Date:         Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:27:29 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>
Comments: To: cchiang1@yahoo.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Comments below:

In a message dated 3/29/02 6:13:50 PM, cchiang1@YAHOO.COM writes:

<< Okay, I have no experience racing Hudsons or Kaisers, so you certainly
have more *butt* experience than I.
I would hesitate to consider Fuji Heavy (Subaru) a "major" automotive
manufacturer.  Are you basing that on sales figures worldwide, in the US, or
what other parameter?

I'll define as major any manufacturer that sells in the US with a
distribution network. Since Renault, Citroen, Peugeot and many others are
also major manufacturers, I'll still call Fuji a major.

<< I agree with your general assessment of power building at about 3500 rpm,
with peak around 4.5K.  I would not consider power below 3500 to be a "dog",
though.  I believe the torque is better than a VW I4 at that rpm range, while
still having more than enough "up top".  So, overall, a better choice,
regardless of your fancy-shmancy calculations!  (How's that for scientific
terminology?)

Measurements? or Religion (see above for demonstrable statement). The Subies
I have driven were dogs. No qualifier. I didn't ask the vendor to set them up
so that a needed a combination of Jolt cola and two Starbuck's double
expresso's to get to my destination. I like to drive! But the cars were just
utilitarian vehicles. Nothing more, nothing less. Fortunately the Vanagon
trans is geared down (I suppose - no data in my hands) so it is more
functional in that configuration.

<< Perhaps you really need to try out a Subie 2.2 in a VANAGON, so that you
can at least form a more even basis for comparisons!

As I have remarked before, I have driven a Subie conversion. Few years ago.
Nice careful installation. Definitely faster than my Diesel Vanagon before
conversion. However, it was dead off the line. Rev it up, slip the clutch,
use the trans, keep revs above 4K, it was a nice peppy vehicle. Little loud
with the broken exhaust manifold, but it happens. On the other hand, my 1.8L
8V Digifant II ('90 GTi) with DZ transmission blows that puppy away. In town,
rolling hills, up the grapevine, on I 5, on I15, on I10 pumping through Texas
with the AC on, stereo comforting, holding a steady 85 on the cruise control.
Does just fine, thank you. As I recall, I drove the Subie (Westfalia, 2WD
with Air) up the 2 from Glendale to Montrose. Cleared 55 at the top. I'll
hold 75 with my 1.8! So I rate the Subie good, not great, not bad. Only
advantage over the 2.1 is reliability. Only advantage over the TIICO is
legitimacy. You pays your money ...

<< BTW, what did you think of the 2.5 phase II torque / hp curves Warren
supplied you?  Perhaps this same company dyno-ed a 2.2?

If the measurement conditions are the same (true flywheel torque, not
extrapolated from wheel dyno) then this is a very good engine for the Vanagon
(phase II only). Of course it does represent late 90's technology, and the
WBx is a mid 80's product (openly documented, BTW).

Frank Grunthaner