Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 08:32:38 -0400
Reply-To: Vanagon man <vgonman@MSN.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Vanagon man <vgonman@MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Roadhaus - 2.2L Engine Install , Prelimanary Report
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> How do >YOU< know that it is untested? All I see from you is criticism
> with only marginal explanation for you criticism.
Where are the Dyno numbers for the Eurocar motor?
Both times I have seen
> you post complaining about EuroCars engines, you only cover one aspect
> of the work they do, namely the increase in compression.
This is an easy way for anyone to increase HP...............and .1L of a
bore increase will not give you the power they claim. Also, I find it
amazing that Eurocar gave the "thumbs up" to have a person with their new
motor immediately drive cross country during the warranty period...........
Ever driven a stock 2.1L rebuild vs. an old tired motor in a van with
unknown maintainance and high miles? I have, and I built the motor myself.
I can tell you it is like night and day. I felt like I had 100 HP too.
>
> However they also increase the size of the cylinders, and change the
> camshaft.
Did they increase valve size? Do you know what a camshaft does? Sure,
maybe they gave a little higher lift cam to make the valves open a little
more and or a little longer. Did they port and polish heads/intakes? NO.
So basically you have a stock motor, higher CR, with a bigger cam, and a
.1L increase in bore. The numbers do not add up and are seat of the pants.
>
> Now it may be snake oil, but on the other hand at least a couple of the
> listees have reported happiness with the engine, which is hardly saying
> it is a bad deal.
No it is not a bad deal.........but the point is that large HP and torque
gains are claimed but not proven. Heck, If you drove my 74 beetle with a
1600 dp motor and a single carb one day, and then drove it with a 1776 dual
carbed motor the next (which I have) you would think the motor was twice as
big............but there were improvements made to the intake system, along
with carburation and bore increase. If I took the same 1776 and left it
with a single carb, I would have been disappointed. The point is it takes
more that a .1L increase in bore to gain the type of HP that Eurocars
claims.
Considering what it costs to have an engine replaced
> anyway, it might be as good as what you provide. And since it is quite a
> ways geographically from you, I'd hardly say it is likely to steal much
> business from you.
I do not think Bob is worried about Eurocars "stealing business" as he is
about seeing people misled by false claims. Bob, spends has and still does
spend his time dyno testing improvements to see if indeed their truly are HP
and torque gains.........often times the 'seat of the Pants" and the actual
dyno numbers have contradictory results, and in that case the dyno is right!
It is tough to admit failure when you thought something would really add
power and the dyno tells otherwise........Bob has been humbled more than
once by his own testing...often which he shares with the list.
>
> I'm reserving my (unknowing) judgement on their engines until Larry has
> put a few months (and more miles) on it. Perhaps you should too.
I have driven the Boston Bob big valve 2.1L engine, and a TIICO (which I
installed) and a rebuilt 2.1L (which I rebuilt myself) and can tell you
hands down from "Seat of the pants" (whatever that is worth) that the Big
Valve motor outperformed all of them, and kept the stock configuration. Now
if I had to make a choice for a new motor with my experiences, Go with a
2.2L motor with a increased CR (more heat for my cooling system to disapate)
or a 2.1L engine with larger valves (thus reducing head temps and actually
increasing flow thru the combustion chamber) gotta go big valve. It just
makes sense, and their are the dyno numbers to prove it.
>
