Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:39:15 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"
I'll add only two comments in response to this:
In a message dated 3/31/02 5:18:28 AM, cchiang1@yahoo.com writes:
<< I'm glad you have actually driven a Subaru-converted Vanagon; I was misled
by your previous statement "So, I've only driven 2.2L cars".
I have driven an early '90s Subaru Legacy rental car for a week in AK, and
was not overly impressed with the engine performance (I was not driving up
steep CO mountains, or dealing with high altitude power losses, both of which
you chose to base your opinions).
As I said in my original comments, I have had the dubious pleasure of driving
Subie rental cars in several locations - not just Colorado. The experience in
Colorado was the longest and most recent. Other rental cars that I have had
in Colorado have been perfectly acceptable. The Subie was a dog. I have also
operated these vehicles in New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas and San Jose, CA. Dogs
all, but perfectly adequate utilitarian transportation. Of course the
comparison is done with automatics. And I'm certain the Automatics are a
large part of the exhilarating driving experience. Never used the all wheel
driving capability.
I can assure you that this same model engine in my Vanagon acts quite
differently! Perhaps the auto transmission and all-wheel drive system in the
cars greatly affects the driveability of the engines?
Your comparison between the Subaru van you test drove and your 1.8 conversion
is flawed! Comparing the Subievan equipped with a waterboxer-geared tranny
to your van with DZ (higher ratio, diesel-geared) tranny is hardly fair. I
strongly suspect that if the Subievan had the same gearing, it would be at
least as fast and quick as your van, and you would not of had to "Rev it up,
slip the clutch, use the trans, etc." as much as you claim. After all, your
previous statements indicate that both of these engines make their power at a
similar high RPM range, and your data indicates the Subie 2.2 makes more peak
torque than the VW 1.8, right? (I can supply your exact quotes and numbers
from your earlier posts, if necessary). All those posts you made last year
about how you had the optimum (DZ) gearing in your van, and yet you have no
qualms about gloating about how it "out-performs" a Subaru van with a broken
exhaust manifold and lower ratio transmission! Seems like you are speaking
*Religion*, too! How about sticking to what you like to talk about (Data!
Numbers! Facts!), and calculate how the two vans would have performed with
EQUAL gearing?
Aargh, exhaustion! Of course I know the numbers. I'm aware of numerical
differences. BUT AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES HERE, THE DRIVABILITY OF ANY
CONVERSION IS THE COMBINATION OF POWERPLANT AND POWERTRAIN. THRUST AND THRUST
RESERVE AT THE REAR WHEELS. SO THE DZ TRANS WITH 1.8L ENGINE WAS EXACTLY THE
POINT. EXACTLY. EXACTLY. Perfectly valid comparison as defined. The
drivability of my powertrain combination was far superior to the Subie with
WBX trans. And, oh yes, I'm aware that I'm spinning at a goodly rate. Very
aware. The next powertrain will involve a 200 ft# powerplant with a
reinforced DK trans and a turbo for mountain passes. All done with full
cognizance of the issues.
As for your statement about whining, I say be comfortable in your ceremonies,
but remember the Shinto has always had a problem with technology.
>>
Frank Grunthaner
| 
