Date:         Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:07:40 -0800
Reply-To:     Edward Nutter <eanutter@POSTOFFICE.PACBELL.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Edward Nutter <eanutter@POSTOFFICE.PACBELL.NET>
Subject:      Re: Longevity of Conversion Engines
Comments: To: Kim Howe <khowe@OMNINET.NET.AU>
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii

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?