Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:46:37 -0700
Reply-To: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: Waterboxer Power vs transplants
And with a V'gons aerodynamics, it just might!
Karl Wolz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon Korkin" <korkwood@SURFREE.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Waterboxer Power vs transplants
> Mark,
> You did great job researching conversions and gave unbiased information.
> Exellent!I can only add that at 3800 rpm pushing gas pedal in Suby-powered
Vanagon with AT
> feels like it is going to fly...
> Leon
> 85 Subwagen Westy
>
> Mark Keller wrote:
>
> > Thanks to the many responses regarding my question of actual torque and
> > horsepower of the various alternative power plants vs the waterboxer. I
> > skipped the TDI because I think it is difficult comparison to fit here.
> > The engine is very well suited to Syncros according to response to me
> > and I'd agree.
> >
> > I searched several sites looking for good data. Most came from:
> > VolksMotorsports, Dave Marshall, http://www.cobbtuning.com/tech/sohc/,
> > and Vanagon.com for which I was able to get some useful data regarding
> > power output in the 3800 RPM range for these engines. I used a fixed
> > 3800 RPM since the automatic van cruises at 65 mph an 3800 RPM.
> > Therefore this post purports to indicate what amount of power is
> > actually available when driving at speed.
> >
> > The basic numbers indicate the horsepower at the crank and wheel for
> > 3800 RPM. I read a good article on Dyno results which essentially says
> > that +- 5 hp is a pretty tight tolerance, so these numbers can be
> > argued, but I'm looking at general picture of what to expect.
> >
> > Engine @3800 Rpm Crank Torque & hp Wheel
Torque & hp
> > Stock 112 ft lb. 82 hp
80 ft lb. 58 hp
> > Rockers and Chipped 128 ft lb. 94 hp 90 ft
lb. 66 hp
> > Lilly's (low guess) 143 ft lb. 104 100 ft
lb. 72.8 hp
> > Marshall I -4 113 ft lb. 82 hp 80 ft
lb. 58 hp
> > Subaru 2.2 137 ft lb. 100 hp 95.9 ft
lb. 70 hp
> > Subaru 2.5 166 ft lb. 120 hp 116 ft.
lb. 84 hp
> > Subaru flat 6 2,000 ft. lb. 1447 hp 1400 ft
lb. 1012 hp
> >
> > Notes: I used 30% loss per Volks motorsports dyno's. I estimated
> > Lilly's to be 10 hp more, just on the fact that the chip and rocker dyno
> > on motorsports doesn't have the headwork or cam, or all the other
> > modifications . Lilly is probably more but he is at least this in my
> > opinion. The Subaru is my guess base on torque at 163 ft lb. @
4400 rpm.
> > Certainly Ballpark. The six is fantasy.
> >
> > My thoughts. Well the most surprising thing I came across was the weight
> > of the Subaru is 262 lb. compared to the 400 lb. of the waterboxer,
> > which is light. I know the real world difference are probably less than
> > 140 lb., but I actually expected the Subaru engine to weigh more.
> >
> > Well the waterboxer certainly isn't dead yet. By Putting the Pawter
> > Rockers on, and setting the timing very carefully and adding a K & N,
> > you would probably put any waterboxer back into the game for less money
> > than any other option. The waterboxer dollars start to add for anything
> > greater, and it's a tough call if a total rebuild in order since so many
> > intangibles come into play. I'll stab at some intangibles
> >
> > The waterboxer is a tough reliable engine. Psychologically many are
> > justifiably weary of it. The problems are really solved, but to bring
> > your engine into conformance may be to much too bear. Certainly the
> > power numbers indicate that a corrected waterboxer is good engine among
> > the other choices.
> >
> > 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 un-modified
> > 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.
> >
> > The Subaru is an engine that has many strengths and technology on it's
> > side. My feeling is that it can produce a constant 100 hp. The light
> > aircraft conversions use the engine at 100 hp constant duty. Looking at
> > Google search on the engine reveals that the after market is actively
> > using and modifying this engine in many high performance and
> > turbocharged areas. If making a war wagon is your speed this is the
> > motor. These folks are convinced the motor is bulletproof and worthy of
> > investing their milk money.
> >
> > Other bit and pieces. I read that the big bore 2.5l has some
> > compromises to fit into the original chassis, mainly a short stroke, and
> > questions about reducing headgasket sealing area. The article I read was
> > on 10 psi Turbo charging it, and they were ok with the issues for what
> > it's worth. The six is a low production run motor, less than 50,000 in
> > the years it's been produced.
> >
> > Thanks for listening.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Mark Keller
> > 91 Carat
> > Cowichan Bay, BC
>
|