Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:54:41 +0000
Reply-To: Mark Keller <kelphoto@ISLANDNET.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Mark Keller <kelphoto@ISLANDNET.COM>
Subject: Re: knock Sensor, to run max timing,
and optimize fuel grades used.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
David,
Thanks for the speedy reply. I would just like to explore the topic a
bit more though. Given a choice I think the knock sensor alone is what
I'm seeking price and information on. What does this involve for
hardware? A sensor, control unit, wiring, or a new distributor as well.
More? As to justifying cost, I do run 91 Octane fuel most of the time
especially when pulling a load. I would like to cheap out occasionally,
and not worry about pinging the motor. Too I like pulling trailers so I
believe the issues are one of protecting the motor and gaining more
power and economy.
I'm certainly aware of your engine swap kits and the merits and
disadvantages of the possible permutations discussed on the vanagon
mailing list. But I'm not ready to swap my motor. The inline 4 idea is
unpalatable because I use my van to pull 2000 lb. loads on occasion--
6000 lb. Gross and I don't get a good gut feeling about about the swap.
My feeling is that the auto based inline's weren't designed with a high
duty cycle, i.e. running at 50-100% power all of the time. This roughly
correlates to 50- 90 hp continuously, when the vehicle they were
designed to run in weighs less than 3000 lb. and probably is in the <10
hp road horsepower, to maintain a road speed of 100 km/h. I did a head
to head drive and accelerating kinda thing with a GTI conversation and
did not feel there was any real comparison, it ran well, but not
anywhere close to keeping up with the watterboxer I have. Maybe there
was a problem, or more hopping up was needed, but it's irrelevant. If I
wanted to swap now I'd ask about it.
Opinions differ on the watterboxer symptoms and causes. I don't believe
that most of the antidotal information is examined thorough enough to
draw conclusions. Most really good arguments are experience based, which
the vanagon has many bad ones to offer. But I hear and listen to
arguments that are counter to them. Some people say they've never had
their heads leak, or head leakage isn't a problem in Europe etc. I did
buy a late model Vanagon to avoid the learning curve problems the VW had
with the engine.
Somebody waving a bunch of referrals that everyone else is doing it in
front of me does not help me much. I'm really apprehensive about the
real merits of tossing the watterboxer away. Secondary engine markets
are fine, but I believe that most people don't want to fix the problems,
and yes they are repairable. For me the swap represents more trouble
that its worth. The inline Engine vibration at 3400 Rpm, no-start when
hot, are just different learning curves. The Audi V6 seems to be my
favorite, but I haven't seen a lot of information on it's economy, and drivability.
The engineers who worked on the watterboxer had a pretty precise feel
for how this vehicle would operate. For instance the stall rpm on the
torque converter is at 3100 RPM, about 48 mph on my Van. The boundary
line on drag plate resistance is at 45 mph. That is the aerodynamic
effect of the Van's frontal area begins becomes a real liability above
this speed. The result is, that the vehicle will slow down on grades,
but stay right at 45 mph, because the drag plate effect is reduced, i.e.
more usable horsepower, and at 45 mph the engine is producing it's Max
torque. Pretty clever.
Also dropping this xsmn down to 1st gear yields a setup that gives you
tractor like performance. 2400 RPM at 10 mph. That's like 40
horsepower, geared to, well I don't the first gear ratio, but I can tell
you I just pulled my sailboat, 3000 Lb. plus trailer, so at least 8000
lb. gross up a 15% grade for 2 km at 2400 RPM 10 mph and the vacuum gage
was at 5", not even a moderate strain. Of course on longer grades I run
both heaters, which happen to be capable of holding the coolant temp in
the LED area of the gauge indefinitely. I pulled a fully loaded 5" x
10" U-haul trailer 3000 Lb. plus the family, over the continental divide
this spring, all the way to 8,600 ft, with 7000 lb. load. The economy
was 15 mpg give or take 1 mpg, over the 5000 mile trip. This kind of
tuning for pulling isn't discussed much on the list nor is it impossible
with swap motors, but the cost in time and money to achieve it is
something to be considered. There is just too much uncertainly in my
mind about installing a inline motor to an adapter and calling it done.
