Date:         Thu, 7 Sep 2000 09:04:39 -0700
Reply-To:     Stuart MacMillan <macmillan@HOME.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Stuart MacMillan <macmillan@HOME.COM>
Subject:      Conversions and common sense observations
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Well, I can't resist contributing my $.02 on this thread.  So, here are
my thoughts on the subject based on 30 years of tinkering with cars of
all types and my Westy for 14 years, and examination of several
conversions, both Vanagons and other cars, FWTW.

1.  Conversions are for the experienced mechanic who has both the tools
and time to do the job right.  Lot's of fiddling, fabricating, and
problem solving is necessary, even though some conversions appear to be
better than others in this regard, i.e. the Tiico SA engine.  Either you
better enjoy this kind of work, or expect to pay a mechanic who will
tackle this lots of $$$ to do it and take care of your future service
needs.

2.  All in line fours have inherent resonant vibrations.  For years the
practical displacement limit was 2 liters because vibrations increased
dramatically above this mark.  Modern engineering has pushed this up to
2.3 or so with the use of pneumatic or hydraulic engine mounts, counter
rotating balance shafts and other tricks.  Without these enhancements an
in line four will set up resonant vibrations that will be amplified by
the "big box" interior of the Vanagon.  These vibrations can also be
problematic for the compact exhaust system the Vanagon requires. This
may or may not be a concern to you.  The Tiico may well be the best in
line four conversion kit, but it has the problem of providing only one
source for many parts: Tiico.  You better by a stock of replacement
parts (hoses in particular) along with the engine!

3.  The Subaru is an excellent engine, and no doubt the best option for
those hell bent on ditching the WBX.  It has two problems however that
caused me to reject it out of hand:  Dangerously low oil pan clearance,
and the need to remove the hatch to check/add oil.  Removing the hatch
is a pain on a trip where you have loaded the back with gear as I always
do in my Westy, and I check the oil and coolant at least every other
fill up.  Kennedy keeps promising a modified oil pan, but this will
reduce the oil capacity to three quarts.  Not a good idea in my mind,
especially since you have to go to extra trouble to check the oil, which
will be important to do regularly with only three quarts in the sump.

4.  The WBX is not a completely new engine, it is essentially the well
proven 2.0 air cooled case and internals with water jackets cast on and
water cooled heads, and the 2.1 adds a water cooled oil cooler.
Corrosion caused by inferior coolant anti-corrosion chemistry (yes, even
in the rip-off Autobahn stuff has conventional acid forming chemistry,
that's why they want you to replace it every two years, it's a real
money maker for VW service departments), and inadequate oil or
infrequent oil changes cause virtually all the problems people have with
this engine.  With a properly done rebuild, modern long life coolant
chemistry that doesn't form acids over time (Prestone Long Life or
Dexcool) and 5000-6000 mile oil changes of 20w-50 oil I expect to go at
least 150,000 miles on my newly installed 2.1 engine.  Total cost: $2500
and a day to install it.

5. With the $150 addition of 1.25 rockers, swivel feet, and a three
angle valve grind the 2.1 WBX becomes a very pleasant, relaxed highway
cruiser at 75 mph, even pushing a fully loaded Westy.  Passing at 90 on
a level, straight section of interstate is easy.  It will slow down on
steep hills, but so will the Subaru.  Robert Lilly is an expert and
enthusiast and enjoys going for the "full Lilly" with his engine, but
that is not necessary for satisfactory performance and long life.

I've never experimented with the depth plus micro screen oil filters
such as those from Amsoil and Trasko before, but I am now.  After 1500
miles or so to fully seat the rings I will switch to Red Line synthetic
20w-50 oil, and with the Trasko filter I may not change it at all, or
possibly every 20,000 miles.  We'll see.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the WBX, it is just bad chemistry
combined with poor maintenance that causes problems.  So don't feel that
you are forced into abandoning it, it is still a viable choice when the
time comes for a new engine.  I got over 200,000 miles on my original
1.9, 100,000 on new heads that were not leaking when I retired the
engine, and it ran fine except for smoking on cold start.  I may not go
as far on the 2.1 given that it works harder, but who knows, only time
will tell.

With the Vanagon South African five cylinder not being an option, I
believe the WBX is still the best choice.

--
Stuart MacMillan
Seattle

'84 Vanagon Westfalia
'65 MGB (Driven since 1969)
'74 MGB GT (Restoring)

Assisting on Restoration:
'72 MGB GT (Daughter's)
'64 MGB (Son's)

Parts cars:
'68 & '73 MGB, '67 MGB GT