Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (September 2000, week 1)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:22:06 -0700
Reply-To:     T Berk <tberk@MINDSPRING.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         T Berk <tberk@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject:      Re: Engine and Transmission Swap BS: was Thinking Swap ...(Now
              Full)
Comments: To: FrankGRUN@AOL.COM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Frank Grunthaner wrote:

<snip> > > But back to the point: ONE INSTANCE OF ANYTHING IS AT BEST AN EXPERIMENT, AT > WORST AN OBSERVATION. IT IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OR PREDICTABLE.

Correct. Keep in mind there are folks who have been putting cross family engines in VWs for a long time. I would be basing my choices based upon this historical evidence.

> > MY ADVICE: Do this to play, do this to learn but do this with the full > understanding that the real world reliability of this system could be worse > than a nominal WBX rebuild.

OK.

> Second: This old barstool tale that engineers are not permitted to build in > reliability is complete bullshit.

Given.

> > Third: THIS CONTINUING OLD WIVES TALE THAT HIGH RPM's ARE BAD FOR ENGINE > LIFE. BULLSHIT.

I 'gree. This is one of the things that benefits can be gained from by having you engine balanced, and in some cases lightened. I like to rev my engines from time to time, hardly do so on every occasion but don't fear sustained revs under load. This is what high quality oil, changed on a regular basis is for.

> > > So: the only loss in sticking with the standard Vanagon diesel transmission > in a CA smog approved swap is the noise. Insulate, and muffle, add a 600 watt > stereo and a little Mozart and all is fine.

Even though there is ample evidence given why you don't need to have a 5th/ lower rev last gear I still would be building towards decent power from block, free breathing, low gearing power plant. Offset the lower gearing with more torque, etc.

> Swap issues: > > 1. I-4 swaps are many. Quality varies, but all have a certain factory > heritage. They are different in the implementing details and are therefore > mostly experimental...

True, but in my own experience as well as those I learn from it is plug and play for the most part. [read Water-cooled Rabbit/Golf & siblings. SCIROCCO!, ahem.) That is, the power plant is a proven unit, but it will most likely be pushing a bigger load (van) than it's original sedan. This = greater stress but most likely you are installing a more powerfull power plant than the one you had originally anyway, one designed for it's given power output.

> NOTE: in CA, putting in any replacement engine from the same > year or later with original smog equipment is smog legal so long as the > engine was sold in CA.

I have been operating under the (illusional?) idea that the later manufacture date leads the smog requierment; later engine uses it's smog stuff, later car can use early engine- as long as it meets the later car's emmesion specs. (Unlikely, but possible)

From the SMOG page on line:

> Certification Standards > > Make sure the engine and emission control configuration on exhaust - controlled vehicles are > certified to the year of the vehicle or newer, and to the same or a more stringent new vehicle > certification standard.

< http://smogcheck.ca.gov/smogweb/Geninfo/default.asp?RefPage=/Geninfo/Publications/Engine_Change_Guidelines-Jan_1994.htm>

> Now the Tiico engine -

I as of yet, know nothing about them.

> > As to the Subaru swap, <snip>

Who cares for myself, it's apperently a viable option nonetheless.

> > > > Summary on swaps: > 1. Modest money, minimum risk, rebuild the WBX with a good engine rebuilder. > 2. Eyes open, more money, modest risk, go Tiico. > 3. Less money, more risk, more time, any of the DIY I-4 conversions. > 4. Similar money to 2, more risk, Smog viable, long term stable, go Subaru > 5. Much more money, much more risk, go evangelical with Lilley WBX approach > looking for enhanced reliability. > 6. Rapid boat to hell, install 5 cylinder Audi turbo with Vanagon project. > > Me: I'm making a CAD model of the 2.8 L Porsche 944 turbo mounted to the > Tiptronic automatic. Just have to close a Florida land deal. > > Sorry for the length. Just got overwrought. Evidence: two erroneous partial > posts from hitting the enter key on my powerbook. > > Frank Grunthaner

Good stuff Frank.

My 1.5 pennies:

1. Rebuild? s'OK. Get it balanced if at all possible while you are in there. 2. ??? 3. Good value. Risk(?) is not that high. I don't see why it should be costing folks $4 though. 4. Mixing vendors, either Chevy or Subaru or whatever, makes me leary. See below. 5. same as #2. 6. Sound like you could smoke tires in the syncro with this one. =]

I am new to Vanagons, learned to drive around in parking lots at least partly in an air cooled bus, had a Ghia at one point, and now have watercooled inline 4 engine based cars from Volkswagen. Engine swaps for me are not a big deal because they all line up if chosen well, are as reliable as they would have been in the original donor car, and (ussually) provide more power/ performance to older cars with great bodies.

Note: We (watercooled VW engine swapping folk) usualy abhore Digifant based on it's lack of upgrade options. This may not matter to those looking to keep it simple and therefore possibly provide a greater value to the budget concience buyer. Ge the whole kit & caboodle if you can from the donor.

In short, if your Van's engine is leaking around the heads and it'll be a bunch to fix, OR you like tinkering- go for it. If you have a bunch'o cheese, dream big.

TBerk


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.