Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:28:39 -0500
Reply-To: Derek Drew <derekdrew@RCN.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Derek Drew <derekdrew@RCN.COM>
Subject: Re: 2.6 SA engine kit
In-Reply-To: <3E5E12C3.B4EC0ABE@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>At 05:29 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Yes, the Audi 5 is a great motor. Reliable, durable, smooth, etc. It is
>a little long and a little tall for the Vanagon engine compartment but
>they can be shoehorned in. Syncros have more room for them.
>Mark Drillock
>87 Syncro w/ Audi 5 cyl, 4 years and 50k mostly trouble free miles.
>>Chris S wrote:
>>
>> The Audi 2.3L engine is rated at 130HP and 139 ft-lb of torque. These
>> engines came in '88-'92 Audi 5000, Audi 90 and Audi 80 models and are built
>> well. I recently sold my Audi 90 with about 360K miles on the
engine. It's
>> engine has had only routine maintenance and ran wonderfully. I'd get about
>> 25 MPG cruising at 80 MPH. The car would cruise 90+ Mph all day which
>> translated to around 4000 RPM - as you see that's about where a 70 MPH
>> cruise puts you in the Vanagon. Considering the power 'requirements'
of the
>> brick-like Vanagon I'd say the engine's powerband is ideally suited. The
>> inline-5 Audi engines are smooth, torquey and sound great! I think it would
>> make sense to put one of these into a Vanagon if one wouldn't have to raise
>> the rear decklid. I've seen entire Audi 5000s go for about $600 due to
>> lack of popularity or just get an engine:
>>....................
Hummmm....
This post of mine is nothing but chat but here goes since I am
interested.... the motor sounds good but I wondered about three things:
1. I think I heard that it is true that you can sort of cut the rear
decklid and have that part of the motor stick up into the engine
compartment hidden within your existing rear mattress without raising the
rear mattress at all. If it is true that one can make the motor fit by
merely removing some of the foam from inside that rear mattress, then this
sounds like a positive thing albiet probably a little noisier.
2. Does the motor require that the rear skid plate in the syncro be
modified or lowered, or is there any part of the motor which would hang
down further than the rear skid plate? If so, then this would be an
argument against the motor; if not, then it would be an argument for the
motor.
3. South Africans report that their Waterboxer motors in size 2.3 have so
much torque that they are actually able to pass vehicles with these Audi 5
cylinder motors going up hills on the highway. If indeed a modified
Waterboxer can pass one of these Audi motors on the highway, then this
would appear to be a strong argument in favor of the 2.3 motor, which would
be a much easier installation because it is basically the same motor we
have now. What we don't know is whether the 2.3s are able to pass the Audi
motors primarily because of gearing issues that could be corrected, with
the result that the Audi motor will then prove to be the stronger
contender. Comments on this subject from list members would be of interest
and are solicited.
4. I'd like to hear more about the weight of the Audi motors as installed
vs. the Waterboxer motor. If the increase in weight is an extra 100lbs then
I figure no big deal -- but if it is a lot more than that, it would start
to give one pause.
One of our resident experts on the installation of the Audi motors is our
Karl Mullendore.
One of the posts saying that Vanagons with the WBX 2.3 motors will pass a
Vanagon with this Audi motor is reproduced immediately below. After that
for reference is also Jan Visser's summary of his thoughts of the 2.3 vs. a
diesel motor being discussed at that time.
