Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:04:03 -0700
Reply-To: Carl Cobb <c123666@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Carl Cobb <c123666@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Re: Waterboxer Power vs transplants
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
not to mention you don't have to constantly keep thine eye on the tach to avoid offending the pushrods and heads
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Keezer
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: Waterboxer Power vs transplants
> "The inline 4 seem like a good choice for a basic Vanagon. It's more
> advanced with knock control, I don't known about the weight, with an
> iron block, my guess is that it's about the same or marginally the
> heaviest among the choices. The power is the same as an unmodified
> waterboxer. Personally I'd avoid this engine in a Westy if converting.
> Why pay the price and not get any more performance. And extra weight,
> would actually mean less performance. The Subaru seems best for a West,
> less hoses and such, less weight, and at least the same power as a
> corrected waterboxer."
There is more to the inline fours I would like to point out:
The 93-later Golf-Jetta 2.0 is 115 hp @5,400 rpm, and 136 ft lb. of torque
at 3,200 rpm.
This really works well in my 82 vanagon Westfalia, manual trans, compared
to
the inline four 1.8 I replaced with this. (100 hp , 109 ft lb torque)
The engine management system is G-J Digifant ll, and it works reasonably
well. It is fairly simple to troubleshoot, and simpler to install than some
other systems.
The weight is about the same as a WBX, when you consider that the I-4
doesn't
have all the peripheral tin & tubing that a WBX has and furthermore, it is
the same weight as the Vanagon Diesel, or the SA I-4, both cast iron
blocks,
so it is within the original design standards.
Inline fours are higher revving than the WBX, therefore it has greater
acceleration than the WBX.
I would love to prove this to anyone by offering a test drive. I have
driven
both the 1.9 and the 2.1-115 HP is the reason I can out accelerate a WBX
Vanagon.
Some listmembers are planning to do a conversion like mine after going for
a
test
ride in mine recently, or trying to catch me on a mountain pass.
It is a stock engine, and I have ridden in a Vanagon that a friend has
installed a 95 Jetta engine with the stock Motronic system-no standard WBX
can touch Ralf's Vanagon!(formerly Diesel)
Mine will do 75 mph in third gear @5,250 rpm. I have ridden in a Westfalia
with a Corrado G60 engine that will do 75 in second!
Certain I-4 engines and mods made to them, can dramatically increase the
HP/torque ratios.
The WBX does still have better torque at lower rpm, but not any longer for
those of us who can find them.
The new 2001 Golf-Jetta 1.8 turbo-150 HP and close to that number is torque
@1950 rpm! How is that for low-end torque?
Maybe in two to five years we will have a junkyard supply of these.
I have to agree that the Diesel version conversion has more hoses. But
these
do not present any sort of problem.
I have worked on the WBX, and the diesel/gas I-4, and the latter is
definitely more accessible with less junk in the way. It is even easier to
get to things than in a Golf/jetta.
The 93 and later I-4 engines have another great feature to enhance
longevity
and HP-oil spray nozzles that cool the pistons.
This was one of the main reasons diesel truck engines were able to get
bigger
without burning up.
The 2.0 should be able to outlast the 1.8 I-4 in a vanagon.
Of course, they don't blow head gaskets, have eliminated old-fashioned
pushrods.
You can get adapter kits for the WBX Vanagon just like for the Subaru, and
you can keep it all VW.
Or, you can aquire a Diesel vanagon or its parts to make your own kit. Or
of
course, the Tiico, which has even more hp(118).
It will cost more, but take less time. My first conversion took three
months,
every day after work. it only cost 1,500.
Robert Keezer
1982 Westfalia 2.0 Golf lll "Warmerwagen"
Seattle
[text/html]
