Just thoughts & comments. There seems to be a presupposition here that an engine destined for a light vehicle will be designed in an inferior, flimsy manner while an engine destined for a heavier vehicle will be made more robustly. T'aint necessarily so. I don't know who on this list has the most actual milage on a conversion. It would be interesting to find out. I've picked the Subaru 2.2L for my conversion, primarily because KEP has taken the trouble to get CARB certification, relieving me of the trouble of doing the referree thing myself. The other reason is the demonstrated reliability of this particular engine, albiet pushing the lighter Legacy vehicle. I also own a Legacy, and found that the 2.2L engine has more than adequate power for anything other than road racing use. Worth noting is that the Vanagon is geared much lower than the Legacy. The 2.2L will be spinning about 20% faster at any given speed when pushing the van. This reduces the static stresses on components such as valves, heads, head gaskets, pistons, bearings, etc. The engine will work harder in a Vanagon, but not as much harder as a simple weighing of the two vehicles would suggest. If the engine components are designed to handle the higher RPM, and this Subaru engine certainly appears to be, then the extra power reqired to climb hills (for example) can be had by gearing down and spreading the work of lifting the van over more revolutions than was possible with the wasserboxer. The same would apply to inline engines designed to spin freely. My first WBX engine made it over 200K miles before throwing a rod through the case. From what I've seen of the way the Subaru engine is put together I expect it will last as long or longer given the same amount of care. Ed Kim Howe wrote [snip] > To get to the point. The Type IV and Wasserboxer are heavy duty engines, > and barring overheating in the type IV and head gaskets in the WB seem > to last a long time pushing around a heavy van. In my experience with VW > inline fours (in Golfs and Passats) their engines lasted about as long > as a type 1 engine in a Beetle (or less), and they were pushing around a > light weight, aerodynamic body. This causes me to wonder what the life > expectancy is for an inline 4 in a Vanagon, or for a Subaru conversion, > for that matter, since it is also an engine designed for a much lighter > and more aerodynamic vehicle. > > Just because the engine is good in a smaller vehicle doesn't mean it's > going to push our heavy vans around reliably for a good amount of time. > > Any thoughts, comments or experiences? |
Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of
Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection
will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!
Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com
The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.
Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.