=============================================
2.3 WBX Said to Pass Vanagons With 2.5 And 2.6 Liter Motors
=============================================
see this post below:
X-eGroups-Return:
sentto-2305947-1749-1028403281-derekdrew=rcn.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com
X-Sender: willem.vandermerwe2@sasol.com
X-Apparently-To: SyncroSA@yahoogroups.com
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: VEC 2.3S (Fairly long)
Thread-Index: AcI6rTuosNbCScWvRh2Eq8Hp6yxK4Q==
To: <SyncroSA@yahoogroups.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2002 19:34:33.0100 (UTC)
FILETIME=[CB08ACC0:01C23B24]
From: "Van der Merwe, Willem (JW)" <willem.vandermerwe2@sasol.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: vdmerwejw
Mailing-List: list SyncroSA@yahoogroups.com; contact
SyncroSA-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list SyncroSA@yahoogroups.com
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:SyncroSA-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 21:34:34 +0200
Subject: [SyncroSA] VEC 2.3S (Fairly long)
Reply-To: SyncroSA@yahoogroups.com
Hi Guys,
I have previously posted some info on my VEC 2.3S from Volks Engine Change
in Edenvale but I can give you some more info. I had the conversion done
in November 2000 shortly after I saw the first signals of the end of my
Syncro's supposedly original 2.1 engine. (It had 174 000 km on at that
stage). I am now very close to my 30 000 km service on the reconditioned
engine and I can assure you that nearly all those km's were happy
ones. The few problems that I had were mostly not related to the engine
but related to other parts of the vehicle which is getting fairly old. My
Syncro is a 1989 Caravelle which is in daily use. Of course it is also my
holiday vehicle and I also enjoy taking it to faraway places - I just do
not have the time to take it out as often as I like. I only recently
removed the prop shaft to see what the effect is on consumption etc. so I
am referring to times with the prop shaft all of the time. I have
27x8.5R14" BFG AT's on with which I am very happy. In fact I believe there
is no better real 4x4 tyre than the BFG AT's and if I have the cash I will
go for the 15" ones (30x9.5R15).
Fuel Consumption: From 20 l/100km to 9l/100km with an average of 15
l/100km. Typically if I drive a steady 110 km/hr on tar with the aircon on
I get about 13 l/100km.
VEC claims to deliver the following with their 2.3S conversion: 90 kW @
5400 rpm and 195 Nm @ 2650 rpm.
If you compare the VEC 2.3 to some of the other engines you will see that
it gives more torque than any of the 4 cyl golf/jetta engines but the 1.8l
16V and 2l (8V & 16V) golf/jetta engines gives 10 to 20 kW's more (@ about
6000 rpm's).
Compared to the 5 cyl engines you will see that the VEC 2.3 gives 10 kW
less than the 2.5&2.6 but only 5 Nm less torque. The VEC 2.3 max torque is
at 1000 rpm lower than the 5 cyl models.
The VEC guys do a number of things when they convert the 2.1 to the 2.3 but
what I see as a major advantage is that it is a drop in (or in our case:
lift in) replacement to the 2.1. There are no other changes to hoses,
cables, wiring etc. You will not even see a difference between the
installation of a 2.1 if you compare it to the 2.3. What I like is that it
is a light engine which fits perfectly - the only added weight I have is my
massive bull bar (which only serves to keep the additional lights in place)
In terms of the performance I feel the VEC 2.3 is the best choice: You get
excellent torque which starts at low revs and carries right through. When
stuck behind a 22m truck going at 100km/hr I have sufficient power to
accelerate and overtake in a reasonably small gap. I normally travel at
about 110 km/hr (speedo and true speed) but if I put my foot down there is
enough power to accelerate up to the point where the rpm's get too high for
what I would prefer. I find that the VEC 2.3 keeps it's speeds pretty good
on most uphills. When approaching a hill at 110 km/hr the hill needs to be
pretty steep for the speed to drop significantly. I actually found that I
catch up with a lot of other vehicles on the uphills. The vehicles I catch
up with on the uphills include 2.5 & 2.6 5 cyl Busses, Tdi Landrover 110
defenders & KB 280 TD Isuzus. The first time that I realized this was in
the hilly parts of the Eastern Cape where the road continuously goes up and
down hills. I caught up with a Normal 2.5 Caravelle Bus and saw that on
every uphill I pass the bus and every downhill he comes past me. It could
see that the driver wanted to go faster on the uphills but he couldn't. I
could have accelerated on the downhills as well but I just kept my speed at
a max of 110 km/hr. What is more is that my bus was loaded with all our
holiday stuff (including my wife and daughter) and the other one looked
empty except for the driver. I know that this is not scientific proof at
all but I have seen the same thing a few times now.
