VW 1303S

carchaeologist

Test drove one of these this eve,more to see how it drove than with a view to buying it,though i wouldnt mind a good beetle and iv never driven a 1303 before.
But it seemed quite underpowered,im not sure if this was because it had a small engine fitted,is the way that the are,or it was knackered,so just a few quick questions to all ye veedub heads out there...

1:Were all 1303 beetles 1600s?Or did they come in 1300 versions?

2: What sort of power should they make,i was driving up a medium hill in 4th with a good run and had to change down to 3rd or it would have run out of steam(my 997cc datsun does better than that!!)Maybe it was the extra weight of all the filler..;)

3:Is the macpherson strut suspension any better than the standard torsion bars?

4:Is there much difference between the 'pan of a 1303 than a standard beetle?

5:What would be the main points to look for when buying one?
Thanks lads..:)

Run_to_da_hills

Handled much better and were quicker than earlier models, ie electronically controlled fuel injection motor. They were also quite thirsty, as with most aircooled VW engines. I liked the curved windscreen but detested the ugly rear lights!!

Dustpuppy

If u need a bigger engine, let me know.

superboy

Well I have a 1302S which is a step between the ordinary beetle and the 1303 (flat windscreen, 1600 engine, Mac pherson struts). the 1303's came in1300 and 1600 flavours. the floor is identical (apart from seat runners, to the earlier beetles. where it differs is under the front (the frame head) due to the different front suspension. check floor (especially battery tray), jacking points, inner arches and especially the area around the rear suspension arms. but you can get absolutely any part you need, and then some.

trevorbrady

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Handled much better and were quicker than earlier models, ie electronically controlled fuel injection motor. They were also quite thirsty, as with most aircooled VW engines. I liked the curved windscreen but detested the ugly rear lights!!

They didn't all (very few in fact) have injection. THe vast majority were 1300 twin port motors with a few of them being 1600 twin port, single carb, badged 1303S. The 1600 model had a higher ratio gearbox too.

The floorpans are the same as the same year beetle up as far as the front crossmember (with the addition of Independent Rear Suspension: IRS). From the cross member forward the framehead is completely different resulting in a wheelbase an inch longer than a "standard" bug.

The Mcpherson strut front suspension is much better in terms of handling than the torsion bar bugs, the camber gain when cornering was the main advantage, the torsion bar bugs had no camber change with suspension travel. The IRS rear suspension did away with the Ralph Nader "axle jacking" problem that killed off the Corvair, the camber change with suspension travel at the rear was drastically reduced. The downside to the upgraded suspension was the introduction of many more points of wear, the "super beetle shimmy" being one, the whole car would wobble at about 40mph due to worn front suspension bushes.

The one you drove probably had the original '73 or '74 engine and it was probably well past its sell by date. While they would never be described as fast cars, it should be capable of pulling itself up a hill in fourth, even with the 1300 motor.

Main points to look for when buying: RUST!!!! The mechanicals are simple and cheap to repair, parts are widely available. The rot is harder to fix and the 1303-only panels (i.e. from the A pillar forward) are hard to find and expensive when compared to the standard bug. I suppose the usual suspects like the heater channels (from the rear corner under the seat to the front corner at your feet incorporating the door sills) rot in all beetles eventually and the bottom 6" of the quarters, door pillars, inner wings etc attached to the heater channels rot out when the channels go.

I used a 1303 chassis under an oval window shell for my veewrx project for the better handling but with the classic looks. It helps too that Porsche 944 suspension and brakes are almost a bolt-on upgrade for the 1303 stuff

carchaeologist

Thanks for that trevorbrady,very helpfull,i had a feeling the engine was a bit on the underpowered side alright,i knew someone on here would set the record straight:)I knew it wouldnt be fast in the classic sense,but i know a fcuked engine when i drive one,it seemed to be flatspotting alot.
It was like a car that had been kept on the road with less and less interest and money over the years,and your man was selling it on the strength of its english M.O.T.,which doesnt mean much in my eyes,alot of so called M.O.T.d stuff is often wrecked by the time it gets to this country.It was still on english plates...M reg.Twas still nice to drive one, i hadnt driven a beetle for years!!!

