Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:44:23 -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: On Longevity, Displacement,
Efficiency and Technology in Conversions
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
So it looks like, according to Frank's own numbers, that Subie 2.2
engines are good picks for Vanagon conversions. They both deliver their
peak torque at reasonably high RPMs, which is where it's needed to
overcome drag at speed on a flat, and to overcome weight when down
shifting to climb a hill. The TIICO looks like a good bet too, if you
can drive it legally.
Just a note on Subie turbo's, they've got a reputation for unreliability
even when pushing Legacy size cars.
Ed
Frank Grunthaner wrote:
>[snip, chop, slash]
>
>Engine Displacement Torque BMEP
> (liters) (ft.lb.) (psi)
>
> Vanagon 2.0L A/C 101@3000 126.9
> VW GX 1.8L I4 96@3000 132.8
> VW MZ 1.8L I4 98@3250 135.6
> Vanagon 1.9L WB 106@2600 136.6
> Subie 2.5 2.5L WB (<96) 144@2800 136.6
> Vanagon 2.1L WB 117@3200 136.7
> VW 9A 1.8L I4 113@4400 140.8
> VW HT 1.8L I4 105@3000 145.3
> AUDI 2.3 2.3L I5 140@4500 149.7
> VW RV 1.8L I4 109@3800 150.8
> Audi 3A 2.0L I4 121@3200 150.8
> VW ACC 1.8L I4 107@3500 150.8
> VW AAZ 1.9L I4 TD 107@2500 150.8
> Subie 2.5 2.5L WB (>97) 162@2800 150.8
> Subie SVX 3.3L WB 228@4400 150.8
> VW ABA 2.0L I4 122@3200 152.0
> VW RD 1.8L I4 110@3200 152.2
> VW AAA 2.8L I4 173@4200 152.6
> Subie 2.2 2.2L WB 137@4400 153.0 <---
> Subie 2.5 2.5L WB P II 166@2800 157.4
> VW PF 1.8L I4 114@3800 157.7
> SAAB 2.0 2.0L I4 128@3000 159.5
> TIICO (SA)2.0L I4 132@3500 164.5
> Subie 2.2 2.2L WB P II 149@3600 166.4 <---
> VW AHY 1.9L I4 TD i 149@1900 193.7
> VW 1.9 TDi1.9L I4 TDi 155@1900 201.5
> Subie 2.2T2.2L WB T 181@2800 202.2
> VW 1.8T 1.8L I4 T 162@2200 224.1
> SAAB 2.0T 2.0L I4 188@3000 234.3
>
> Some comments:
>
> 1. The table is in 12 point Monaco Font.
> 2. The engine longest in the tooth is the old Type 4, followed closely by
> the old low compression I4 CIS engines, and Vanagon WB engines.
> 3. Note that the pre 96 Subie 2.5L engine is just as inefficient as the
> Vanagon WB's.
> 4. The 1.8L Digifant engines (RV, RD and PF) are much stronger than the VW
>waterboxers as well as the 1.8L CIS and CIS-E engines.
> 5. The Subie SVX and the late 2.5 engines are no more efficient than the
>post 1988 VW engines.
> 6. The ABA cross-flow head (2.0L) and the VR6 are at the same generation
>and are very good.
> 7. The SAAB 2.0L (very similar to the chipped Digifant or Bosch
> LH-Jetronic driven Audi 3A or RV/PF engines) is a very efficient design.
> 8. If the TIICo numbers are to be believed, this 8 Valve head with
> Motronic management outperforms the ABA crossflow head with Motronic.
> 9. The latest phase II engine design of the Subie 2.2 is a competitive WB,
>as is the phase II 2.5L Subie.
> 10. The 1.9L and TDi engines are very efficient in this comparison.
> 11. The turbocharged gas engines lead the pack, with the highest
> efficiency. The volumetric efficiency achieved by the pressurized inlet far
>exceeds pumping losses due to inserting the turbo in the exhaust stream.
> 12. So, the VW WB's and the old A/C engine are really from an elder time as
>are the same vintage Subies. The I4 engines are right there with the
>strongest. Only the turbos do better. Go to the turbo if you can.
>
> Frank Grunthaner
>
>[shred]
>
| 
