Date:         Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:36:44 EST
Reply-To:     Wrmrwgn@AOL.COM
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Robert Keezer <Wrmrwgn@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Fwd: Engine RPMs???(not too long)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Jason,
Here are some of my own engine comparisons:

  87 Jetta, (102 hp @5250 rpm) engine , auto -tach reads 3800 RPM at 70 mph.
(110 ft lb torque@3250 rpm)

  82 Westfalia , 2.0 '95 Golf engine, (115 hp @5400rpm), stick, tach reads
3600 at 70 mph.(135 ft lb of torque@3200 rpm)

  85 Westfalia , 1.9 WBX Auto, (82 hp@4800 rpm) tach reads 4,000 rpm at
70.(max torque at 2600 rpm. is 105 ft lb)

  82 Diesel Vanagon, manual trans, (52 hp @4800 rpm), 5,000 rpm at 70. (makes
a great farm tractor)

This helps to show the advantage of manual trans and the 93-later 2.0
Golf-Jetta engine that runs my 82 Westfalia. At 80 mph, (possible in South
Dakota) , rpm for the '95 2.0 is 4,000.

The diesel engine of course is the slowest, and shortest lived engine. they
rarely make it past 100,000 miles in a Vanagon.
The best choice is the 2.0 (engine code ABA), followed by the 1.8 (engine
code RD).(IMHO)

I give you all this conversion info, to help you see the difference over the
WBX 1.9 .
The 2.1 I don't have figures for.

The 1.9 has a lot of torque for it's hp of 82. Since it doesn't develop the
full and whopping 82 hp until it revs to 4,800 rpm, 4,000 rpm is still in the
green on the tach, and we can't consider 4,800 rpm redline, either. In other
words, this water-cooled engine, though only a 1.9, is not really
overworking, or overheating. I drive my 85 usually at 65, and 70 is barely
any change in rpm.

The 2.0 inline four in my Westfalia(formerely Diesel) is very smooth and
quiet at 4,000 rpm. Inline fours are high revving, and this one redlines near
7,000. There is a rev limiter in the ECU, so I can't go there.
It doesn't have the low rpm torque down as good as the WBX, but has good
acceleration and hill climbing ability, the high revs keep it going where the
others I listed just bog down.

The Vanagon low compression engines were designed to run on low octane at a
national speed limit of 55 during the 80's.
The 2.0 Golf engine is a high compression engine designed to run on higher
octane, but will also run on lower grades without harm thanks to the knock
sensor.

The air-cooled engines also are low compression to keep operating
temperatures low.
The Vanagon air-cooled engines are run by the same AFC FI system that came
out in VW's in 1974.
It is less effecient than the Digifant system,CIS-E and the Motronic.

Subaru? I'm not sure. The 93-later VW 2.0 engine is a qualified Formula lll.
Extra hp doesn't always mean more power, but it can mean less mpg.
BTW, the mpg in the 82 Westfalia is 24 mpg 50-55 MPH, 19 mpg @80 MPH. (Using
regular and Duralt fuel conditioner.)

You can see a photo of my engine on the WetWesties website, under the Nehalem
Un-Superbowl campout link.
Also you can get more engine spec info at David Marshall's Fastforward site,
where I found the hp and toque specs.
 Since I have owned two well running WBX, I have come to like them in spite
of themselves. Perhaps it's really because most all of them go over 100,000
miles, something I was never able to accomplish in 15 years of air cooled
VW's.
Whatever engine you like is I won't argue with.

 Without water there would be no life.

Robert