Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:07:59 EST
Reply-To: FrankGRUN@AOL.COM
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Frank Grunthaner <FrankGRUN@AOL.COM>
Subject: Comment on 2.1 WBx vs. 2.2 Sub vs. Tiico (was The problem with
TIICO)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In a message dated 3/28/02 3:21:38 AM, vgonman@MSN.COM writes:
<< I have done one of these conversions with a friend, and it is a neat
conversion, but after rebuilding my own 2.1 there is not that much
difference. PERIOD. As a matter of fact, when my friend drives my rebuild,
he will fell like he got a little ripped off. Especially with all the parts
that are missing in the kit, >>
I want to go back to review what I tried to get across in the previous posts
on engine efficiencies, torque curves and transmission selection. The comment
cited here is quite correct. The data I have presented shows that the 2.1L
WBx, the 1.9 WBx, the 2.2 Sub and the TIICO, as well as the 1.8L and 2.0L VW
inline 4 are all comparable in output per normalized displacement.
The 2.1L WBx has a good low end power curve, well matched by the VW engineers
to the Vanagon through the selected transmission ratios. It has two major
problems (IMVHO): 1) poor reliability with a marginal head/cooling jacket
sealing system. And 2) inadequate high rpm performance with low redline and
rapid power falloff at high rpm.
The 2.0L TIICO and VW engines have less low end torque but significantly more
high end torque. Running the 2.0L engine with the 2.1L WBx optimized
powertrain will give the 2.1 the edge in drivability. To better match the
two, the final drive ratio should be changed to give the same rear wheel
thrust at low velocities in top gear. Also, the I4 would greatly benefit from
a 5 speed trans. The long suite of the I4 engines is bullet proof
reliability. Even poorly maintained, these engines are amazingly reliable and
long lived. As I have shown in previous road wheel thrust comparisons, the
1.8L digifant engines, mounted in the diesel configuration with the DZ
transmission have the highest performance and drivability factor of the
engines discussed here. But the final weight of judgment here is that I think
that without CARB certification, the TIICO is a disaster for any owner in the
emissions savvy states. Remember, what's in CA today will hit the rest of the
lower 48 in 5 to 10.
The undocumented Subaru 2.2L is clearly an appropriate choice for conversion.
Its torque curve would appear to be that of a typical small displacement
engine, i.e., tuned for output at higher rpm. The Subaru conversion will not
be competitive with the 2.1L WBx off the line and in low rpm situations
(especially if mated to the 2.1L transaxle). It will probably outperform the
WBx at higher rpms and clearly has an extended usable rev range. It offers
reliability, if the donor engine comes from a wrecked vehicle. Engines from
the used Japanese engine importers will have an unknown pedigree.
To summarize, the best N/A engines for the Vanagon are competitive and each
carry negatives. On the issue of reliability and performance enhancements, I
must say that I have never seen an inline 4 with a broken rod peering through
the case. I have seen many 2.1L WBx's in this condition and a few 1.9L units.
What you really want is a high low end torque motor with variable disp
lacement and high rev range. The only successful version of this combination
requires the use of a turbocharger. The TDi would be ideal, and a carefully
detuned 1.8T (keep the trans from becoming a case of metallic fines) would be
great. A turbocharged 2.0 would seem ideal!
Frank Grunthaner
