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)
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
