Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:46:55 EST
Reply-To: FrankGRUN@AOL.COM
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Frank Grunthaner <FrankGRUN@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Comment on 2.1 WBx vs. 2.2 Sub vs. Tiico (was The problem
with TIICO) <F>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
My comments interspersed with your text (the reasonable, moderate and
thoughtful ones are mine! - also in bold italics for those pursuing the
Liberal Arts).
In a message dated 3/29/02 3:14:47 AM, cchiang1@YAHOO.COM writes:
<< It's nice to see you dispariging Subies differently in this post (nothing
about them being "ashamed" of their performance by not publishing HP and
torque curves).
My disparaging remarks are heartfelt. Fuji Heavy is the essence of a
technically exploitive corporation. No major automotive manufacturer has a
poorer record of contributing to the technical literature. To say nothing
about documenting the performance pf their products. This is clearly
corporate policy to proceed on sales fluff. A method tested, tried and true
by GM, Ford and Chrysler in the 50's and 60's.
My Subie 2.2 "feels" stronger down low than the Tiico I drove, although I
agree that one cannot count on "seat of the pants" impressions. Since we
have no published data to prove otherwise, are you willing to concede that it
is at least *possible* that the Subie 2.2 has at LEAST as much torque as a VW
2.1 WB "down low", while having more torque at the higher RPMs also?
Nope, never. I have had the misfortune of renting several Subaru variations
(I think the total stands at 6) at participating rental locations. Now
admittedly these were in their designed-for chassi, unmodified, stock, and
usually with no less that 10K on the clock and not more than 25K. All were
all wheel drive versions. All were dogs. In the Colorado mountains, I was
constantly passed by anything on 4 wheels. The engines are simply dead to the
stick compared to a free revving Mazda, Toyota, Nissan or ... VW. Frankly,
the only way to keep the slug moving was to keep the engine above 4K. Fuel
economy was in the 18 to 22 range (yes I know some of the Shinto mavens here
never get less than 25, pushing their vanagon conversions at 75 and above ---
and I have an appointment with a UFO on Tuesday to review my model of the
Martian polar ice cap). So, I've only driven 2.2L cars, latest was last
August, but they have no low end torque to speak of. It seemed to me that the
system was tuned to a torque max in the mid 4K to 5K range, just starting up
on the cam at around 3500 or so. Below 3500, a dog, flat. Feels like an old
Mazda rotary.
Now, we could debate the sensitivity of the accelerometer in my gluteus as
compared to yours. In my younger days, as a hobby, I raced Porsche 911s,
Mazda Rotaries, BMW 2002s, Datsuns, and various VWs. I've also spun up
Nortons, Triumphs, Yamahas, Kawasakis, Hondas, and Suzukis (on the test track
in Japan - incredible!). In an even younger period, I raced 50 Mercurys,
Hudsons and Kaisers. Come to think of it, the low end performance of the
Subies was very similar to the Hudson Jet!
So no!. At best, the Subie will be similar to the 1.8L VW I4!
Even if this is not so, say for example the Subie's torque did not exceed
the VW WB's until 3000 RPM, how much time does one actually spend revving
thru that lower RPM range, anyway?
Hmm, I visit that band all the time!
Finally, I am shocked (shocked!) that you would stray from your normally
fact-based comments, and delve into supposition (using the terms "appear" and
"probably"), while at the same time making "fact"-like statements ("will not
be competitive") that you clearly cannot PROVE without data! Please, either
stick to your normal scientific analysis, or give half-baked opinions like
many others do, but not BOTH at the same time!
Guilty as charged. Mixing fluff statements (like the output potential of the
Subaru system) is painful enough. But I included the Suburu comments in spite
of my better judgment. No data, no data, only proselytizing victims.
Cary
>>
| 
