Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 15:52:59 -0500
Reply-To: John Rodgers <jh_rodgers@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: John Rodgers <jh_rodgers@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Subject: Re: Diesel conversion
In-Reply-To: <20040804051125.40458.qmail@web14001.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Dave,
I used to have a 68 Bus when I lived in Alaska. I loved that machine. It
was basically a tan bare bones box and the middle seat was gone for
utility purposes. I used it to camp all over. I had a bodacious BIG
Suburban motorhome heater in it that sat on the floor just behind the
driver seat. I never had to worry abou the cold. That thing would match
a summer day in the Sahara in the dead of winter. Thermostatically
controlled, I woudl go out on snowy days, turn it on - it had electronic
ignition - and by the time I got off work all my snow and ice would be
gone, gone, gone, and I would have a nice ride home.
I had the engine rebuilt and had it pumped up to a 2150 cc job with a
Weber two barrel carb installed. I could have gone to dual intakes at
the time, but in Alaska that would introduce some induction icing
problems that I just didn't want to have to deal with. At the same time
I went for header collector pipes instead of stock exhaust system. These
changes and engine parts - had a modified cam and some other stuff -
upgrade made a huge difference in its performance. Lots of power on the
road. Never left Alaska with it. It lived and died there, so I don't
know how it would have faired in the Lower 48 with the higher speeds on
the highways, but in Alaska it was a real hauler. The roads and
conditions didn't allow to much in the way of speed, but it was great
for hauling a load and I loved it. A kind of juggernaut. Didn't go to
fast, but had plenty of power so hills, mountains, etc. didn't slow it
down much either.
Regards,
John Rodgers
88 GL Driver
Dave Rogers wrote:
>Though normally just a lurker, I have followed this thread with great interest. I have to confess that while not a purist I have never even driven a water cooled VW. I have however been involved with the air cooled since 1956 & used to finance my motorcycle racing by rebuilding air-cooled engines. I have driven 36hp aircooled vans into a headwind when I thought it was going to blow me backwards. I have rebuilt the engines in & driven many 40 hp vans which weren't much better. The 1500's & 1600's were getting more roadworthy but still didn't really cut it in a van. I wasn't terribly impressed with the early type lV engines but when the 2000 cc engines came out & had hydraulic lifters I thought I had died & gone to heaven. Although I live in the flatlands(Indiana) I have made trips through the Poconos in my 78 aircooled Westy& while not the Rockies there were some pretty good hills. I don't remember anyone honking or displaying a middle digit.. I wonder if this poor performing
> aircooled that died was ever up to par to begin with. I don't know what kind of performance a later watercooled diesel would give & most everyone knows the 1.6 diesel performance is lacking but I think an air cooled 2000 cc in good shape will stay outta the way of traffic in most parts of the country. I currently drive a 82 Westy & envy the waterpumpers only their heaters. I know 36hp, 40 hp, & all aircooled uprights have propelled vans around the world and I wouldn't hesitate to go anywhere in my 82 & I would only consider a diesel conversion if I took on another job or two & didn't need it anytime soon. If performance is a big issue there are of course bigger cylinders, etc for the 2000's which would add performance without compromising reliablility much. I'd stay with the aircooled unless I could buy a proven, already watercooled, van. That's my .02., Dave Rogers
>
>
>
| 
