Date:         Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:14:43 EST
Reply-To:     FrankGRUN@AOL.COM
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Frank Grunthaner <FrankGRUN@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: On Longevity, Displacement,
              Efficiency and Technology in Conversions
Comments: To: eanutter@postoffice.pacbell.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

In a message dated 3/27/02 9:47:12 AM, eanutter@POSTOFFICE.PACBELL.NET writes:

<< So it looks like, according to Frank's own numbers, that Subie 2.2
engines are good picks for Vanagon conversions.   >>

It is so true! These posts are devoid of religion and show a number of
reasonable choices. My intent here was to debunk the myth of the technical
superiority of the Subaru engine designs vis-a-vis the VW WBX and inline
engines. Now the choice of what engine to bolt in and what transmission to
use are best done with the torque vs. rpm curves as I have discussed in the
archives. The torque curves are posted on Alistair Bell's website (I
believe). Of course there is no such information available from and for the
Subaru option (not my fault, they are chicken - why post facts when innuendo
will do). Now much of this could be conveniently resolved if one or more of
the Suburu conversion owners would motor their rides over to the nearest dyno
and post their results. BTW, I have always felt that a clean professional 2.2
install is the best looking of the Vanagon aftermarket conversions (till I'm
done with the Turbo Audi 3A!). Finally, finally, there are serious issues in
the Subaru oil pan problem. Frankly, I would go dry sump here with the
benefit of all the aircraft install hardware.

Frank Grunthaner