<VV> 180 or 140

[Tony Underwood]

At 05:47 AM 1/31/2007, ron turner wrote:
>my 66  convertible was apparently a turbo car when new--found the rr 
>lower quarter panel had the cutout for big pipe that has been 
>glassed over--were turbo convertibles scarce enough to make me want 
>to try to locaate a 180 w all parts and go back to original or leave 
>it a 140 like it is now?


Well...

Turbos with convertible tops for 1966 are rather scarce.   Not a lot 
of them made, about 500 or so.   Fewer than '69 ragtops as I 
recall.   As far as its value is concerned, it's likely worth more as 
an original turbo car than as a converted 140.

The turbo engine tends to require a bit more fiddling until you get 
it right, then it seems to be pretty much OK.    At least this was my 
experience with the 180 engines.   But, you have to get them right 
before they become a non-issue...  ;)   Then again, sometimes the 140 
throttle linkage can be an issue in its own right.

>Fresh rebuild by prior owner has forged pistons with 9:0 ratio--too 
>much for 180 top end?


Probably unless you ran race gas.   ...or never got into 
boost.     In any event, if you were to convert the car back to 
original specs, you'd likely wanna find an RL code engine anyway, 
which will (should) have low compression (advertised 8-1, but 
actually closer to ~7.5-1) anyway so it wouldn't be an issue.

I do agree with another post that as a 140 powered car it's gonna be 
a bit more interesting to drive around town.  I also agree with 
Spence that before doing anything you should check that body tag for 
options...  to make sure it was an original turbo car.   As 
mentioned, there weren't many made in '66, particularly ragtops.


tony..