Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:49:09 -0700
Reply-To: Brent Christensen <bpchristensen1@HOME.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Brent Christensen <bpchristensen1@HOME.COM>
Subject: Re: Why convert to a engine that is not better than WBX?
In-Reply-To: <20000606013805.941.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
First of all, I am not necessarily an advocate of engine conversions, but...
One of the things that you have to realize is that the WBX engine is a 4th
generation iteration of something that was never foreseen in its original
form (the 1946 air cooled ~1300 cc motor). You have to remember that the
WBX motor is really not much more than this original motor on ultra
steroids. It represents the pinnacle of achievement for this specific
motor. VW really maxed out on recouping their R & D costs by continually
extending the product life of the engine thorough reengineering and
reengineering until they had succeeded over the course of 40+ years in
cranking out damned near 100 hp from a motor that would barely light a
couple of 6v headlamps way back when. This is really impressive when you
think about it (and typical of Teutonic thinking in many ways).
Where they went wrong was choosing it for a van that would do duty as a 4wd
camper carrying 4 people and 600 lbs of gear... You can only take
engineering of a platform to a certain degree until you begin to push up
against some practical limits. This has got to be the reason why VW
eventually migrated to a front engine in the Eurovan (to allow for the
insertion of a "modern" engine with V6 power, etc.)
Don't get me wrong - the WBX motor is part of what makes our Vanagons
special; and a front engine? Sacrilege! However - the inherent limitations
of the motor really don't allow much room for "tweaking" per se (IMHO).
Now I know that Robert Lilley will disagree with me (and he certainly
deserves more credibility as one who walks the walk), but my gut feeling is
that other than counter-balancing and some basic tricks like match-porting
and blueprinting, I don't feel that there is much room for improvement with
the WBX motor. It is after all a 2.1 L motor built on a platform that was
originally designed for less than 1400 cc! Don't you remember all the cool
"stroker" and "big jug" kits you could get for your bug/square back/Karmann
Ghia back in high school? These were only possible because the basic
platform had some "room" for improvement. Alas, that "room" seems to have
been used up in the transition to a 2.1 liter water cooled engine, and we
are essentially left with this "pinnacle" of VW boxer engineering. A great
engine in many ways, but the unfortunate part is that it just isn't quite
enough for a Vanagon Westy or Syncro Westy (I'd love to ride in a
WBX-powered bug, though!)
Robert Lilley seems to have taken your theme of "Why not make what is there
better?" to the extreme, and seems to be very satisfied with his results.
Unfortunately, he is outnumbered by those that have chosen to go the way of
some sort of conversion. Which is better? I think that is a question that
only each of us can answer for ourselves.
Brent Christensen
'89 GL Syncro Westy "Klaus"
Santa Barbara, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM]On Behalf
Of Van Driver
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:38 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Why convert to a engine that is not better than WBX?
Why do you want to go to a conversion that is not time tested and most likey
will not pass emissions testing, both visual and sniffer?
Why not make what is there better?
There must be a better way to get more power and be legal?
Wanting legal power...
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
