Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:39:37 -0800
Reply-To: David Marshall <vanagon@VOLKSWAGEN.ORG>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Marshall <vanagon@VOLKSWAGEN.ORG>
Subject: Re: Some Engine Conversions (fomerly "TO WATERBOXER OR NOT"??)
In-Reply-To: <3879954B.A452CDAC@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I can only comment on 2/3s of your engine comparisons the Audi / Volkswagen
engines.
First I would like to comment on the power observations.
ENGINE POWER TORQUE
2.1 WBX 95hp@4800RPM 117ft/lbs@3200RPM
1.8 I4 105hp@5400RPM 114ft/lbs@3800RPM
2.0 I4 115hp@5400RPM 135ft/lbs@3200RPM
2.1 I5 100hp@5500RPM 120ft/lbs@3000RPM
2.2T I5 162hp@5500RPM 177ft/lbs@3000RPM
2.3 I5 130hp@5600RPM 140ft/lbs@4000RPM
The 2.1L WBX is a nice motor when it comes to power and torque in my
opinion, no, you are not going to win any races but it does suit the
gearing of the van quite well. There are shortcomings that we are all
aware of, hence the need to change your motor to something else. If I had
the cash I would get a WBX blue printed and ballanced with some performance
goodies and look forward to changing the heads every 4 to 5 years - really
good bang for the buck and total cost of ownership would be less in the
long run (an I *sell* I4 conversion kits!) - just look at Per's 112hp boxer
- same as a 2.0L I4 in power, only fits a lot better!
INLINE FOUR CYLINDERS:
The kit that I sell for $1300 USD allows the installation of any inline
four cylinder Volkswagen or Audi engine in to your Vanagon, so I can shed a
fair amount of light on how I4 engines perform in a Vanagon, what works,
what works well and what is really fun.
The 1.8L "GTI" engine that is found in the 1985 thru 1992 Golf GTI / GT /
GL and Jetta GLI / GL / CL is my "economic" recommendation for anyone
considering a swap. Usually you can get a *complete* 1.8L engine with fuel
injection and wiring harness modifications (with a guarantee) for aprox
$1000 USD. This gives you performance equal to your 2.1L wasserboxer.
These engines also have a higher rev limit allowing for more fun passing
people with that newly extended rev range. This is what is in my 1984
Westfalia. Pros for these engines are: common, inexpensive, simple fuel
injection system, decent power
The 2.0L Jetta III / Golf III engines (1993 thru 1998) is what I would
recommend if you want more power than what your boxer puts out. These
engines are newer and in high demand from the VW turners who drop them in
to Rabbits. These engines *complete* with fuel injection and wiring
harness (again with a guarantee) average $2250 USD. Not a huge increase in
power over the boxer or the 1.8L but the mid range is really perky
especially if you drop in a very "mild" cam. This is what is installed in
my 1988 Syncro Double Cab with oversized tires - yes, I could take any
wasserboxer equipped Vanagon in a race and going up the local 18% grade at
100km/h in 3rd gear is very easily done. 4th gear I can maintain 90km/h,
which is 10km/h over the speed limit. In town driving is a blast as well
as highway cruzing... I would like to see a wasserboxer do all of that!
The biggest problem with the Motronic ABA engines is the wiring harness and
the height of the engine over the 1.8L engines.
As you can see I am a little biased towards the inline four cylinder
engines - when the exhaust system is done right, they are a very enjoyable
engine that are simple to do maintenance on that will easily fit in the
back of your Vanagon. Be it Eurospec or Fast Forward's kit they are all
good and they all have their faults. I think *all* the conversion kits out
there should be targeted to the *hobbyist* they all have their "problems"
INLINE FIVE CYLINDERS:
I have owned an 87 Audi 4000 Quattro, 87 Audi 5000S Quattro, 88 Audi 5000
Turbo and a 90 Audi 90 Sport Quattro, so I know the 5 cylinder family quite
well.
My problem with the Audi 5 cylinders is for the added expense there isn't
really any increase in power and the total cost of ownership goes WAY UP!
Have you ever changed a water pump on a 5 cylinder? You can't do it at
home without the expensive DEALER ONLY tool that holds the crank pulley.
Yes the water pump is driven by the timing belt and takes about 3 hours to
re and re. The 4 cylinder is a 30 minute job. There are many quirky
things about the Audi engines that really make me shake my head.
2.1L This engine is found in most Quantum / Audi 4000s - simple CIS based
engine with the same power as a 2.1L boxer engine or a 1.8L GTI engine
(plus or minus a few hp). They work, simple to get working in a Vanagon
but I would not call them a rocket. Total cost of ownership is higher than
a I4 and parts are harder to find.