I also find that I have good torque at low RPM. I got up a few very steep
inclines in G gear with the rpm's at about 1000 when I reached the top. In
every case I expected the engine to stall but it carried me over the last
bit. I see this as a Syncro's weakest point (not a low enough low gear)
and I am convinced that the additional torque at low RPM's makes an
enormous difference. With the other engines you have to get to high revs
before you get the same torque if at all.
I do not seem to have vibration problems related to the engine, gearbox,
prop combination. I had some, balanced the prop and they are gone. I had
some overheating problems, replaced the radiator (old one was incredibly
foaled up) and now everything is cool. I service (oil & filter change at
least) every 7500 km which is also VEC's recommendation. Noise levels are
low (especially after new exhaust). I only have good experiences from the
guys at VEC and they have gone out of their way to assist me with everything.
I think I have told you what I can think of. If there is something
specific you can let me know and I can pass it on.
Regards
Willem van der Merwe
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTICE: Please note that this eMail, and the contents thereof,
is subject to the standard Sasol eMail disclaimer which may be found at:
http://www.sasol.com/disclaimer.htm
If you cannot access the disclaimer through the URL attached and
you wish to receive a copy thereof please send and eMail to
disclaimer@sasol.com. You will receive the disclaimer by return eMail.
----
This message is sent out to all subscribers to the mailing list of
SyncroSA, a group of South African Volkswagen Syncro owners and enthusiasts.
1. To subscribe, send e-mail to syncrosa-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
2. To unsubscribe, send e-mail to syncrosa-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.
3. To change your address, perform step 2 from the old address and step 1
from the new address.
----
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Jan Visser's contribution October 2002:
>>By the way, I also think the 2.3VEC has many advantages.
>>
>>1. Reputable Wasserboxer rebuilders, with many Syncro-specific
>>references.
>>2. Same interfaces, same low mass, low centre of gravity, nice ground
>>clearance, no additional covers etc.
>>3 Improved torque and power
>>4. Low cost
>>5 Sorted out, hassle-free.
>>6. Can cruise at 120-130km/h if you want.
>>7. Basic engine still a VW Wasserboxer, meaning it ought to be repairable
>>by mechanics all over.
>>8. Does not exceed the 200 Nm input torque limit which is the apparent
>>limit of the Syncro drivetrain.
>>
>>Shortcomings:
>>
>>1. Still heavy on fuel.
>>2. Still stuck to all the VW electronics etc., which can let you down far
>>away from help. (Can be overcome by knowing which parts do what, and to
>>carry electronic spares with you).
>>3. Short fuel tank range.
>>4. Even with VEC 2.3's improved low-end torque characteristics, torque
>>output not yet comparable to intercooled turbo diesels in the rev range
>>1000-2000rpm, which can be an Achilles heel for the Syncro in steep rocky
>>uphill terrain due to the lack of proper low range gears.
>
>This disadvantage #4 juse mentioned can be lessened considerably by
>installing 6.17 final drive gears and 1.88 2nd gear and then making 3rd
>and 4th gear to whatever ratio the owner desires in order to replicate
>normal stock 3rd and 4th gear characteristics for any given tire. Such a
>plan will go a long way toward compensating for the problem of low end
>grunt. So, what I am trying to say is that there are much more suitable
>low range gears for this purpose than what you South Africans are using now.
5. Mediocre engine braking.
6. Still stuck with VW's unsatisfactory flat 4 split crankcase
technology, prone to oil pressure problems, though I think VEC do install
larger flow oil pump.
My summary:
Unless you want to experiment and do development work yourself by fitting a
Toyota 2CT turbodiesel with an intercooler, this is the way to go. Do
install an air-cooled oil cooler as well as a reputable oil pressure- and
oil temperature monitoring system from the outset though, so you can build
up a history of these vital engine parameters from the "as-new" condition.
