Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2000 12:06:11 EST
Reply-To:     JordanVw@AOL.COM
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         JordanVw@AOL.COM
Subject:      Re: Why no 5cly transplants to Vanagons?
Comments: To: pickersgill@home.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

In a message dated 2/13/00 8:49:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
pickersgill@HOME.COM writes:

<< udi/VW 5cyl. engine. At 2.4L displacement it would presumably have more
torque and horsepower, than the  4cyls. at lower rpm and not much greater
fuel consumption? Yet we don't hear anything on the list about using those
engines for transplant, either as gas or diesel? I'm wondering why? Is the
S.A. chassis different and the engine wouldn't fit other chassis types?

 I would assume that the VW of S.A. would have all the necessary engine
mounts and exhaust system parts and brackets etc, probably even wiring
harness for sale. Is there an issue with compatibility of  the transmission
that makes this option impractical or is there some other reason it is not
being considered?
  >>


we've all been thru this about a year ago  (check archives...there are TONS
of 5cyl conversion posts), and it was the general consensus that the 4cyl
inline engine was a :
1) cheaper
2) easier to locate
3) easier to find conversion parts for (wiring, ect)
4) easier to install
5) no clearance problems
6) more Vendors offering this kit, and offering installations
etc...

there were a few who did the 5cyl conversion, but it was not really all that
cost effective , and they ran into problems (wiring harness, FI, etc)

i for one, who drive an audi (5cyl) daily (bulletproof engine, i might add!)
, was really gung ho about the whole 5cyl conversion thing, but the cost and
headache factor ruled it out.   there were quite a few listers who were going
the 5cyl route, and they all scrapped their plans, too.
you'll find out after more research that the 4cyl is a better alternative.

chris
'86 audi 5000 turbo 5cyl
'84 vanagon wolfsburg (still with leaky WBX)