2.3L This engine is found in later Audi 5000s and Audi 100s - it is a very
complicated engine as far as the CIS-III engine management system goes. In
fact the wiring harness is a total nightmare unless you are willing to
spend 10 to 12 hours on it so it will function correctly in a Vanagon - it
just isn't cost effective to setup. Another big problem with this is the
timing sensor is on the flywheel, which makes it impossible to mount into a
Vanagon unless you want to spend big $$$ at a machine shop getting the bell
housing doctored. Power of this engine is nice - it moves my Audi 5000S
Quattro along with respect. Would I want to install it in my Vanagon - NO
- Get a VR6 you'll have more fun and save money.
2.2L Turbo This engine is a marvellous engine and really performs well -
especially if you visit TAP or Intended Acceleration and get it chipped and
springed to 230hp! It is just as complicated electrically as the 2.3L
engine plus the added complication of a turbo charger - again I would run
away from installing this one - a 1.8L Turbo from an Audi A4 would be a far
simpler installation and give your more power than your transmission would
handle - wiring is a lot simpler too!
What would I recommend for an five cylinder - I would make a Frankenstein
engine - a 2.5L block from a Eurovan, 2.3L head from an Audi 5000S and a
fuel injection system from a 2.1L - again lots of bucks and a Volkswagen
VR6 or Audi 1.8T would be a better choice.
SUBARU ENGINES
Can't see what the fuss is about - 4" - 5" lower than a boxer, power and
torque are all in the high RPM range which is not where you drive and
unless you are willing to service it yourself most places will laugh at you
when you ask them to fix it.
At 12:16 AM 10/01/2000 -0800, Warren Chapman wrote:
>(This is the edited spell-checked version. Please excuse the previous
>post.)
>
>Ah, ....................."TO WATERBOXER OR NOT TO WATERBOXER"
>..........Certainly one of the most profound questions of the universe.
>
>I also am pondering this question deeply......being the owner of a
>(recently acquired) '91 Syncro Westy with a rod through the top of the
>block. I've been pondering this question for a year, trying to imagine
>the perfect van, even before purchasing the ill fated Syncro.
>
>In my quest, to date, I have inspected and driven three conversions:
>
>1. A '91 Multivan with a Eurospec 2.0 L which was (after smogging)
>upgraded with a bit more aggressive cam.
>
>2. An '86 with Country Homes Camper with a 5 cyl Quantum/Audi.
>
>3. An '85 with the Kennedy/Subaru 2.2L conversion.
>
>My impressions are as follows:
>
>1. Eurospec:
>Very nice fit…. looks factory…. very "sanitary" and it keeps me and the
>other "purists" happy since everything is still VW. But, alas,….. there
>is little improvement in power and torque over my previous van, a stock
>'91 Multivan. The vibration and "drone" problem was evident but was
>reportedly solved later by the installer with a re-engineered motor
>mount. Uphill climbs in the Berkeley, CA hills still required 2nd gear,
>long grades still required third gear, but the power was a little
>stronger in the upper rpms. On the freeway, cruising over 70 mph was
>easier with less strain.
>
>Maybe the better reliability is worth it to some, but for the very
>considerable sum this kit costs, I want more bang for the buck...i.e:
>more POWER in the upper rpms for highway driving, and more TORQUE in the
>lower rpms for around-the-town general derivability (fun), for climbing
>steeper hills, and for pushing the heavier Syncro. (The Syncro Westy is
>my mountain home during fly fishing trips, usually in the mountains).
>Even in the relatively light Multivan (probably 800-1000 lbs lighter
>than a Syncro Westy), this engine leaves me wanting more. In summary,
>this kit doesn't get the job done (for me) and the reported reliability
>problems in recent posts seal its fate in my future.
>
>2. Quantum/Audi 5cyl.
>Now we're talking. The torque and power are there. Driving is
>definitely more fun around town and climbing in the hills is easier.
>And we're still in the VW/Audi (extended) family. When I look under the
>lid, however, I am disappointed. The install doesn't look right.
>Although performed by a professional the conversion looks like a
>“backyard” job. Not-so-sanitary welding here and there on the throttle
>linkage and the expansion tank mounting brackets are welded directly
>verticle to the compartment wall with no other support. Maybe the S.
>Africans have it right but this install doesn't have the sanitary
>"factory" look. The van drives more like I want it to, with good torque
>in the lower ranges, and it climbs with much less effort in the hills.
>But I notice again a few curious resonances and drones at certain rpms.
>I keep looking.
-- David Marshall - - Quesnel, BC, Canada --
-- 78 VW Rabbit, 80 VW Caddy, 84 VW Westie, 85 VW Cabriolet --
-- 87 Audi 5000 Quattro, 88 2.0L VW Syncro Double Cab --
-- David's Volkswagen Home Page http://www.volkswagen.org --
-- Fast Forward Autobahn Sport Tuning http://www.fastforward.ca --
-- david@volkswagen.org (pmail) or vanagon@volkswagen.org (list) --