Best regards,
Jan Visser
At 05:29 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Yes, the Audi 5 is a great motor. Reliable, durable, smooth, etc. It is
>a little long and a little tall for the Vanagon engine compartment but
>they can be shoehorned in. Syncros have more room for them.
>
>Mark Drillock
>87 Syncro w/ Audi 5 cyl, 4 years and 50k mostly trouble free miles.
>
>
>
>Chris S wrote:
>
> >
> > The Audi 2.3L engine is rated at 130HP and 139 ft-lb of torque. These
> > engines came in '88-'92 Audi 5000, Audi 90 and Audi 80 models and are built
> > well. I recently sold my Audi 90 with about 360K miles on the
> engine. It's
> > engine has had only routine maintenance and ran wonderfully. I'd get about
> > 25 MPG cruising at 80 MPH. The car would cruise 90+ Mph all day which
> > translated to around 4000 RPM - as you see that's about where a 70 MPH
> > cruise puts you in the Vanagon. Considering the power 'requirements'
> of the
> > brick-like Vanagon I'd say the engine's powerband is ideally suited. The
> > inline-5 Audi engines are smooth, torquey and sound great! I think it would
> > make sense to put one of these into a Vanagon if one wouldn't have to raise
> > the rear decklid. I've seen entire Audi 5000s go for about $600 due to
> > lack of popularity or just get an engine:
> >....................
________________________________________________________
Derek Drew Washington, DC
derekdrew@rcn.com Phone 202-966-7907
Email me for viscous coupling s (Cell 703-408-1532)
'90 Syncro Westfalia...
...seen off-road at
http://users.rcn.com/derekdrew/Syncro_Madness_Area.htm
...seen with 30.5" tall tires at
http://users.rcn.com/derekdrew/vanagon/images/dereks245_75_16.jpg
Note: most valuable Vanagon sites on the planet (for owners) are:
http://gerry.vanagon.com/cgi-bin/wa.exe?S1=vanagon
http://gerry.vanagon.com/files/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Syncro
http://www.vanagon.com
http://www.syncro.org
Many of my Syncro list postings consolidated
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Syncro/messagesearch?query=212-580-6486
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Syncro/messagesearch?query=202-966-7907
My refrigerator article:
http://www.vanagon.com/info/articles/Refrigerator/Reefer_Madness.htm
All About 16" Wheels And The CV-900.htm
http://users.rcn.com/derekdrew/vanagon/All_About_16-Wheels_And_The_CV_900.htm
All About Viscous Couplings
http://users.rcn.com/derekdrew/vanagon/viscous_couplings_vanagon_syncro.htm
How To Live With Heavy List Volume--Mail Filters
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Syncro/message/7403
My article that shows how to deal with insurance companies:
http://gerry.vanagon.com/files/auto-insurance-madness.html
To read some material about how to add a front differential lock to your syncro
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Syncro/message/13105
To view Wolfgang's incredibly informative wheel article
http://users.rcn.com/derekdrew/fitbigtiresonvanagon.htm
To view Tim Smith's incredibly useful gearing calculator
http://users.rcn.com/derekdrew/syncrotireandgearratios.xls
To view two articles about how to think about improving your gears at
transmission rebuild time
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Syncro/message/7207
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Syncro/message/7221
To view an overview article about choices in larger sized tires see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Syncro/message/11535
To view some 16" Trailing Arms that enable much larger tires see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syncrolist/files/Wheels%2C%20Tires%20%26%20Gearing/Wheel%20%26%20Tire%20Photos/16_Inch_Trailing_Arm.jpg
My article about belt protectors and CV joint protectors
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Syncro/message/6112
SYNCRO OWNERS WHO DRIVE OFF THE ROAD:
You only get to change your ring and pinions once every 10 years
because that's how long the average syncro transmission goes before
its next rebuild. If you want bigger tires and more ground clearance
start planning your higher number ring and pinion sets right now so
you
can take advantage of your next trans rebuild.