I always liked the super beetle,with its bulbous nose,better dash and curved screen,a neighbour had a mint 71(i think) from new and traded it to the scrappage scheme for a 97 polo,i nearly exploded.:mad::mad:

When you fitted the 1303 chassis to your oval did you have to change the whole inner wings to mcpherson strut setup?

carchaeologist

Ok...i see now..great work!!!!Im hugely impressed!!!:)

Henry Ford III

I know very little about VW Beetles. Were they all slowish and thirsty?

carchaeologist

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I know very little about VW Beetles. Were they all slowish and thirsty?

They seem to be...except this one;)

trevorbrady

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I know very little about VW Beetles. Were they all slowish and thirsty?

ah they're not all bad

my '73 bug has a stock 1600 motor (with the exception of the aftermarket header and muffler) and a 1300 transmission. It'll do 80MPH pretty easily and returns 30+MPG at 60MPH. It'd do more than 80MPH but I don't like to rev it too high as the stock crank isn't the most balanced in the world and they tend to pound bearings if over-revved. With the 1600 gearbox it would do better speeds and return better MPG but I broke that :rolleyes:

Abelloid

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I know very little about VW Beetles. Were they all slowish and thirsty?

1600s are nippy enough (beetles are under 900kgs remember) and roughly 25 MPG

In all the years owning VWs I have yet to drive a 1200 or 1300 motor...

trevorbrady

@ Justin,

you're not missing much!! 1200's are best described as "pedestrian" ;D

Seweryn

superboy wrote: »

the 1303's came in1300 and 1600 flavours.

...and also with the 1200 engine. The model was named 1303A.

Regards!

dollydishmop

trevorbrady wrote:

my '73 bug has a stock 1600 motor (with the exception of the aftermarket header and muffler) and a 1300 transmission. It'll do 80MPH pretty easily and returns 30+MPG at 60MPH

JustinOval wrote:

1600s are nippy enough (beetles are under 900kgs remember) and roughly 25 MPG

Think there must be a problem with mine then, in a good way

Its a '72 bug with 1600 engine on a 1300 gearbox, with dual Webers (allegedly thirsty?), and its driven relatively hard most of the time

And consistently gives me between 37-39 mpg....

Abelloid

dollydishmop wrote: »

Think there must be a problem with mine then, in a good way

Its a '72 bug with 1600 engine on a 1300 gearbox, with dual Webers (allegedly thirsty?), and its driven relatively hard most of the time

And consistently gives me between 37-39 mpg....

What size are your front tyres?

dollydishmop

JustinOval wrote: »

What size are your front tyres?

Good question, well asked

As you know , my front wheels are smaller than standard, a whopping 1" smaller....and if I did the mpg calculation off the speedo, it would be falsely high...higher than what I stated in the post above.

Hence why, the 37-39 mpg is based on calculations from my Sat Nav, on long journeys

(Which sadly I can't seem to go anywhere without :eek: )

(yes, I am anally-retentive about these things....small wheels might lie, but sat nav is generally more accurate then the speedo with regards to speed & distance AAIUI)

Abelloid

Ok, can't argue with that.

Just one more question; how many litres in a gallon? :P

Only joking, having twin carbs should make your motor more efficient and give better fuel economy.

Dirty1

Im not a fan of 02's and 03's, Trev knows this though! They tend to be bought cheap as theyre not as desirable as torsion beamed cars, rust is the main problem as Trev stated AFAIK some parts are getting hard to find. Some people love them and usually spray them purple!:rolleyes:

Beetles arent that slow, theres plenty of folk in the country these days who can prove that one wrong!!:D