only wavetops.
Yeah, I am not a fan of the radiators. I just pulled mine out and there was too much make-shift required to hold them in. I got a connection at a Subaru shop and might be able to get some good access to parts and such but I just don't think I want to deal with radiators. What I pulled out was old and leaking. It actually was starting to damage the fiberglass. Maybe if there was a better way to implement them in rather than what I had I might reconsider but I hate to cut anymore when my front trunk and nose are already as cut-up as they are. I mean, since I AM redoing the chassis, this is the time to be open to such options. The serviceability is attractive and It would be great to actually take it to a dealership for service. I have not looked at them too deeply since FactoryFive stopped making their GTR and even then, it was only wavetops.
doug-doug the mighy
Member
Engines:
…but let’s say I DID decide to go back to a Bug engine…
Given what o said I want to do driving-wise, what would be the best to go for Type 1? Type 3? 2100cc or 1800? I know ‘more’ is sometimes ‘less’ as the tale of a 914/6 reveals.
…but let’s say I DID decide to go back to a Bug engine…
Given what o said I want to do driving-wise, what would be the best to go for Type 1? Type 3? 2100cc or 1800? I know ‘more’ is sometimes ‘less’ as the tale of a 914/6 reveals.
Brett Proctor
Well-known member
Just because the previous owner "Mickey Moused" the cooling system in doesn't mean you have to put it back in the same way.
OK with that said going air cooled narrows the field down.
You could write a book on the plusses and minuses of these engines and I think its been done.
I'm not a fan of long write up so this will be short as possible
Type 1 1600 (60hp) (dual port)
Type 4 1.7 (65 hp)
2.0 (70 hp)
Type 1 cooling fan mounted on top of engine
Type 4 cooling fan mounted on crank (engine is longer)
The type 1 has no oil filter (higher Maintenace)
Transmission choice for both engines. When these cars were built (VW) the speed limit on the highways was 55mph. Gearing wasn't built for long periods of 80 mph driving. Its good for around town driving but I think on the highway the engine maybe at its limit of rpms
Had a friend with a convertible bug. He sold it and the guy would drive it back and forth between states. He blew the engine in it. Came back to my friend and wanted his money back.
1.2-1.3 engines 4.375 ratio
1.3-1.5 4.125
1.6 3.88
I put the 3.88 in my car and at 65mph the engine is running a little over 2500 rpm's. Haven't taken it to 70mph yet
Just to give something to compare it to, my Frontier truck tachs 2000rpm at 75mph
OK thats it for now
Last edited:
Brett Proctor
Well-known member
Las Vegas to St George UT
About a 2 hour drive I think maybe a little longer. Its been a while since I made the drive
Oil filter conversions for type 1 are readily available, and there are upright cooling conversions for type 4 engines.