Date:         Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:38:08 -0500
Reply-To:     Chris Stann <ChrisS@informs.com>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Chris Stann <ChrisS@informs.com>
Subject:      Re: Engine Conversion and MPG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

OK, one more before I go.

The only way to accurately determine which engine is more efficient is meter
the fuel flow.  You'll have to reduce variables as much as possible.  Same
type of Vanagon, same tires, tire pressures, oil viscosities -- no cheating
with synthetic in your tranny, same exterior equipment.  Same day, same
road, same conditions, same speed.  Two way average at a constant speed.

Any one up for the challenge?

----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Haynes <Dhaynes57@email.msn.com>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: Engine Conversion and MPG


> I'm curious, which vehicle was leading. This could make a significant
> difference. Also, the crew cab will get better mileage than the camper.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On Behalf
> Of Lawrence Johnson
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 5:56 AM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Engine Conversion and MPG
>
>
> The Subaru 2.2 WBX conversion is 15% more efficient than the original VW
2.1
> WBX.
>
> In May of this year, my wife and I drove our '86 Syncro Westfalia (VW 2.1
> WBX) and our '86 Syncro Doublecab (Subaru 2.2 WBX) from MD to Ontario;
> travelling in convoy for 842 miles (1,348 km). The Subaru conversion
> averaged 22.7 mpg (10.34 l/100km) and the VW WBX averaged 19.2 mpg (12.25
> l/100km). We used the same gas and filled up at the same pump at the same
> time.
>
> -Larry
>
> > I was a little surprised to hear some of the MPG quoted with engine mods
> > and conversions.