Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:36:41 EST
Reply-To:     NotaJeep@AOL.COM
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Steven Denis <NotaJeep@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: 2.1L Oil pressure problem: Rods: SYMPTOM NOT CAUSE:UNBALANCED
              crank the ...
Comments: To: Wolfvan88@aol.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

In a message dated 2/11/01 8:07:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, Wolfvan88 writes:

<< VW could have gone to longer stroke IF they wanted to but was too cheap
and would cost them too much.  There is a company TODAY that MAKES A 2.5L
COMPLETE DROP IN UPGRADE KIT for the WBX.  It is basically a drop in to the
STOCK WBX CASE.  It is a much longer stroke with 98 mm pistons, plus heads,
cam, rods, barrels. >>
Oh Jubilee Christmas...Sure, I've built 2.5 liter type 4's (2499cc's
actually) and they ran "OK"..one set a "production" 4 cylinder record of some
sort with the PCA in a 1976 912E at Watkin's Glen...and the engine was no
wider..yes, agreed...
the REASON that VW didn't do this was cost..and reliability..to GET the stoke
on the T4 crank it was necessary to go with a rabbit rod (and the MUCH
smaller/weaker journal)
And the rod angles? hoe-boy..
the BEST engine designs have a very short stoke with a a LONG rod..the 3.0
buick V-6 is a super smooth engine...it's the long rod/short stoke with it's
inhearntly lower rod angle...

If I wanted speed? I use a PT-6-45 or something...now a gas turbine? THAT'S
entertainment!

steve

"Hey! nice Jeep, Mister! "
"Look kid, it's NOTAJEEP! "