For me the box is/has been a powerful and reliable engine with 20+ mpg
fuel economy, in my automatic. The PO had replaced the engine in 1997
with a VW of Canada, Cummins factory rebuilt engine, I believe. The
motor currently has 100,000 miles on it. Bjorn Ratjen, my near neighbor,
has 160,000 miles, 305,000 km in case my conversion is off, and he's
never done his heads, it's a 1997 Syncro slated for a TDI, but the motor
runs like a kitten still. Robert Lilly's motor may be expensive to
reproduce, but I do like the attitude of staying with the watterboxer.
I'll continually reevaluate myt needs and the variaous engine swap
solutions-- and anything is a possible. I had some wild ideas when I
drove the vehicle in states with all of the 70 mph plus driving that is
done. Like a complete 3.8 V6 Buick motor, with 4 speed automatic
transaxle, If your going to raise the back lid, why not really get a
motor built for a 4000 lb vehicle. It would make a nice cruiser, but
not a real puller and anyway isn't needed here on Vancouver Island--
80,90 km most of the time. I like the 5 cylinder talk, the Audi V6 talk
etc. But a good watterboxer seems to be the ticket for me. I hope this
clears up some of the "what breed of cat" I am.
If you'd like to chat sometime I believe you could get more specific
answers, rather than us broadcasting somewhat blindly across pmail.
Sincerely,
Mark Keller
91 Carat.
Fast Forward wrote:
>
> I could easily sell you a knock sensor for your Vanagon by why would you
> want one? The general function of the knock sensor is to remove the pure
> mechanical function of an engine's timing to one that is controlled by a
> computer. The only reason why this might be an advantage on a wasserboxer
> is to run with a little more of an advanced timing, but even a knock sensing
> ignition won't help you there unless you run 91 octane fuel. This would
> result in a 3 to 4 percent power gain due to the low compression ratio of
> the wasserboxer engine. In Europe there was a special 2.1L wasserboxer with
> 10.5:1 compression ratio that used a knock sensor - this made 112hp. Also
> the thing to remember is that my knock sensor kits are based on the CIS-E
> system, meaning that they just control the engine timing. A full blown
> Digifant II ignition system would control the timing and allow for
> environmental variables. This would be basically getting a Digifant II
> system from a 88-92 Golf or Jetta and plugging it into your boxer engine...
> literally - again it would result in a 3 or 4 percent gain in power... not
> worth it IMHO!
>
> David Marshall
>
> Fast Forward Autobahn Sport Tuning
> 4356 Quesnel Hixon Road
> Quesnel BC Canada V2J 6Z3
> mailto:info@fastforward.ca http://www.fastforward.ca
> Phone: (250) 992 7775 FAX: (250) 992 1160
>
> . Vanagon Accessories and Engine Conversions
> . Transporter, Unimog and Iltis Sales
> . European Lighting for most Audi and Volkswagen models
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Keller [mailto:kelphoto@islandnet.com]
> Sent: November 3, 2000 2:41 PM
> To: sales@fastforward.ca
> Subject: knock Sensor, to run max timing, and optimize fuel grades used.
>
> Dave,
>
> I'm curious about price and availability of a knock sensor system on a
> stock a vanagon 2.1. I guess I asking if you can quote me a price and
> feasability. One mechanic felt the waterbox wouldn't have an adequate
> place to sense the knock. I'm curiuos if the current digifant can be
> retro fitted to the difgifant II.
>
> Or, is a distribtorless system available. I like the GM one on the 3.8
> buick I had.
>
> any other suggestions?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Keller,
> 91 Carat
> Cowichan Bay, BC
| 
