Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:40:58 EST
Reply-To: FrankGRUN@AOL.COM
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Frank Grunthaner <FrankGRUN@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Mercedes 5cyl 300TD in Vanagon?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In a message dated 12/18/02 12:18:31 AM, wilden1@juno.com writes:
<< I just think that its bad to put unreal dreams in the minds of people
that hire out their mechanic work.
It is just a goal they can never achieve. >>
Stan,
You have a very real point here that I don't often think about. My original
comment, terse as it was for me, was only to note that my Westfalia was
purchased new, delivered at the factory. When I encounter undocumented
changes, I have only myself to blame!
But back to your observation. I readily admit I enjoy the foray into
engineering and welcome the opportunity to customize this already well
designed machine to my own needs and wants. Often in this engine swap or
redesign game, I suffer serious reversals. But its part of the whole
experience. When I go to a shop for repairs, I am prepared to point out all
the relevant changes, give them a sequence doc for things far removed from
standard VW practice.
On the other hand, those individuals who either don't do the engineering (by
buying a kit) or paying a professional to implement the changes, miss this
level of enjoyment! Trading cash for some of these experiences would seem a
good to great idea at times. Unfortunately, many experiences with pricey kits
seem less than fair to me. The TIICO smog theme is just unconscionable to me.
The lack of stocked spares for key parts not part of the standard dealer
inventory - amateurish. The lack of even Bentley quality installation
material - shocking. The EuroSpec experience - sell a few and then abandon
your clients - unbelievable. I'm waiting for Overland to sell their 50 units
and then deny that they ever made them.
Now the Kennedy/Subaru kit seems to make no claims for completeness. Just a
set of parts offered to enable a swap. This seems a bit more above board to
me. Still uses Japanese materials though. Recently had a chance to finally
peruse an SAE paper on the Subaru engine technology and was very impressed.
Certainly the 2.2 and 2.5 L engines are well worth the effort.
Still the engine modification theme is a fascinating diversion. Simpler than
designing the whole vehicle from the wheels up, but offering a sense of
accomplishment when all comes together as a unique expression of ones
personality. But I must agree that those with modest means, who must offer
cash to a pro to put it together face a high probability of being burned. In
this case, careful maintenance of stock propulsion is the more judicious
choice.
When I first chose to invigorate the diesel spinner in the tail of my
vehicle, I wanted more vigor (and AC). I really didn't think about
reliability. The diesel was boringly bulletproof, in my experience. Easy to
drive. Limited set of options. As for the throttle, there was only full off
and full on. The brake was on or off (also full thrust). Speed was controlled
by choice of gear, time available and the sign and magnitude of the upcoming
grade. My change to the inline 4 gasoline system has likewise been
bulletproof.
Now, I found my older A/C buses to be quite reliable. The performance of my
1600 cc powered Safare was very similar to the Vanagon diesel. Slower than
sheep-dip. After adding the Corvair engine and drivetrain, this whale
triggered adrenaline readily and profusely. The 1.8L digifant conversion is
sprightly but not dangerous. The Turbo Audi project is designed to trigger
stimulants - and provide another opportunity to get it right.
With all this interest in turbos and the misconceptions being pontificated
here, I'll have to peck out a response there too.
Frank Grunthaner
